|
(Created using OCR from a copy of the original - errors are possible. See original if unsure. This document covers minutes of the 8/18/1997 and 9/8/1997 meetings.) 330 On Monday, August 18,1997 the Preble Town Board held a special meeting to discuss the communications Tower to be placed on Preble Road. The meeting was called to order with the salute to the flag at 8:05 p.m. Those individuals presents were: Peter Knapp, Supervisor/ Ann Brennan, John Steger and Clint Brooks /Councilmen, Donald Armstrong, Attorney and 35 Townspeople Peter Knapp explained the reason for the meeting, last Monday at the Board meeting many questions were asked, some I can answer and some need answers. The question I have is "Can a building permit be revoked after written". Question I can answer, is the building permit in question for a communications Tower in front of the Milk Plant. My job is to review Dog Staley's work; I was not involved in site selection at all. At this time Mr. Knapp, reviewed the building permit process, stamped plans by an architect, set back requirements, perhaps a zone change or variance, these were not required for this building permit, therefore there was no Public Hearing. Mr. Knapp stated that he has signed building permits for 6 years, treated each one on an equal basis, I'm capable of doing that, with that in mind, it has been questioned that my signature is on this building permit, I will not vote on any action concerning this building permit. At this time Donald Armstrong, reviewed the process: The zoning law and explained that Peter Knapp is the Code Enforcement Officer and Doug Staley is the consultant. Mr. Armstrong also explained that Cell Phone Towers is a new issue one that the involved issues the Town has to deal with. The building permit was issued July 2,1997 to RSA 4 Cellular Partnership, (What zone) the land is zoned Industrial, the zoning law enacted in 1971 discusses the Industrial District (Zoning Book, section #20 paragraph B, the area involved has a broad spectrum) and there is nothing in the zoning book that prohibits use. Doug Staley's belief and understanding that the FOC Communications Law of 1996, superseded our Local Law for Federal Law. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that this is not correct, that you can limit where the cell phone tower can be placed (is subject to local law). Mr. Armstrong asked Dick Martin if he recalled and change in zoning, it appears that this land was zoned Industrial years ago, according to map. Dick Martin: Stated that he didn't recall anything on that property, the Planning Board reviewed all parcels for the land use maps. This was reviewed by County, Town Board and Residents. (Mr. Martin took issue with this being Industrial. Armstrong: The zoning map shows Industrial which would show many years ago. The Land Use Plan is not Law, they should be consistent. Dick Martin: The County helped with the land use plan and this map was mad 15, 20 years ago, how did it go by so many people. Armstrong: Zoning Map was in existence before Land Use Plan. Martin: Five years ago we went thru Zoning Ordinance with all the changes to to make sure all zoning changes were in the back of the zoning book. Much discussion followed concerning the zoning nap, date etc. Armstrong: Stated he would recommend executive session concerning litigation, the Town has a right to sub-appeal of building permit that will go to ZBA that is one option available, and a moratorium on future cell phone sites, cannot be addressed on this immediate site. Mr. Smith: Has the FAA been notified? Armstrong: I think not. D. Staley: Went on record to state where he received his information: NYCOM, FCC There were 3 sites: Saulsbury, Preble Road, kennedy Hardwoods. Meg Halstead: Stated that this has nothing to do with zoning.
331 Page 2 Betty Pitman: Questions who applied for permit? D. Staley: RSA 4 Cellular Partnership B. Pitman: Stated that Rochester area has moratorium on Cell phone towers, why was Saulsbury denied? What about the health of the people, How will it effect scanners, TV etc.? John Steger: Sualsbury thought it not profitable to get involved. There was much discussion on the size of tower, location, zoning, etc. Jim Pitman: Commented on the nuisance value, industrial next to commercial property, health concerns exposure to EMS rays. There were many concerns about the studies and lack of studies, and if we could stop the tower from being built, or stop other towers from being put in place. Townspeople question the Board on when they knew about the tower, why they didn't act on it. There was a general statement made on the tower a few months ago, nothing much was said. John Steger: Stated he just didn't think it was critical. Ann Brennan: Stated that they should have discussed it at the time, but didn't (she) feels it's a communication problem. Once again the building permit process was discussed in detail, and the job of Doug Staley to bring things to the Boards attention. D. Martin: Stated that the Board now has an amendment does have site plan review particularly with Commercial and Industrial Zones. It's not liked by everyone, it has requirements, but it gives advance notice of what's going up. M. Stoker: Asked all concerned Townspeople to give time on Boards, and run for office. Me. Halstead: Proposed a moratorium on all Towers for a month or two. D. Armstrong: Stated that the Board can do that, they will hold a Public Hearing, then they can adopt moratorium of 90-120 days on future towers. The following motion was made by Clint Brooks, seconded by Ann Brennan: RESOLUTION #54: To Enact a moratorium on Communication Towers and conduct a Public Hearing of enactment of said moratorium for 120 days duration. Brennan (aye) John Steger (aye) Clint Brooks (aye) PUBLIC HEARING set for September 8,1997 at 7:30 p.m. Meg. Halstead: Questioned : Does this stop Kennedy's. P. Knapp: If application comes in I would not process building permit. A. Martin: Stated that they would have to have zone change. Peter Knapp asked if all had been heard, there were no more comments. Anne Brennan moved and Clint Brooks seconded ,they moved to executive session 9:45 p.m. Clint Brooks moved and John Steger seconded to close executive session 10:25 p.m. Peter Knapp and Doug Staley left the room for executive session, when meeting was re-opened they returned to meting. The following motion was made by Ann Brennan: RESOLUTION #55: To appeal to ZBA the building permit granted 7/2/97 for Cellular Tower site. No second Motion dies without second. Meeting adjourned 10:40 p.m. Minutes Unofficial 8/19/97 Minutes Official 9/8/97 Respectfully Submitted, Jane C. Martin Town Clerk 332 On Monday September 8,1997 the Preble Town Board held a Public Hearing regarding the adoption of Local Law 3 of 1997 which would prohibit the establishment placement, construction, enlargement and erection of wireless telecommunication towers and antennas in the Town of Preble for a period of 120 days. The hearing was called to order at 7:40 p.m., with the Supervisor stating the reason for the Public Hearing. This Hearing was recorded and the tape is on file. Individuals present were Peter Knapp, Supervisor-Ann Brennan, James Millis, John Steger, Clint Brooks, Councilman and Donald Armstrong, Attorney as well as 28 Townspeople. Peter Knapp stated that a temporary tower was put up for testing on Clark Road, and the next day a building permit was requested and denied. No further information has been requested or given. Town Board and Town Attorney will be looking into issues of new zoning book and that local authority be involved in where towers will be located. Floor open to Public: Melissa Sarat: Stated that it would take more than 120 days to get this in order, and that she was disappointed that not many people knew about this tower, it went up in the dark of night, it's horrible looking, ugly and we're an inch away from looking like New Jersey. We're moving into the future we must move together and keep Preble the Town we all want to live in. Ed Jenney: There's a tower in Lafayette, did any one check with them? Betty Pitman: It's hideous, anchors all around it, and it's dangerous, even I could climb it. Henry Halstead: All zoning should be in effect before any more towers are put up. Betty Pitman: I agree with everything Melissa Sarat said, and what happens when these towers are obsolete, who takes them down, they should (the owners) have to have a bond. Rob Pearsm: Who owns the land? Peter Knapp: Maureen and Paul Knapp. Rob Pearsm: Couldn't they have put the tower on a hill or some place other than the valley, and how many will you have here? Dan O'Shea: Reason for the valley placement is low power more people on phone at the same time, covers area is smaller. Dick Martin: About 6 companies are involved with communication perhaps more, the basic issue for a moratorium at least 180 days, there's lots of work to be done there should be a specific time frame and how your going to meet goals. Margaret Burns: How do you keep them out? Peter Knapp: When zoning is in place before this comes about, the idea for extending the moratorium is possible but I wouldn't change the Local law that's on the table tonight, that won't happen. Tom Smith: How does the Town benefit, , there's no income to the Town. Sue Wright: When your going to look at existing towers, then you can limit towers if you can have them co-locate. Kathy Kinne: Where tile land owners around this tower notified? B. Pitman: No we were not. Peter Knapp: If it doesn't need a zone change or a variance it's all done through the Code Officer. James Millis: We have instructed our Code Officer he should have informed us, that's going to change or we'll get a new code officer. V. Kennedy: There are all types of towers, most are smaller a single pole with no lights. Betty Pitman: You can regulate you can tell them where this was passed last year. 333 page 2 Dick Martin: How many towers will you have, should put teeth in (co-location) tower. Get this tower owner to co-locate , he got in with no restrictions. Measurements should be taken to prove safety, the provider can tell what levels to expect. They go do measurements with RF levels it should be measured. Ed Reed: It seems to me that the location is not what we hoped for it would not be a good idea to be placed in residential. Jim Sims: TEA Group that represents the latest applicant, I have information concerning the Health concerns, I didn't work on this site. We build smaller towers ours are 40% smaller with no guide wires , no lights. I will meet with anyone after the meeting to show pictures or answer any questions. Am Brennan: You stated that your tower's height was 110 ft. We would hold you to any contract you proposed. Peter Knapp: Your plans were for 180 ft., this was denied. Jim Sims: We prefer to co-locate, we pay 150,000 to 200,000. You can't force someone to let you use their tower. Most competitors not willing to co-locate. Barb Frier: Placing towers on hills a great idea I will be willing to read anything you have to read to up-date the zoning book, we have to do what's best. Melissa Sarat: Look cell phone companies are not poor ,put in a good ordinance, if some one has a tower on there land, the land owners are making money not the Town. Ann Brennan: We will take our time to give a good zoning book I give my word.
Public Hearing Closed 8:40 p.m. Minutes Unofficial 9/9/97 Respectfully Submitted, Jean C. Martin, Town Clerk |