00-7062, 00-7063
DEC-19 00 17::2 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
.. '.
. ~
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 02/18
DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION
AND AREA VARIANCES
(Appeal Nos. 00-7062 and 00-7063)
Applicant:, Cellular One
Premises: Rear portion of property (owned by the Town of Wappinger and
upon which is situated the Town Hall and the Emergency Services
Building) located at 20 Middlebush Road in'the Town of Wappinger
Tax Grid No.: 6157-01-353~24
THE APPLICATION
Appeal No. 00-7062
By Application dated August 8, 2000, Cellular One submitted a request for an
Interpretation of the Zoning Code or ill the alternative for several variances.
Specifically, Applicant requested an interpretation from a decision of the Zoning
Administrator dated July 24, 2000, which stated that the Planning ,Board did not
have the authority to waive or modify set-back siting objectives for the placement
of the cell tower or in the alternative for two (2) variances:
A. A 350 foot variance from Section 240-81G(4)(c)(1) of the Zoning
Code of the Town of Wappinger, requiring that a cell tower be 1.500
from an educational institution; and
B. A 130 foot variance from Section 240-81G(4)(c)(2) of the Zoning
Code of the Town of Wappinger, requiring that a cell tower be 750
feet from an existing dwelling.
Appeal No. 00-7063
By Application dated August 8, 2000, Cellular One requested a two (2) foot
variance increasing the six. (6) foot maximum height of the fence to be constructed
around the cell tower facility pursuant to Section 240-81G(5) of the Zoning Code
of the Town of Wappinger.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. A Public Hearing on this Application was opened on September 26, 2000,
was adjourned to October 17,2000, November 14,2000 and again '
adjourned to and closed on November 21,2000. At the Public Hearings,
the following documents were submitted into evidence:
1
DEC-19 00 17:13 FROM:FP CLRRK RSSOCIRTES. 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PRGE:03/18
]. Applications by Cellular One, dated August 8,2000, one for an
interpretation, or in the alternative, for several area variances from
siting objectives and a separate variance to increase the height of a
security fence to eight (8) feet.
2. A letter from the Town of Wappinger Zoning Administrator dated
July 24, 2000. which stated that the Planning Board did not have the
authority to waive or modify set-back objectives with regard to the
cell tower plac~ent.
3. Recommendation of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger
dated August 21, 2000.
4. Recommendation of the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger
dated August 8, 2000.
5. Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development report
indicating that Cellular One's Application is a matter oflocal
concern.
6. Site plan drawing prepared by Chazen Engineering and Land
Surveying Co., P.C. last revised June 19,2000.
7.. Visual study and report prepared by Chazen Engineering and Land
Surveying Co., P.C. dated May 19,2000, and received by the Zoning
Administrator on August 9,2000.
8. Environmental Assessment Form received by the Zoning
Administrator on August 9,2000.
9. Ronald E. Graiffs engineering report received by the Zoning
Administrator on August 9, 2000. which report noted that the
Applicant, in compliance with its FCC operating license. must
maintain a grade of service of 2% or better.
10. Cuniculum Vitae of Ronald E. Graiff.
II. Site Analysis Report prepared by Cellular One and received by the
Zoning Administrator on August 9, 2000.
12. Determination of "No Hazard to Air and Navigation" by the F.A.A.
dated July 3,2000.
2
DEC-19 00 17:13 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 04/18
13. FCC and LSGAC's June 2, 2000 "Local Government Officials'
Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Safety Emissions: Rules,
Procedures and Practical Guide."
] 4. Memorandum dated A.ugust 31, 2000 prepared by Cuddy & Fedder
& Worby, L.L.P. on behalf of the Applicant.
15. RonaldE. Graiff's three (3) page written report with exhibits 1-10
including a base map and received by the Zoning Administrator on
October 17,2000. This report discusses surrounding sites and
justifies the placement of the cell tower at the proposed location.
16. Overlays prepared by Chazen Engineering and Land Surveying, Co.
for the cell towers in the Town of Wappinger, and received by the
Zoning Administrator on September 9, 2000.
17. Engineering Report prepared by Ronald E. Graiff dated July 10,
2000 and submitted to Village ofWappingers Falls to determine
suitable sites within the Village for potential Personal
Communication Services (PCS) carriers.
18. Letter from Cuddy & Fedder & Worby, L.L.P. dated October 17,
2000.
19. Memorandum from Flack and Kurtz, Inc. dated November 3,2000,
which memorandum ana.lyzed Ronald Graiffs report of October 17,
2000. The memorandum concluded that a 120 foot antenna would
provide adequate coverage and that the proposed site would "provide
uniform coverage for the local area, distribute traffic uniformly
across the system, and reuse frequencies in an efficient manner."
20. Letter from Daniel J. Hubbard, RF Design Engineer for Cellular
One, to Phillip DiNonno dated November 3, 2000, which letter noted
that a 150 foot antenna was necessary to serve the public's need for
ce'l1ular service.
