TOWN OF WAWARSING

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 108 Canal Street-P.O. Box 671-Ellenville, New York 12428 Tel: (845) 647-7800 Fax: (845) 647-1824 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2013 7:00 pm PRESENT:

Chairman Paul McAndrews, David Eikszta, Nicholas Giovanniello, Jody Deihl, Daniel Johnson, Mary Lou Christiana-Town Attorney, Bryant Arms-MCO/Building Inspector II Also present: Doug Dimitroff-Phillips Lytle LLP, Kim Barnashuk-Phillips Lytle LLP, Peter Coppola-AT&T Engineer, David Ford-Centerline Communications, Jeff Kaplan-Attorney

Chairman McAndrews called meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Motion by Giovanniello, seconded by Diehl to approve the November 12, 2013 minutes. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Diehl, Giovanniello, Eikszta, Johnson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5 ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent. PICKELL TRUST/AT&T APPEAL # 376-2013 Legal notice was published: all property owners within 500 feet were notified. The Application states: Area variance for 64 feet for cell tower height in RU zoning. Cell tower is 184 feet. Maximum height allowed is 120 feet. Area variance for 64 feet for the cell tower height being more than 40 feet above the mature tree line. Property location: 114 Caston Road, Greenfield Park, NY 12435. Tax map # 81.2-1-27. Site inspection was conducted by Board Members. Chairman McAndrews: We have an application for AT&T/Pickell for two Area Variances. The area variance is for 64 feet for the cell tower height. The proposed cell tower is 184 feet. The maximum height allowed is 120 feet. The second area variance is for 64 feet for the cell tower height above the mature tree level. No tower can be higher than 40 feet above the mature tree level. Ms. Barnashuk: On November 9, 2013 we were in front of the Planning Board. They referred us to the Zoning Board for the two area variances needed for the cell tower. The cell tower height is 180 feet for the monopole and then an additional 4 feet with the equipment on top of the tower, totaling 184 feet. The proposed cell tower will consist of 9 antennas at 8 feet each. Therefore we are asking for an area variance for 64 feet.

Ms. Barnashuk reviewed the parcel maps and tower drawings. Mr. Eikszta: Will there be a light on the top of the tower? Chairman McAndrews: The proposed tower will be 184 feet high. A light is required if the cell tower height is 200 feet and over per FCC Regulations. How far from the facility is the nearest home? Mr. Ford: The nearest home is 1060 feet away from the structure. It is 920 feet from the closest property line. Mr. Giovanniello: On November 23, 2013, I observed the balloon test. I was not able to see the balloon from Route 52. I could see it from one spot on Caston Road and no other locations. Ms. Barnashuk: The proposed tower is to improve the emergency and customer issues where there are cover gaps of service in this area, along Mountaindale Road, Tamarack Road and Caston Road. More people have cell phones instead of landlines. We are also adding service to the Jellystone Campground in that area. Chairman McAndrews: When we had a previous meeting with you before, we had discussed the other site that has not been built for a cell tower (Henkel property). Will there be overlapping with that site and this site? Are you planning to collocate on that other site? Chairman McAndrews: When you build your new tower and if you collate on the other tower, will the other tower cover the same area? I am only asking these questions because I am sure the town does not want that many cell towers in an area that are overlapping where one would suffice. Ms. Barnashuk: We’ve discussed this with AT&T and they have expressed interest. They are interested in moving forward in collocating there. There will be no overlapping. Ms. Barnashuk explained maps of the cell tower coverage in that area. The different areas discussed were the high levels of in building coverage, car coverage and where there are gaps. There would not be overlapping, but they would be meeting together for more coverage. She reviewed where the gaps in coverage would be. Chairman McAndrews: What are your expectations for the other tower being built and AT&T going on there? Mr. Ford: We spoke to AT&T this week. The priority is the Greenfield Park site being approved and built first, and then the next goal will be to concentrate on the Henkel tower. We really can’t commit to a time frame at this time. Ms. Diehl: What is the time frame for this tower to be built? Ms. Barnashuk: There is one issue, which concerns the potential presence of Indiana Bats in the area, which is an endangered species. But because of this potential presence in Ulster County we have been coordinating with Fish and Wild Life. The solution could be that we restrict any activity that involves removal or disturbance of trees which is their habitat. That activity could not take place between April 1st through October 31st. With this restriction we couldn’t get construction started then. Then we would have to delay to after that time period. We have to wait until we hear from Fish and Wild Life that they can confirm that the Bats are not present. Mr. Dimitroff: The timing depends on the approval with the Planning Board. There’s a process that has to occur with the construction timing and with the weather.

