Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-01/11/2010PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND DONALD J. V~iLCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Present were: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:00 p.m. Martin H. Sidor, Chairperson William J. Cremers, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member Donald J. Wilcenski, Member Heather Lanza, Planning Director Tamara Sadoo, Planner Kristy Winser, Planner Carol Kalin, Secretary RECEIVED ~ ~ 2~0 SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Martin Sidor: This meeting is now called to order. Good evening, and welcome to our regularly-scheduled monthly Southold Town Planning Board Public Meeting. Our first order of business is to set Monday, February 8, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. William Cremers: So moved. Ken Edwards: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Southold Town Planning Board Pa,qe Two January 11,2010 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:00 p.m. - T-Mobile Northeast, LLC at Cutchoflue Presbyterian Church - This application is for a Special Exception & Site Plan approval for a new wireless communication facility where the antennas are to be mounted within an existing chumh steeple, and the base station equipment is to be located outside the building in a screened enclosure. As part of the application, the applicant proposes to remove and replace a portion of an existing church steeple to match the existing church building on a 0.91-acre site located in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located at 27245 Main Road on the n/e corner of Main Road and Highland Road in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-109-2-17.1 Martin Sidor: Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this application? Please step forward to either microphone, sign and state your name and address. Gre.q Alvarez, Amato & Associates, 666 Old Country Road, Garden City: I am here on behalf of the applicant, T-Mobile Northeast. As you summarized, we are here tonight for an application involving a wireless communications facility that is located at the Presbyterian Church in Cutchogue. If I may just give a brief background to provide a little bit more detail as to what we are discussing tonight. First off, T-Mobile is a public utility under the laws of New York State and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, which was confirmed in our submission of T-Mobile's FCC license with our initial application. Now the proposed bill that we are specifically talking about tonight is replacing a portion of the existing steeple that is located at the property and the installation of some equipment. In particular, right now there is a 65' steeple that is located at the property and the proposal would be to replace a portion of that steeple, just pieces of it, to accommodate eight antennas within that enclosure. The replace material that would replace those pieces to the steeple would be of an RF-friendly variety, meaning that the propagations would be able to pass through that material. But at the same time, it would also be of a design that would match the existing steeple appearance, in color and in terms of texture as well. In addition to those eight panel antennas that would be located within the steeple. Actually, let me just mention the height of those antennas: 54' 4" and 47' 4" within the steeple itself. Now the equipment that I mentioned will be located externally to the church; it would be located in the rear of the property. Now, this piece of the application has been modified slightly from the original design. The original design had the equipment located within the existing handicap ramp which is located just to the northeast of the existing church. However, based on communications with the church members (and we've been working with them extensively), they have actually asked that the equipment be relocated from that location further back on the property. So now we are proposing it to be located on a 5' x 27' 1" concrete pad; basically, a long strip that would be located along the eastern side of the existing parking lot. And around that configuration would be a 6' white vinyl fence that would be located around the entirely of the equipment compound, and then also associated landscaping that would be located to the north and to the south of the equipment compound. Now to get to access the equipment compound, the technicians that would be coming out periodically (not very often, but periodically), the eastern side Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Three January 111 2010 of the fence of the compound would open up. There would be two pieces of 27' gate that would slide open and allow the technicians to access the compound. Within that compound there would be approximately seven equipment cabinets along with the GPS. That's the basics of what we are proposing. As we said, the location of the proposed communication facility is located at the Presbyterian Church, which is designated as 27245 Route 25, Section 109, Block 2, Lot 17.1 under the Suffolk County Tax Map. The property is approximately .91 acres and, again, it is located on the northeast corner of Route 25 or Main Road and Highland Avenue. It's zoned R-40, and it's currently used as a Presbyterian Church. The purpose of T-Mobile appearing tonight is that they have a significant gap in coverage within this area, within the Cutchogue area. The gap consists of both an in-building level, as well as at an in- vehicle level. We can get into more of exactly what that means, but suffice it to say that when you are talking about "in-building", you are talking about the ability to make, hold and receive calls within building, and the same for "in-vehicle" to allow those types of actions within vehicles. Now at this time we are seeking relief from Section 280-70b, or seeking special exceptions permit relief here for the application, as well as site plan approval pursuant to that same section. At this time I do have a number of experts here to provide testimony, and they have also prepared wdtten reports to provide further information on the particular aspects of this application. The folks we have tonight are Paul Gartelmann from WFC or William Collins Architects. He is our NYS licensed architect and he will be able to speak to you about architectural issues and the structural issues as well associated with the proposal. We also have Donna Marie Stipo from DMS Consulting, who is our visual expert and I think she is just running a moment late, she will be here momentarily. She will be able to speak to the visual, aesthetic and planning aspects of this particular application. We also have Mariana Nieto, who is our radio frequency engineer, who can explain more of that need that we talked about that T-Mobile is seeking to cover within this area. We also have Lou Cornacchia, who is from Cyanetics Corporation, who is our health expert, who will be able to speak to those health and safety questions that are generally part of these types of applications. We also have Mike Lynch, who is our real estate appraiser, he's from Lynch Appraise Unlimited. He is prepared to speak regarding the real estate value issue that the proposed communication facility