21. Memorandum from Flack & Kurtz, Inc. dated November 17, 2000,
which memorandum reviewed Ronald Graiffs of October 1 ih and
Daniel Hubbard's letter of November 3rd and concluded that an
antenna height of 120 feet would provide adequate coverage. ,
22. A letter from the Town of Wappinger Zoning Administrator dated
September 26,2000, which stated that the barn considered by the
3
DEC-19 ee 17:14 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE:e5"18
Applicant in detennining its need for an area variance was not a
residential dwelling within the meaning of the Zoning Code of the
Town of Wappinger.
23. Letter from Attorney James Bryan Bacon dated October 10,2000
with attaohments.
24. Letter from Attorney James Bryan Bacon dated November 21, 2000.
25. Letter from Attorney James Bryan Bacon dated November 22,2000.
B. THE PRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT:
1. The Applicant proposed the installation ofa 12 x 20 foot one story
prefabricated equipment building and a 180 foot monopole
telecommunications tower.
2. The Town of Wappinger leased to the Applicant a portion of the
Town Hall complex located at 20 Middlebush Road for installation
of a cell tower, subject to Planning Board approval.
3. The placement of the cell tower at the proposed location was within
1500 feet of two (2) educational institutions and within 750 feet of
two (2) existing dwellings, requiring a 350 foot variance from .
Section 240-81G(4)(c)(1) (schools) and a 130 foot variance from
Section 240-81 G( 4)( c )(2) (residences) of the Zoning Code of the
Town ofWappin.ger.
4. The Applicant conceded the tower could be moved southward on
Town property with the result that:
a. the tower would be located more than 750 feet from any
residence, thereby eliminating the need for a variance from
Section 240-810(4)(c)(2) of the Zoning Code of the Town of
Wappinger;
b. the tower would be located more than 1500 feet from the
Wappingers Falls Junior High Schoo] and approximately 1380
from the Randolph School, leaving only one required variance
from Section 240-81G(4)(c)(1) of approximately 120 foot from a
school; and
4
DEC-19 00 17:14 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 06/18
C. the tower would still be located outside of the 100 foot wetland
buffer area.
5. The Applicant did not object to relocating the tower to the rear of the
property so as to eliminate the requested variances Section 240-
81G(4)(c)(2) and minimize the variance necessary from Section 240-
81 G( 4)(c)(1).
6. Kelly Liebolt of Chazen Engineering and Land Surveying Co.
testified that the site had un.ique characteristics, specifically dense
vegetation, the proximity to wetlands, limited area on site that could
be developed, and an existing tower used by the New York State
Trooper facility.
7. Ronald Graiff (Electrical Engineer, Radio Frequency Consulting
Engineer and a licensed professional engineer) testified that the
proposed tower complied with all federal requirements with regards
to RF emission standards as well as all requirements of the New
York State Department of Health.
8. Walter Cooper from Flack and Kurtz, Inc., Consulting Engineers for
the Town of Wappinger, confinned Mr. Graiff's findings. Mr.
Cooper further testified that the facility would not be a hazard or an
obstruction in terms of the F.A.A. classification. Mr. Cooper also
confirmed that the Applicant's present telecommunication network
provides a very poor grade of service during certain hours.
9. Christopher Fisher of Cuddy & Fedder & Worby, L.L.P. conceded
that the Applicant needed a monopole of only] 50 feet in height.
INTERPRETATION
The threshold consideration is the interpretation made by the Zoning
Administrator dated July 24,2000, which stated that the Planning Board did not
have the authority to waive or modify set-back siting objectives for the placement
of the cell tower and in addition stated that the 'Planning Board did not have the
authority to waive or modify Section 240-81G(9) which required the tower to be
located at least 1 ~ times its maximum structural height within the outer boundary
of the site. The applicable provisions of the Town Zoning Code are:
"Section 240-81G(4) Siting objectives ...
(c) No tower or personal wireless service facility,
5
DEC-19 00 17:14 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 07/18
With the exception of repeaters, shall be located:
[I] Closer than 1500 feet on a horizontal plane to
any structure existing at the time of the application
which is or which is able to be occupied or habitable,
on the property of any school {both public and
private}.
[2J Closer than 750 feet on a horizontal plane to
an existing dwelling unit or day-care center,
hospital, nursing home. church, synagogue or
other place of worship. ...
[9J Unless otherwise modified by the SPGA after
consideration of the location preferences set forth
. in Section 240-81D(1) and other criteria setforth
in Section 240-81 of the Zoning Law, towers shall
be located at least 1 ~ times their maximum
structural height within the aliter boundary of the
site on which the tower is located. "
Subsection 9 allows for modifications for the SPGA (Town of Wappinger
Planning Board) while subsections (c)(l) and (c)(2) do not provide for any such
discretion. Any modifications of Sections 240-81G(4)(c)(1) and (c)(2) require a
variance. Accordingly, ,the power to vary the siting objectives contained in
Sections 240-81G(4)(c)(1) and (c)(2) rests with the Zoning Board of Appeals. To
this extent, the Zoning Board of Appeals concurs with the decision of the Zoning
Administrator, specifically the Planning Board does not have the power to vary or
modify the siting objectives contained in Sections 240-81(4)(c)(1) and (c)(2).
