G. Lake: Would you like to comment? Have they spoken to you?

S. Mandelbaum: The real estate manager for Nextel has been in discussions with the fire district and although there is nothing final in writing I can go on record tonight saying we have agreed to work very closely with the fire district to meet their needs to enhance their service. We will do what ever we can within the interference parameters of Nextel's antennas. It is a reasonable issue that we have to just make sure does not interfere either way on their end or our end. We always make space available for public emergency services and public safety. We will certainly do so here. I have to tell you we always make the offer and it's nice when somebody actually follows up and accepts it because often we never hear from ambulance or fire. We look forward to working with the Howells Fire District on that.

G. Lake: Howells is in a more rural area as you know. Their finances might not be as great as some of the other fire districts in the Town. Basically you are saying in laymen's language that you will provide that space on their for them?

S. Mandelbaum: Yes. We can do that.

G. Lake: How about these other things? The walky-talky thing?

S. Mandelbaum: My understanding is that's still under negotiations. The units are both walky-talkies or two-way radios and cell phones which is sort of the selling point. A lot of the contractors and sales people use the Nextel phones because they are direct two-way radio in addition to a traditional cell phone. We are in negotiations, I think we are down to numbers, how many units typically Nextel can give to one specific entity. That was also part of the negotiations. I'm confident we will come to an agreement on that.

G. Lake: Anybody else?

Motion made to close this Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. made by P. Owen and seconded by R. Carr.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 Ayes. Motion carried.

G. Lake: Let's get to the comments. Do you have any problems with any of these comments?
Dick, on the first comment maybe you should.

D. McGoey: Item #1 I had not received the final report from Cona until yesterday. I did review it. I have some questions which I raised with Seth Mandelbaum today and they have been satisfactorily resolved. As far as the need to fill the gap area our consultant says that it is necessary to fill the gap area. Do you have any problems with paving the access drive to the right-of-way in accordance with the Department of Public Works requirements?

S. Mandelbaum: Not at all. We do have a representative of Tectonic here this evening. They have a detail to show you.

D. McGoey: I will look at it when you provide the plans.

S. Mandelbaum: Okay. That was my question because that's not a problem.

D. McGoey: I have asked the Planning Board Attorney to advise as to whether the bonding requirements for the removal of the tower has been included in the documents that you submitted.

G. Barone: I haven't seen those. The bonding requirements. Can you send those over so we can see it? Mr. Mandelbaum and I discussed the insurance requirement provided for in the code and they are agreeable to providing the insurance that's required. They were agreeable to providing the bonds that are required. I also addressed with Mr. Mandelbaum the fact that Nextel is the lessee of the site, that we need to have written evidence, written consent signed by the property owner which authorizes the Town if the need arose to go in and remove the equipment as the Town code provides that if the equipment is not used for a period of six months then it's to be dismantled and removed. If the owner of the site and Nextel doesn't do that, the Town can do in and do that and then charge back the owner. We want it in writing to go on site to do that and without having to file a mechanics lien against the property.

S. Mandelbaum: The only comment I have to that, obviously the bond would be the first source of money.

G. Barbone: Absolutely.

S. Mandelbaum: I believe the way the code is written is if the bonds for what ever reason doesn't cover the removal then that would be the last resort. I've never seen it happen that way but a lot of codes do say that. I think the bond is certainly the first. If Nextel can't do it, the bond will be there until the facility is removed. That's not a problem.

D. McGoey: Give me a copy of that also so I can look at the dollar amount.

S. Mandelbaum: I think it's at one hundred fifty percent of what it would cost to remove. We can get you an estimate there.

G. Lake: We need all that before signing the final plan.

S. Mandelbaum: Right and obviously before a Building Permit will be issued.

D. McGoey: Item #5. They have verified that it is designed for the one inch ice load. Item #6 I really couldn't find whether the structure is designed for five users.

S. Mandelbaum: It sort of varies. There is a note on the elevation view of the plan. It's also in the structural letter from. It does mention four additional carriers beyond Nextel. That was the exhibit to the February 1st letter and also on the elevation view on the plans.