will not impact the property values in the area, and he will be able to testify and speak a little bit more about that. Just before I conclude with my opening, I wanted to mention with Mr. Cornacchia, I just wanted to make clear that the FCC sets forth standards at which communications facilities may operate at. Provided that the communication facility proposed meets the FCC Standards in terms of emissions under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that's generally under inquiry for local boards. Here, I just want to state that the wireless communication facility will emit far below those FCC Standards. in fact, the highest standard that will be emitted out to the community would be on the order of .35% of the FCC Standard. That's over 200 times below the regular standard that the FCC sets. With that being said, unless there are further questions, I would be happy to begin our formal presentation with those experts that I mentioned. Martin Sidor: Let's move on, please. Southold Town Planning Board Page Four January 11,2010 Gre.q Alvarez: OK, great. At this time I would like to call Mr. Gartelmann to speak a little bit about the architectural and structural issues in connection with this property. Paul Gartelmann, William F. Collins AIA Architects, LLP, 12-1 Technology Drive, Setauket, NY 11733: I have been a registered architect in the State of NY since 1989. Gre.q Alvarez: Thank you, Mr. Gartelmann. Over the course of your career, approximately how many communications facilities have you been part of? Paul Gartelmann: Approximately 450. Greg Alvarez: First off, I would like to submit for the record two sets of materials that Mr. Gartelmann will be speaking about. The first one is a report entitled "Engineering Report" dated January 11,2010. Basically, what it does is summarize many of the issues we are going to be talking about shortly. I have brought nine copies like we have submitted previously with our prior application. Aisc, I have a letter from Nicholas J. De Felice, a Consulting Engineer for William F. Collins, who is speaking to the structural capacity of the proposed installation within the existing steeple. That letter is dated January 6, 2010. I also have nine copies of that. Mr. Gartelmann, would you please explain to the Board the general nature of the proposal that we are speaking about today? Paul Gartelmann: As Mr. Alvarez mentioned, the wireless facility will consist of equipment cabinets located on ground level on top of a concrete equipment pad toward the northeasterly portion of the property. The main church is along the corner of Highland Road and Main Road, so it's tucked in behind the church. The equipment compound would be surrounded by a vinyl fence, 6' high and supplemented with surrounding landscaping shrubs. The equipment cabinets consist of seven cabinets located inside that fenced enclosure. The cables will then be run underground to the building and up through the building to the steeple located in the front of the church. Selected platting components will be removed and replicated in RF-fdendly material to match the existing steeple. From the outside you will not be able to discern the difference between the existing panels that will remain and the proposed panels concealing the antennas within the steeple. This is the steeple as it currently exists. The panels that I mentioned we would be taking off are at a couple of different levels to conceal the eight antennas within. As I mentioned, the materials will match the existing steeple. Essentially, that's the design. Gre.q Alvarez: In comparison to ....... Heather Lanza: Excuse me; if you are going to do an exchange, you're going to have to say your name before you speak just because it's going to be hard for our transcriber to figure out who is talking. Gre.q Alvarez: OK, no problem. The question I had, Mr. Gartelmann, was: we have just recently submitted revised plans that depict the new equipment area. Has there been any change to the design in terms of the steeple based on that new design? Southold Town Planning Board Page Five January 11, 2010 Paul Gartelmann: No. The existing steeple and the appearance of the existing steeple will remain as we are simply replicating the components to conceal the antennas. Greg Alvarez: OK. In terms of the proposal with the equipment area: you spoke about it in some detail but could you describe all the mitigation factors that are being proposed in terms of where the equipment is going and what is being done to insure that it will fit in with the location where it is being proposed. Paul Gartelmann: The equipment enclosure located down on the ground level is tucked in off the edge of the parking lot behind the handicap ramp that accesses the rear portion of the church. The placement itself provides some visual screening from the public roadways and the vinyl fencing that we are proposing is consistent with a residential-type fencing. We are all familiar with the white PVC fencing that many residential owners use nowadays. Then, to soften the appearance of the fence enclosure we are providing a series of plantings in the neighborhood of 6-8' tall evergreen plantings to soften the appearance of the vinyl fencing. Gre.q Alvarez: Thank you, Mr. Gartelmann. If you could also, I mentioned it briefly in my introduction, but could you talk a little bit about the general procedure for technicians to come to the site and periodically service or (inaudible) the equipment. Paul Gartelmann: It is my understanding that typically a technician in a passenger-type vehicle will come to the site on the order of every four to six weeks to run some diagnostic testing on the equipment and fine tune it, make adjustments so the network is optimized in this area. Gre.q Alvarez: I would just like to also ask about that structural letter that we just submitted on the record. Could you just confirm for us the findings of that letter and advise us regarding the structural capacity or the capabilities of the structure to house the antennas within the steeple? Paul Gartelmann: Sure. Our structural engineer reviewed the existing steeple assembly and its structure. As we are not adding any wind load by increasing the size or placing any appurtenance on the outside of the steeple, the wind load is not increased in any way and the antennas themselves are relatively light, so there are eight antennas to be housed within the existing steeple structure and those will not overload any of the structural members. All work of course is going to be done in accordance with the zoning code of New York State and any other applicable standard. Gre.q Alvarez: That was my last question just to confirm that everything was being constructed with all applicable codes. Paul Gartelmann: Yes, it is. Greg AIvarez: OK. At this time, thank you very much, Mr. Gartelmann. Unless there are any questions, we obviously open it up to them. Southold Town Planning Board Page Six January 11,2010 Martin Sidor: Can I just ask you to change the format, because I'm being confused here going back and forth, back and forth. If each player of your team would give their presentation, I'm sure the public here would probably be the ones to ask those questions. If that's OK with you? Gre,q Alvarez: Certainly. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. You'll ask questions afterwards, is that how you want to do it? Martin Sidor: I'm sure there will be questions from the audience and then you'll be asked to come up again if help is needed. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. We'll do that. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Gre.q Alvarez: At this time I'd like to call Donna Marie Stipo who is our visual planning and environmental expert. Ms. Stipo, if you would introduce yourself to the Board, please. Donna Marie Stipo: Good evening. I am the principal of_DMS Consulting, and we are out of Mahwah, NJ. Gre.q Alvarez: If you would describe your background and the purpose for your appearance today. Donna Marie Stipo: Absolutely. I am a planner by trade and by education. My company performs planning services, environmental services both Federal, State and local. In addition to, we do computer generated, 3-D animated and simulation for both wireless as well as for construction industry. What we did here, what we were retained to do is take a look at the general elements, the surrounding environs, and then we get the CAD drawing from the engineering company, and we use a very sophisticated and great landscaping and architectural program called 3 studio MAC. What it does is, it takes the CAE) and builds the proposed structure, whatever it be, a shopping center or a wireless project. Then we superimpose a simulate within the scaled photograph of a view shed. It gives you an excellent idea as to exactly what's going to be built. It can take construction changes as we go along. What we've done here is we have taken photographs of the surrounding environs. We are offering to our clients an opportunity to take photos from the surrounding area. Then what we did is we built out the changes. Out of the four views you have here, I am sure the engineer explained that, essentially the people part, or the upper mass of the existing structure, which has no visual change. Essentially, what is being proposed would be in visual keeping with what is already there. Everything would be in the interior, so from your view shed and from the surrounding environs, your horizon has no change, your esthetics, with respect to how the structure currently looks today, would have no change. It may look a little Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Seven January 11,2010 brighter and cleaner (inaudible) more like a painting or an upgrade on the exterior, but you would have no aesthetic change to the character of the neighborhood or to the surrounding environment, which is very important, given how beautiful the structure currently is. Your changes would be to the intedor portion of the property and essentially along your eastern area of the parking, and you would have, as the engineer was explaining, an opaque fence, very standard, with an upgraded landscaping plan throughout residential neighborhoods and plantings as well as the cabinetry that would be required for the functions of this facility, very similar to HVAC colored units or public utility units that are outside. They would be behind the fencing. The property currently has a fence that was running alongside its border, so this would be sandwiched between two fencing with a plethora of evergreens for a continuous level of mitigation. The other change would be a slight, on the back side of the building, you will have running up the side here a cable tray that would be painted and attached to the building and along the side itself. But from the surrounding environs, from the vineyard community with respect to your view shed and the esthetics, there would be no essential change to your environs with the proposed installation. The change essentially is within the parking area itself along your eastern border. I hope that helps. Gre.q Alvarez: So, just to conclude, based on your opinion, the proposed design will not pose any adverse impacts on this surrounding community, is that correct? Donna Marie Stipo: That would be correct, from a general planning as well as from the visual/aesthetic (inaudible) view; you would have no change with respect to (inaudible). There would be an interior change to the property similar to if the church itself made any landscaping plan (inaudible) Gre.q Alvarez: Thank you, Ms. Stipo. At this time I would like to submit copies of Ms. Stipo's resume as well as her report. Previously we did submit Ms. Stipo's report into the record, but that was the previous design that shows the original location. So the report that we are submitting tonight depicts the pictures that Ms. Stipo has presented to you on this board that indicate where the equipment is being proposed at this time. Should we turn it around, maybe, for others to see? Martin Sidor: We'll see it later. Like I said: if we can get through the team presentation, and then allow some time for the audience. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. Sure. Absolutely. At this time I would like to call Mariana Nieto, who is our RF Engineer, and will explain more about the need that T-Mobile has within this area. Mariana Nieto, T-Mobile, 3500 Sunrise Hi.qhway, Great River, NY: Good evening. Gre.q Alvarez: Could you describe to us your background and experience in the wireless industry? Mariana Nieto: I have a bachelor's degree in electrical and electronic engineering from Mexico City. I have been working in the wireless industry for around eight years. Southold Town Planning Board Page Eight January 11,2010 Greg Alvarez: And over the course of your eight years in the industry, approximately how many sites have you been involved with in connection with the design? Mariana Nieto: Around 50 sites. Gre,q Alvarez: Thank you. At this time, we do offer Ms. Nieto as an expert in the field of RF Engineering. Before we proceed, I would like to present again this updated affidavit from the original one that was submitted as part of our application. Ms. Nieto's affidavit also includes the RF propagation maps that were originally submitted, but also the maps that we are going to be speaking about today. So they are all one and the same. Her affidavit is dated January 8, 2010. Again, I will provide nine copies of that material so that the Board has that on record. Also, I have copies of Ms. Nieto's resum~ to supplement that as well. Just to give a little background, could you please describe to us what a significant ~ inaudible) service deficiency is? Mariana Nieto: Deficiency in service means that a person cannot maintain a phone call in an area. Grog Alvarez: What is the general definition of that, where you can't make or Mariana Nieto: That is called unreliable service. Greg Alvarez: Unreliable service. OK, thank you. Is T-Mobile experiencing that sort of deficiency in this area? Mariana Nieto: Yes, they do. Greg AIvarez: OK. Now, did you prepare propagation maps which demonstrates the existing within this Cutchogue area? Mariana Nieto: Yes, I did. Gre.q Alvarez: And were they prepared at three different levels as specified? Mariana Nieto: Yes. Greg Alvarez: OK. Why don't we just start off then with the first map that you have here tonight. If you would, could you please describe to us the existing conditions within the area around the proposed site? Mariana Nieto: We have a gap in the area of Cutchogue. (inaudible) North to south of 2.13 miles and east to west of 2.72 miles. The size of the proposed coverage... Gro.q Alvarez: Before we turn the page, could you just describe to us: we see green locations on the map and I see three sites, I believe. Could you please describe what those represent, and the locations of where those sites are? Southold Town Planning Board Pa.qe Nine January 11,2010 Mariana Nieto: These are existing sites in the area. The site here is located 41405 Route 25, Peconic, NY. It's in the Police Station. It's a (inaudible) of 115'. We have another site here. It is 7185 Country Road in Cutchogue, 90' monopole. We also have the site here: Elias Lane and Route 25 in Southold, NY. It's a monopole of 55'. Gre.q Alvarez: Just to clarify, you were speaking before about reliable coverage. What exactly-- does that green area represent reliable coverage? Mariana Nieto: The green area represents reliable coverage. Greg Alvarez: And what does the white area represent? Mariana Nieto: It represents an area where it can be unreliable to make a call within a building. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. So what we are looking at here then is the "in-building" coverage-- we were talking about that before--the "in-building" coverage that exists in the area. Mariana Nieto: Yes. Gre.q Alvarez: Let us look at the next map then and you could describe it to us. Mariana Nieto: This map represents the proposed coverage that the site (inaudible). The proposed coverage will have north to south: .72 miles in-building and east to west .71 miles. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. And the proposed coverage, will it still be targeted gaps that currently exist within the surrounding area? Mariana Nieto: Yes. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. If you would, let's briefly look at the other maps as well that you have provided to show the two other coverage levels that have been (inaudible). So what are we looking at there? Mariana Nieto: This level is in-vehicle level, which means the reliable coverage within the car--when you are in the car you have reliable coverage. Greg Alvarez: So, as it depicts here, it looks like the blue area which represents reliable coverage, that it's a little bit far wider range. Could you please describe why that is? Mariana Nieto: The coverage level is higher, so you have bigger footprint of coverage. Inside the building, the coverage is smaller; when you are outside you have a little more coverage when you are inside the vehicle. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Ten January 11,2010 Gre.q Alvarez: OK, and basically that's just because of the barrier that a building creates versus a vehicle? Mariana Nieto: Yes. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. Now if you would, let's please look at the proposed coverage for the in-vehicle range. Mariana Nieto: ']'he in-vehicle coverage for proposed, will give us 1.8 miles north to south of coverage, and 1.3 miles east to west coverage. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. And, just like with the in-building, does the in-vehicle coverage that's proposed for this site, will it fill the coverage gap within the areas surrounding the site? Mariana Nieto: Yes. Gre.q Alvarez: OK. Thank you. If you would then, let's please move on (inaudible) Mariana Nieto: The next level is called on-street coverage. This means while you are walking on the sidewalk or in the street, you can make the call. But as soon as you go into a building the signal level will be reduced. Gre.q Alvarez: All right. And then if you would, let's take a look at the proposed coverage. I'm sorry, let us look at the existing condition first. Mariana Nieto: Existing condition: north to south is 1.3 miles; east to west is 2.42 miles. Gre.q Alvarez: So, it's going to be a little less, OK. Let's look at proposed coverage. Mariana Nieto: In the proposed coverage, we will provide coverage north to south of 1.65 miles and east to west of 1.64 miles. Gre.q Alvarez: As in the other cases, it will fill the gap at this level that T-Mobile (inaudible). Is that correct? Mariana Nieto: Yes. Gre.q Alvarez: That concludes Ms. Nieto's presentation. Obviously, if there are any questions, we would certainly welcome them. And thank you very much. With that, I'll open it up. Martin Sidor: OK, thank you. Gre.q Alvarez: At this time I would like to call Lou Cornacchia of Cyanetics Corporation to discuss the health and safety aspects of this application. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Eleven January 11,2010 Martin Sidor: We seem to be having a problem going back and forth with the recording here. Is it possible for one person to just give his presentation? Gre.q Alvarez: Absolutely. We'll do it that way. We'll keep it simple. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Gre.q Alvarez: Mr. Cornacchia, if you would, take it away. Lou Comacchia: Good evening. I am a graduate of Manhattan College School of Engineering. I have a B.E.E., a Bachelors in Electronics Engineering, and I worked for the Defense Department for about 35 years on microwave systems. I have worked with the wireless industry for approximately 14 years as well. We were requested by the applicant to essentially determine whether or not the site would be in compliance with the FCC emissions standards and whether the application itself would be approved based on standards as it relates to the general public, and whether or not the site meets the more restrictive standard which is the general public standard. The analysis is based on what we consider the worst case scenario, applicable to the transmitting antennas. Four sectors proposed in the steeple having a coverage of approximately 90° receptor with two antennas to be mounted in each sector: at 54.3' & 47.3', transmitting at frequencies in the order of 1900 megahertz and about 2.1 gigahertz and transmitting at power levels of about 250 watts per channel, transmitting 8 channels simultaneously. UMTS of the other frequency, the higher frequency, would be operating about 500 watts. What we do essentially in our analysis is to apply every potential event that could occur to create the high emission that could occur in the community. Assuming that those conditions are steady, stable, in fact they are not. They are always in compliant condition where they are changing from moment to moment. We (inaudible), for example, the fact that there are no foliage on trees, there are no building materials that are blocking the signal strength. We assume that the antennas are transmitting through the roof, assuming the roof is not there. Examining people within the roof, in the steeple itself where people can be behind the antennas, on the roof peak itself on the roof of the church and to distances where the nearest residence could be to a distance of approximately 2,000', radial distance of 2,000'. In our analysis we again include the worst case highest powers of emissions that could occur, maximum power transmitted from each of the antennas, all simultaneously. Now in examining the community at large, the highest emission we encounter, 1 think, as Mr. Alvarez stated, was less than four tenths of a percent of the more restrictive general public, which is at least 285 times