Chairman McAndrews: You understand that the Town’s interest is not to have sites with variances granted that end up sitting there as vacant lands. Once the variance is granted there should be construction started. One example of this is the Henkel property the proposed cell tower has not been constructed for five years at least after it was approved. Ms. Barnashuk reviewed and discussed all of the photos for the balloon test from different areas. Chairman McAndrews: We had sent your Application to the Ulster County Planning Board on November 18, 2013. They were unable to review the Application without the Balloon Test results. Therefore we do not have their decision for this meeting. Ms. Barnashuk: We e-mailed the information to Ulster County Planning Board regarding the balloon test that was conducted on November 23, 2013. Motion by Deihl, seconded by Giovanniello to open public hearing. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Johnson, Diehl, Giovanniello, Eikszta. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5 ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent. Letter from Mr. Weiner was reviewed. Mr. Kaplan: I am the Attorney representing one of the property owners, Mr. Weinberger, whose property is within 500 feet of the proposed cell tower. He lives in New York City and bought 100 acres here. He is not against the cell tower since there is a need for one in this area. His concern is the significant variance for the cell tower. Why not put in the allowed 120 or 150 feet for the cell tower height? My concern is that you have a very underdeveloped area now. Does it stay underdeveloped forever when it starts developing, does the tree line change if people want to put houses up there? Right now the tree lines that exist cover the area, but when they build more, that will change. Ms. Barnashuk: I understand Mr. Kaplan’s concerns but a 120 feet cell tower would not meet our needs for coverage of the tower. You can compare the maps for the existing coverage and the existing plus the planned coverage at 190, 180, 170, 150 and 120 feet. Mr. Ford: We need a higher tower than 120 feet for coverage to include Martinfeld Road and Jellystone Campground. Ms. Christiana: A cell tower is a public utility so it has a different set of rules to follow. It’s a service that they provide. Mr. Eikszta: Has there ever been a tower that was only 120 feet in height? I have only seen towers from 180-190 feet in height. Chairman McAndrews: Yes. One was installed on top of the Nevele a few years ago. Ms. Christiana: You have to take into consideration of the topography of the area. Mr. Coppola: The Carriers do try to work together. One cell tower height may not work for another Carrier’s needs. There has to be 10 feet of separation on the tower between each carrier based on the frequencies. They can’t be stacked too close. We need 180 feet because of the location and to give service to Route 52 and the campground. There have been many complaints not only regarding service, but having emergency service in that area.

Mr. Dimitroff: The reason networks are built different than other carriers are because they operate at different frequencies. Mr. Kaplan: I travel through there daily. What happens years down the road when technology gets better, will we still need to have 180 feet cell towers? Mr. Coppola: We will still need towers at 180 feet because of the technology, topography and all the vegetation in this area that will still be there. Mr. Eikszta: It seems that anyone constructing a cell tower has to get a variance, since we are in a rural area. In a general area 120 feet may be enough. Chairman McAndrews: We can’t predict the future if someone builds a house and cuts down trees. I understand Mr. Kaplan’s concerns, but I don’t see how we can regulate these. Motion by Chairman McAndrews, seconded by Giovanniello to close public hearing. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Johnson, Diehl, Giovanniello, Eikszta NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5 ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0absent. Ms. Christiana reviewed all the answers on Part I of the SEQR form with the Board. Part II was read and answered by the Board. Ms. Christiana: The only proposed action that is yes, is that there may be an impact on the environmental resources because of the potential presence of the Indiana Bat. Ms. Barnashuk: We consulted with the Fish and Wild Life. Their position is if we implement the restriction that we discussed, that there would be no significant adverse impact. Ms. Christiana: I would like to recommend that we put it as a yes. Then in mitigations say that you can only build between November 1st through March 31st unless you get clearance to build otherwise. Ms. Barnashuk: We could not conduct any actions on site for the clearing or removal. It states in the attached EBI Consulting letter: all forest clearing and tree removal actions will be conducted from October 1 through March 31, when Indiana bats are hibernating. Ms. Christiana: We would need to include in the mitigations that the dates are October 1st through March 31st unless clearance is given by the Fish and Wild Life. Motion by Diehl and seconded by Johnson to rescind the motion from the November 12, 2013 ZBA meeting consenting that the Planning Board be Lead Agency. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Eikszta, Giovanniello, Diehl, Johnson. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent.

Motion by Eikszta, seconded by Diehl for amendment Declaration for someone to SEQR based on the mitigation that is included in the SEQR form. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Eikszta, Giovanniello, Diehl, Johnson. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent. Chairman McAndrews: We will get the decision from the Ulster County Planning Board next month. We cannot grant the variance until we have received this. Motion by Diehl, seconded by Johnson to recommend Paul McAndrews for Chairman for the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2014. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Diehl, Eikszta, Giovanniello, Johnson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5 ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent. Motion by Diehl, seconded by Giovaniello to recommend Mary Lou Christiana as Attorney for the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2014. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Diehl, Eikszta, Giovanniello, Johnson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5 ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent. Motion by Giovanniello, seconded by Johnson to adjourn meeting at 8:00 pm. AYES: Chairman McAndrews, Johnson, Diehl, Giovanniello, Eikszta. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5ayes 0 nays 0 abstain 0 absent.