D. McGoey: Okay.

A. Dulgarian: It seems like they proved that it is needed in that area and I know that was one of the biggest factors. Also, like I mentioned before with the changes in technology it is nice to see that we are protected if the need comes for dismantling. Each application has to stand on it's own merit and we can't hold them hostage to try to hook up something for another organization but it is very nice of them to step up to the plate and help out an organization that really needs it. I don't have a problem.

P. Owen: I have nothing to add.

R. Carr: My only question was that on the visual pictures there were several different options.

S. Mandelbaum: Yes.

R. Carr: Has that been address which one?

S. Mandelbaum: It's really part of the Site Plan approval frankly.

G. Lake: I thought we did that the last time you were here.

S. Mandelbaum: I think we discussed it but I don't know if there was a final decision.

R. Carr: There was nothing decided.

S. Mandelbaum: I would be happy to describe those options again if that would refresh your memory.

R. Carr: I know what I like, but not the tree affect.

S. Mandelbaum: That adds a lot of bulk. There are no symmetrical trees I'm aware of in the real world but the manufacturers do the best they can to make sure the site still works.

G. Lake: I thought we went with almost the same thing that was on Tarbell Road except the color.

G. McGoey: I thought it was to be galvanized.

S. Mandelbaum: Do you still want the brown up to the tree line and then galvanized above?
I think that was what we had agreed with.

G. Lake: I think we went to that because it had a lot of trees.

S. Mandelbaum: The blue looks fine. I drove up there on a really bright blue day. It does blend in but on a gray day unfortunately is not quite as, doesn't blend in as nice as we would hope.

G. Luenzmann: I have no comments other than to see that I also echo Mr. Dulgarian's feelings about sharing that resource with local fire departments and I think that's a great thing to do.

T. Hamilton: We did do a field review when the balloon was up and went to different locations and it really has no impacts that we could see.

G. Lake: I agree with Mr. Hamilton. I was out there that day.
MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION subject to D. McGoey's review made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 Ayes. Motion carried.

MOTION for SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT subject to D. McGoey's review made by T. Hamilton and seconded by R. Carr.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 Ayes. Motion carried.

3. CHURCH OF IGLESIA EMANUEL - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - EXTENSION - (40-1-21.2) #035-000

C. Mead Jr.: I am the Treasurer and representative for Iglesia Emanuel. We are here today to request an extension on our Special Use, Special Permit that was granted by this Board. The reason that we're asking for this extension here is that we're not ready. One of the reasons is we are trying to filter out those buildings or building manufacturers that would not come in within compliance with the code here in Town. We don't want to move in with any type of shoddy work. We want to make sure of the workmanship we are going to get and we are trying to choose a local erector. We don't want to go too far away for fear that we may not be able to get the right things done. When we're working locally we feel that we might be able to get something accomplished a lot easier especially folks that have already worked in the area. Right now our architect Edgar C. Bloom is recommending that we go ahead with the plans that we currently have however, because we've been filtering out so many we've come short. We've come to close to our time of making a request for our permit to build. At this time we are just requesting that we get an extension so that we can proceed with a little more comfort and so that we have time to make the right choices and we're not held up.
G. Lake: Do you think that within the next year you will be ready?

C. Mead Jr.: Most definitely, yes. We're this close. We're a lot closer than we were six months ago.

G. Lake: This would be your second extension then?

C. Mead Jr. Yes. Well the extension we originally requested was because we were not familiar with how the permits were handed out and we had a one year permit coinciding with a six month permit which left us trying to do things in a very hurry up sort of fashion so we requested the six month so that they both came in compliance.

G. Lake: Do you think six months would be enough?

C. Mead Jr.: Yes, probably.

A. Dulgarian: His permit doesn't run out until October 2002 any way.

C. Mead Jr. Our understanding was that May 14th was the time that we had to request a Building Permit. We had to make application by the 14th of May. That's why we are here before you now.