below the national permitted exposure level. Within the steeple itself, with someone standing behind all of these sectors somewhere in the middle, approximately one or two feet from the antennas, we assume one foot from the antennas, maximum emissions that could occur are approximately 5.7%. Again, that could be considered an occupational environment, but we assume it could be a general public environment. Someone who may have walked up there and shouldn't be there, but if they were, we treat them as part of the general public. That could be at least 17 times below the more restrictive standard. When we examine the top floor, which we assume a point just below the antenna is about 13' from where the bottom antennas are located, again, assuming all the antennas are located at 47', not 54'. If they were Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twelve January 11,2010 standing just outside that area, on that peak area just below the antennas again, externally, assuming no matedal in some way either absorbing the strength of the signals or reflecting the signals from that point, we (inaudible) a maximum emissions of approximately 1.1%. Again, it is 90 times below the more restrictive standard. We did the threshold on the rooftop. Again, that was well below that 1.1%. The highest emission we encountered at 0.35% occurs at approximately 500' away from the steeple. The reason why that occurs and why it's the highest emission at that point is because the beam begins to touch ground at about 500'. That's where the maximum exposure could occur. But because the distance of 500' is a factor in determining the emissions occurring at that field point (by the way, that assumes an elevation of 16' above ground where we would have a second story home approximately the height of where a bedroom could be). But that's the point we examine throughout the community, at an elevation of 16'. The emissions at that point, again, assuming worst case conditions, assuming reflections occurring, steady statement or not, the maximum exposure levels are well below 1%. So this site is certainly well within the permitted exposure levels, well within the more restrictive general public standards, and it certainly is in compliance with the FCC Standards. Any questions on this? Martin Sidor: No. Thank you. GreR Alvarez: Thank you, Mr. Cornacchia. We had previously submitted Mr. Cornacchia's report as part of our original submission. We do have extre copies if you need them. I believe Mr. Cornacchia's resum~ is also in that report. Just to conclude our presentation, we would like to call Mike Lynch, our real estate appraiser, to discuss the real estate value aspects of this proposed facility. Michael Lynch, Lynch Appraisal, Ltd., 15 Dewey Street, Huntin.qton, NY: Good evening members of the Board. I have appeared before this Town in the past on other wireless applications. As the Board is aware and has been pointed out by previous experts and Mr. Alvarez, the property is situated at 27245 Main Road in Cutchogue at the corner of Highland Road. It is improved with the Presbyterian Church of Cutchogue on a .91- acre R-40 zoned parcel. The steeple of the church rises to a height above ground of 65'. The proposal is to locate eight antennas within a portion of the center section of the steeple. That portion that would be replaced would be (inaudible) friendly and appear outwardly no different from what presently exists. As Mr. Gartelmann pointed out, there will also be a small equipment area at ground level just to the northeast of the church along the easterly property line and just to the east of the parking lot, which will be enclosed within a PVC fence and screened with arborvitae type shrubbery. This is an ideal application in that we are not utilizing a free standing structure such as a monopole or lattice tower. We are utilizing a steeple and the church structure itself would outwardly appear no different than what presently exists. The surrounding properties are all residential; you have the church-owned residence immediately to the east of this on Main Road, which would be the nearest such structure to the ground equipment. I actually worked on another application nearly identical to this back in 2003 on the Orient Congregational Church. I actually have a photograph of that particular church and the tax map I'd like to submit. These of course are ideal type situations in terms of locating wireless facilities in that we have a tall existing structure Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Thirteen January 11, 2010 to work off of and, of course, the antennas themselves are completely concealed and again outwardly (inaudible). Application or the installation is not perceived from the surrounding area. All in all, this is an excellent application in terms of the installation of the antennas. Again, they will be completely concealed. I don't believe that this application shouldn't be approved by this Board in this Town. It wouldn't have any negative affect on surrounding property values. Nor adversely affect the (inaudible). I have prepared a report that outlines the findings as well as other studies carried out across Long Island in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. Mr. Alvarez has several copies of those. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Gre.q Alvarez: Thank you, Mr. Lynch. At this time, that concludes our presentation. We rely on the written materials that we have submitted tonight, the testimony that has been provided, as well as the prior written materials that we have already submitted to this Board. Actually, there is one other thing: just to memorialize materials that we submitted tonight, we have prepared a letter that reflects that so we would also like to submit that into the record as well. At this time, as discussed, we open up this application to any questions the Board members or members of the public may have. Martin Sidor: Anyone from the audience who wishes to address this application, please step forward. Mark Kuiawski: Good evening. I am an attorney and a member of the school board for the Our Lady of Memy Regional School, which is in Cutchogue. The school sits I believe two doors down officially from the Presbyterian Chumh, although there are parts of the property that are closer. I have been asked to present two questions for the Board. The first is whether, in Mr. Comacchia's analysis, the school property lies in relation to his worst case scenario. I believe there are two particular areas: the first is the school playground, which almost abuts the property, and then there's the back yard, which is that elevated area. And I guess the other question that we have is if the applicant would be so kind as to address any particular concerns about the exposure to the school children. The school goes from pre-K until sixth grade. Those are the two questions that we have. Lou Cornacchia: We did (answer them) but not directly. Primarily because what we did examine, which is a more, let's say, maybe not critical but more telling event in terms of what the emissions could be at the school, is the roof top of the church. When we did the analysis of the peak of the roof and we assumed again someone standing on that peak of the roof, or six feet above that peak of that