D. McGoey: My notes indicate that back in October we gave them. They have the same issue with six months and one year. We granted them a one year extension to both Site Plan and Special Use Permit back in October.

G. Lake: We will give you six more months from now.

MOTION for a SIX MONTH EXTENSION of SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 Ayes. Motion carried.

4. WRIGHT - ZONE CHANGE REQUEST - MI to RA - Bart Bull Road

D. Yanosh: I am the surveyor for the project. It is an approximate fifty seven acre parcel of land bordered by Bart Bull Road and I-84. It is currently in the MI zone. On the other side of the street from Bart Bull Road is RA. We are requesting to move the zoning line across Bart Bull Road to encompass this parcel on the west side of Bart Bull Road.

G. Lake: Basically what we have to do tonight is set an informational hearing for this. Was this sent to us from the Town Board?

C. Kelly: Yes.

G. Lake: This was sent down from the Town Board looking for a recommendation.

A. Dulgarian: I have nothing at this time.

P. Owen: Nothing at this time.

R. Carr: What is the purpose of the change?

D. Yanosh: It is hard to sell the property right now. We did have a buyer. Someone was in about a year ago that wanted to put a re-cycling business on this piece of property and there was a lot of public empathy against it and the whole Board was here with a room filled with people didn't want any M-I activity in this area.

T. Hamilton: It just so happened it was that particular use.

D. Yanosh: That's true. Then again you look at the M-I, this is a very isolated location. It's not near any highways. It's been on the market for a while. No takers. There is a lot of wetlands out there, a lot of Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands. I will try to get more copies of this map before the next meeting so you can see what's out there. There are limited resources to use the property. There are some nice soils in the middle.

G. Luenzmann: I have nothing at this time.

T. Hamilton: Not at this time.

MOTION to schedule an INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING for June 5, 2002 made by R. Carr and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

6 Ayes. Motion carried.

5. SPECTRASITE COMMUNICATION - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Tarbell Road (3-1-8) #030-002

G. Lake: Can you tell us what you want to do?

T. Downs: We would like to install a shelter on the existing lease area right now, a 10 x 20, two-story. It would house equipment for future co-locations. The lease area itself being so small, that's why we want to stack the building.

G. Lake: Where your building is now, you're just leasing that little spot?

T. Downs: Right. We don't actually have a building there right now. It's just a micro-cell, which is on a slab.

G. Lake: Right.

A. Dulgarian: Not right now.

P. Owen: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: Are there any problems with putting some kind of a gate?

T. Downs: There's actually two ways into that. The access road we put in but you can keep going down and around and drive right in to the property plus you can also drive into right into it from Route 17.

G. Luenzmann: I'm just reading Dick's comments here and I just wondered if you'd seen them yet.

G. Lake: We will get to them.

G. Luenzmann: I don't have anything until we get to Dick's comments.

T. Hamilton: Same here.

G. Lake: Do you have Dick's comments?

T. Downs: No.

G. Lake: Did you get them?

T. Downs: No.

D. McGoey: They went to the engineers.

G. Lake: The first comment is the two-story shelter building.

T. Downs: On the stairs?

G. Lake: The two-story shelter, is there a reason why it has to be two stories?

T. Downs: To get four more tenants.

G. Lake: You can't get in into one-story?

T. Downs: To one shelter, no. The compound itself is only thirty feet. Nextel, Verizon, they don't want a 20 x 10 shelter. Very small carriers will take a 10 x 10 just because of the amount of equipment that they have in the shelters.

D. McGoey: Why can't you expand the fenced area and make it a single story structure?

T. Downs: They tried to go ahead and get a larger leased area. Normally when we build we build we try to get a 100 x 100 and when this was negotiated they only got a thirty by thirty.

D. McGoey: That was poor planning then.

T. Hamilton: Yes. I was just thinking the same thing when you come in with a project and you know the provisions to co-locate more applicants right from the beginning. You should come in with a size that is going to be able to accommodate four more locations.

Continue