roof. What we called a threshold analysis, meaning that where at some point on the transmitted signal, it's a change from what we call a near-field event to a far-field event. When that occurs, the beam is fully shaped and fully elevated in terms of power or strength by the gain of the antenna. So what we called a threshold had a distance of approximately 22' from where the antennas are proposed to be located. That's an elevation of approximately 47' (antenna elevation, that is) and with the elevation of the peak of the roof with someone Southold Town Planning Board Page Fourteen January 11,2010 standing on it would be approximately 32'. If the emissions at that level from all of the antennas transmitting simultaneously at any field point--specifically, the rooftop, being much closer to the antennas than that school playground would be. We are essentially speaking in terms of cumulative, combined emissions of less than 1% or 0.53%. The emissions at the school playground at an elevation of 6' or 16' would be probably about 1/10 of that. So, we are looking at a worst case criteria, or worst case area for analysis in determination as to what the impact is to anyone--and using, again, a more restrictive general public standard. We easily accomplish that fact by examining the rooftop. It's closer to the antennas by a distance of at least 32'. Martin Sidor: You had two questions: did that answer?. Mark Kujawski: I guess I could follow up on that one. I apologize I guess (inaudible) wasn't clear. Simply, did you do a test on the playground to measure the proposed emissions, or is this just a guess based on if the kids crawl up on the steeple? Lou Cornacchia: No, it's not a guess. And you certainly can't measure because the system isn't installed. We have to do a theoretical analysis. The FCC requires we do a theoretical analysis, apply every worst case criteria to the analysis so that the emissions (and we do this all the time, by the way) as are predicted--worst case emissions, are always ten to 100 times less than when we go out there and take the measurements. We always encounter emissions that are far less than what we predict in every instance. That's probably because the analysis uses criteria that are theoretical and in reality just don't occur. On the basis of that criteria, the analysis that we perform is really one that is accepted and determined and mandated by the FCC. To every degree that we have examined these sites are never exceeded. Mark Kuiawski: I think Mr. Alvarez spoke to the issue of preemption and the FCC regulations. I guess (inaudible) these emissions show that children up to the age of 12 Lou Cornacchia: There are no threats to children or animals of any age, any body mass. They are well below the exposure levels, and those are continuous exposure levels. They are 100 times lower. Mark Kuiawski: (inaudible) on behalf of Our Lady of Memy School, provided that the Town Board is satisfied with the evidence set forth (inaudible) safety, I know the issue of preemption is out there. With regard to any safety regulation, we just hope that the Board deems that there has been sufficient analysis for the property of Our Lady of Memy School, we stand by that. Thank you very much. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else wishes to address the Board? Benia Schwartz, Cutcho.que: I am here tonight on behalf of some neighbors of the church who live across the street from the church. They own an historic house; it's part of the same view shed entrance to Cutchogue, and they are very proud of the way they maintain their property--they love their home. They couldn't be here tonight because they spent the day in the doctor's office with a skin cancer problem that they are having Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Fifteen January 11,2010 removed. I'm an attorney, and I understand what Federal preemption means. But it does not mean that we cannot even think about the possibility that there are very real health threats involved in this type of undertaking. My research has indicated that radio frequency radiation, which will admittedly be emanating from this installation, has not been sufficiently studied to know whether or not there are negative impacts on public health or whether it is safe. I'd like to start by saying that I have a cell phone and I support the use of the technology, but I think the burden should be to prove that it's safe; we shouldn't have to prove that it's dangerous. In addition to my friends who live in a home across the street, and the school which is not far, a couple of doors down, there is a library which 1 go to every day. Speaking of schools, there was some news I don't know if you heard about, not too far from here, although it might be in Nassau County, the little village of Bayville there. They've got some people there that claim that over 25%, maybe as many as 30%, of the children and the teachers in their elementary school are suffering serious illnesses and three have died from radio frequency radiation that comes from cell towers which are on a water tower very close to that school. This is in the news I have here; it says they are planning on filing a lawsuit today. I think maybe that should be looked at. The Federal standards, which are somewhere between 17% and 100% below according to the evidence we've heard tonight, not everybody agrees with that. There are some very well-established scientific reputable institutions and agencies that have concluded that the standards that our Federal Government set are 10,000 times too Iow. I wish I had some firm answers, but I just hope that we really consider very carefully. There was a (inaudible) resolution adopted in 2000 at an international conference on cell tower siting which would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than--I don't understand all the technical terms-but their standard was 10,000 times as strict as the current U.S. standard, according to this. I think if there is any way that this Board can not just take the word of these experts... I've been listening. I can't pretend that I have understood what they are telling you, but I'm hoping that the Board will look at this very carefully, and not expose us to. There are three dead children, they claim, up the island. There are many, many more that are sick. I'd hate to see something like that happening in Cutchogue. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else wishes to address this application, step forward on either aisle. Barbara McAdam, Crown Land Lane, Cutcho.que: Most of you know me through the years I've spoken many times to protect this very neighborhood. I live one block away from the church. It also happens to be my church. I am an officer there; I spend a great deal of my time there. I've spoken to this Board many, many times to protect that neighborhood from dangers of the Heritage development. I've spoken to the Suffolk County legislators to protect this neighborhood from helicopters noise. I'm a pretty outspoken person when it comes to protecting this neighborhood, because it's my neighborhood. I've done a lot of research as well on the supposed effects of radio frequency waves. I feel very comfortable that any exposure, if you will, is going to be far below FCC standards, so I really don't see a problem. I'm not the kind of person who would endanger my neighbors. As I said and many of you know, I've been here many times speaking on behalf of this neighborhood and its residents. I see no problem with installing a couple of antennas. I would say that if people are that Southold Town Planning Board Page Sixteen Januaw 11, 2010 concerned, maybe they should question any ill effects that they might be feeling since last February when the Fire Dept. installed a huge tower right in the center of town. Of course, that's for emergency services. So, if you are not feeling any ill effects by now, I don't think two more antennas are going to hurt them. Thank you. Martin Sidor: Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone from the Board? The Town also has an independent auditor, so to speak: a consultant to help us through this process, to answer those kinds of questions that were asked today. Greg Alvarez: Thank you. At this time, if there are no other questions from the Board or from the public, like I said, we would rely on the materials that we have submitted, and we would ask that the record be closed and that the Board act on this application, and we are hopeful that it would be an approval for this application because as we provided we think it is going to fit into the community; as expressed by a resident, Ms. McAdam, she has expressed that there doesn't seem to be a great concern based on the evidence and we think we've shown that today, so we appreciate your time and we look forward to resolve this application. Martin Sidor: Thank you, thank you all. William Cremers: I make a motion to close the hearing. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Kenneth Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, this application is for a Special Exception & Site Plan Approval for a new wireless communication facility where the antennas are to be mounted within an existing church steeple and the base station equipment is to be located outside the building in a screened enclosure. As part of the application, the applicant proposes to remove and replace a portion of an existing church steeple to match the existing church building on a 0.91-acre site located in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located at 27245 Main Road on the n/e corner of Main Road and Highland Road in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-109-2-17.1; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2009, the Southold Town Planning Board conducted a SEQRA coordinated review for this Unlisted Action; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, establishes itself as Lead Agency for the Unlisted Action. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Page Seventeen January 11,2010 William Cremers: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?. Motion carries. 6:05 p.m. - Batta.qlia, Joseph & Heidi - This is a proposed standard subdivision of 95,846 sq. ft. into two lots where Lot One is 41,280 sq. ft. and Lot Two is 54,074 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District. This site is located at 1720 Hobart Road, on the w/s/o Hobart Road, approximately 1,059 feet n/o Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM#1000-64-3-3 Martin Sidor: Anyone who wishes to address this application, please step forward. Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant: Joe and his wife are here today if you have any questions. As you pointed out, we have a two-lot subdivision here in an R-40 one- acre zoning district where Lot 1 is conforming and over 40,000 sq. ft. Lot 2 is oversize 53,208 sq. ft. Those numbers are upland area calculations. This project has received DEC approval for subdivision that was granted back in February of 2009 and we are here for our preliminary map approval and shortly final map approval. We have an application to the Health Department which is pending. They have asked for some minor additional information which we are gathering for them. Do you have any questions? Martin Sidor: Thank you. I don't believe so. Yes? Andy Seamanns,1580 Hobart Road: I am the owner of the property that would be to the north of proposed Lot 1. My only question is (inaudible) about the non-cleared (inaudible) abutting the south side of my property, the north side of that Lot 1. I understand that there is about a 20' buffer where the trees that are against there do not clear and I would respectfully ask that, even beyond that, maybe another 5-10' beyond that there are some very beautiful older trees that provide a lot of much-needed shade to my property and I'm curious as to what is customary, having looked at the map when I received this. The terms are not clear, in terms of buffers between the properties, what can be granted and (inaudible). Patricia Moore: I can address to the extent that what is shown here is a building envelope, which, as far as zoning goes, we can't put any structures closer than 20' to your common property line; that's the property line to the north where it's shown as Rich, right now. On the map it's shown as the Rich family. Mr. Battaglia has tried to preserve what trees he can, but there has been a request by staff that we preserve some trees on the east side, that is the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2, so we have a relatively small building envelope, which is all structures, house, pool, whatever; Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Eighteen January 11, 2010 anything that you want to build has to stay within that building envelope. So it is not a buffer per se, it's a 20' "no structures." To the extent that nothing gets built, then the trees won't be disturbed. Andy Seamanns: My concern is, number one, I am a survivor as well, and I have appreciated, one of the reasons why I bought was because (inaudible) so my question is: is there anything that can be done to guarantee that there can be at least some maintenance of those trees, I'm not (inaudible) perpetuity Patricia Moore: I'll defer to my client because he's the one who's going to live there. Joe Battaglia: There's a proposed: you're only allowed to clear a certain percentage of the lot anyway. Patricia Moore: Yes. Joe Batta.qlia: And if we'll be building, which we are not, if we stay inside the building envelope, that percentage of area that cannot be cleared will remain the same. Patricia Moore: Yes, we have clearing restrictions with respect to setbacks. We have overall clearing restrictions where you can't clear more than 40% of the lot. Most likely, this area will remain as is, because it will be part of our 40%. That's the most likely scenario. Joe Batta.qlia: Right. In reality, if anything was to be cleared, you'd want to clear more towards the view (inaudible) I would think, which, you're only talking 40% of the building envelope probably is occupying dght now, I would say, 50%, which would leave you another 50%, and you'd want to maintain the buffer there (inaudible). Martin Sidor: Thank you. I believe his question has been answered. Is there anyone else who wishes to address this application? Hearing none... William Cremers: I make a motion to close the hearing. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?. Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Thank you. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Nineteen January 11,2010 CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, STANDARD SUBDIVISIONS, RE- SUBDIVISIONS (Lot Line Changes) Conditional Preliminary Determinations: J. P. Mor.qan Chase Bank, Mattituck - This proposal is to subdivide a 2.818-acre parcel into two lots where Lot 1 equals 49,262.82 sq. ft. in the B Zoning District and Lot 2 equals 63,480.41 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located approximately 120' e/o Madene Lane, on the s/s/o NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-143-3-33.2 Donald Wilcenski: WHEREAS, on October 24, 2008, an application for sketch approval including a sketch plan prepared by Thomas K. Wicks, L.S., and Thomas E. Murray, P.E., dated July 11, 2008, was submitted to subdivide a 2.818-acre parcel into two lots where Lot I equals 49,262.82 sq. ft. in the B Zoning District and having a 25 foot transitional buffer in the R-40 Zoning District in connection with a proposed site plan for a bank use and Lot 2 equals 63,480.41 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the plans at their November 17, 2008 Work Session; and WHEREAS, the Office of the Southold Town Engineer, on December 5, 2008, provided comments to the Planning Board on the proposed access to the site; and WHEREAS, at a meeting held on Monday, February 9, 2009, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, established itself as Lead Agency for this Unlisted Action and granted Sketch Approval upon the map entitled "Standard Subdivision of Chase Bank, Mattituck", dated July 11, 2008 and last revised January 26, 2009, prepared by Thomas K. Wicks, L.S., and Thomas E. Murray, P.E.; and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2009, an application and fee for preliminary plat approval was submitted, six (6) copies of the Draft Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions including the preliminary plat prepared by Thomas K. Wicks, L.S., and Thomas E. Murray, P.E., dated July 11,2007 and last revised January 29, 2009; and WHEREAS, on May 11,2009, a preliminary public hearing was held and the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, as lead agency, granted a Negative Declaration for the proposed action; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2009, the Southold Town Planning Board referred the application as a combined referral in connection to a site plan application for Lot 1 pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-131 C. & §240-12 distributed the application to agencies having jurisdiction for their comments, and the following agencies responded: Town Engineer, Suffolk County Planning Commission, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation Southold Town Plannin.q Board Pa.qe Twenty January 11, 2010 and Historic Preservation and the Mattituck Fire Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the comments from those agencies referenced above were received and accepted by the Planning Board, discussed with the applicant, and incorporated into the site plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Board; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grant Conditional Preliminary Plat Approval upon the map entitled "Standard Subdivision of Chase Bank, Mattituck" dated July 11, 2008 and last revised January 26, 2009, prepared by Thomas K. Wicks, LS. and Thomas E. Murray, P.E., subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of the completed Application for Final Plat Approval and Final Plat with the following amendments. The submission shall include twelve (12) paper copies & four (4) mylar copies of the final plat. a. Amend all lines depicting Lot 2 as a solid line. b. Show clearing limits pursuant to §240-49. Clearing. Permissible clearing on the lot is restricted to 35% of the total lot area. Please note the regulation on the plat. c. Delete the reference to the 25' Transition Buffer arrow within the driveway. d. Show distances of setbacks from property lines. e. Note on plan "no further subdivision". 2. Submission of the Park and Playground Fee in the amount of $7,000 ($7,000 per new lot created). 3. Submission of Suffolk County Health Department Approval. 4. Submission of a curb cut approval from the NYS Department of Transportation. 5. Submission of a Letter of Water Availability from the Suffolk County Water Authority. 6. Submission of an Access Easement establishing the right-of-access from State Route 25 over Lot 1 to Lot 2 and maintenance responsibilities. 7. Submission of a Draft Performance Bond Estimate. Kenneth Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes, Martin Sidor: Motion carries. ************************************* Southold Town Planninq Board Page Twenty-One January 11,2010 SITE PLANS Final Extensions: RMB Realty Medical Arts BuildinR - This proposed site plan is for two new one-story buildings of 7,000 sq. ft. each with 10 separate offices for a total of 14,000 sq. ft. on a 2.437-acre parcel in the LB Zone located at the intersection on the s/s/o County Road 48 and the e/s/o Horton Lane, known as 43960 County Road 48 in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-1-15 William Cremers: I will offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, the applicant, RMB Realty LLC, proposed a site plan for two new one-story buildings of 7,000 sq. ft. each with 10 separate offices for a total of 14,000 sq. ft. on a 2.437-acre parcel in the LB Zoning District; and WHEREAS, RMB Realty LLC, is the owner of the property located at the intersection on the s/s/o County Road 48 and the e/s/o Horton Lane, known as 43960 County Road 48, in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-1-15; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board granted Final Approval on the site plan; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2009, the agent, James V. DeLucca, Registered Architect, requested that the Planning Board consider granting an extension to the Final Approval which expired on January 9, 2009; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby grant an extension from January 9, 2009 to January 9, 2011 to the Final Approval originally granted on January 9, 2006. Ken Edwards: Second the motion. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?. Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-Two January 11,2010 APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Martin Sidor: We need a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of December 14, 2009. William Cremers: So moved. Kenneth Edwards: Second. Martin Sidor: Moved and seconded; any discussion? All in favor?. Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. Is there any Board Member who wishes to get anything on the minutes? Kenneth Edwards: Happy New Year. Welcome, Don, to the Board. Donald Wilcenski: Thank you. Martin Sidor: So noted. We need a motion to adjourn. William Cremers: So moved. Donald Wilcenski: Second. Martin Sidor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?. Ayes. Martin Sidor: Motion carries. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was ADJOURNED at 7:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linc'la Rando~ph,'"Transcribl(ng Secretary Southold Town Planninq Board Pa.qe Twenty-Three January 111 2010 Martin H. Sidor, Chair RECEIVED ':~ FEB 11 2010 Soul'old Town Clerk