With regard to Section 240-810(9), the Zoning Code of the Town of Wappinger
specifically vests discretion in the Planning Board. The Zoning Administrator's
decision of July 24, 2000 to the extent that it states that a variance was necessary
to modify Section 240-81G(9) was incorrect and that portion of her decision has
been withdrawn by the Zoning Administrator.
FINDINGS AS TO AREA VARIANCES
Appeal No. 00-7062
1. Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 applies to'
Cellular One's application.
6
DEC-1900 17:15 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 08/18
2. Cellular One is a public utility, entitling the Applicant to a Jess demanding
standard of review in accordance with the holding in Cellular Telephone
Company v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y. 2d 364. The Rosenberg case enunciated
the .''public utility" exception when a public utility applies for a ~
vanance.
3. The public utility exception for a YR variance requires the Applicant to
demonstrate public necessity which is shown when the proposed site is
necessary to enable the company to render safe and adequate service and no
alternative sites are available which could be used with less disruption of
the conununity's zoning plan.
4. The present application requests ~ variances, which are subject to a
lesser standard than a use variance application.
5.. The Applicant's witnesses testified that the Applicant cannot presently
meet accepted design standards which require that a cellular carrier
maintain a blocking of approximately two (2) out of every 100 calls.
6. Prior to this application, Cellular One entered into a lease with the Town of
Wappinger for a portion of the Town Hall complex located at 20
Middlebush Road subject to Planning Board approval.
7. The documents submitted by Ronald E. Graiffand reviewed by Flack and
Kurtz, Inc. demonstrate that the subject site is the most suitable location for
the proposed tower.
8. No alternative sites are available which could be used with less disruption
of the Town's Zoning Code. (Location .in order of preference are siting
objectives and properly addressed by the Planning Board pursuant to
Section 240-81G(4)(b) of the Zoning Code of the Town of Wappinger).
9. The proposed facility meets all the F.C.C. standards with regard to emission
for wireless facilities as well as those of the New York State Department of
Health.
10. The Zoning Code identified the setbacks of 1,500 feet from educational
institutions and 750 feet from existing dwelling contained in Sections 240-
81G(4)(c)(1) and (c)(2) as "siting objectives to be achieved", not minimum
separation requirements necessary to ensure the health, safety or welfare of
the public, and the intent of such objectives versus minimum requirements
must be considered in light of the lesser standard of review for a public
uti lity.
7
DEC-19 00 17:15 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE:la9/18
11. Locating the tower to the rear of the property will only require one (1)
variance of at most 120 feet and therefore this relocation will substantially
meet the siting objectives of Section 240-81 G( 4)( c)( 1) of the Zoning Code
of the Town of Wappinger.
12. The Applicant conceded that it would be able to provide adequate service
with a monopole of 150 feet in height.
13. The documents and testimony submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals
demonstrated that a height ofless than 150 feet (but at least 120 feet) may
be sufficient to provide adequate service. This issue is referred to the
Planning Board for consideration.
14. Ronald E. Graifrs Engineering Report to the Village ofWappingers Falls
dated July 10,2000 was submitted to the Village in an unrelated matter.
The Village ofWappingers was considering suitable sites for potential
Personal Communication Services (peS) carriers without regard to a
particular carrier and its particular coverage needs. The Town of
. Wappinger residents question whether the ViJlage ofWappingers Falls
water tank could be used by Celhilar One. Based on evidence submitted by
the Applicant as well as Mr. Graiff's report, which noted that the height of
the water tank was only 105 feet, this water tank would not provide
adequate coverage for Cellular One.
15. In reaching its decision hereinafter, the Zoning Board of Appeals
considered the folJowing factors and made the following determinations:
1 a. Will the requested variance be detrimental to nearby properties?
Answer: No. - Given that the proposed tower complies with all federal
requirements with regard to RF emission standards, the Zoning
Board of Appeals cannot consider any health related issues. As for
property values in the area, the proposed site is near protected
wetlands, bas limited area on-site that could be developed, is
covered with dense vegetation, and has a'n existing tower used by the
New York State Trooper facility. The requested variance will have
no detrimental effect on nearby properties.
1 b. Will an undesirable change occur in the character of the
neighborhood?
8
DEC-19 00 17:16 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
Answer:
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 10/18
No. - there will be no undesirable change considering the
characteristics of the site as well as the lesser standard of review and
the Applicant's showing of public necessity.
2.
Are there any alternative (feasible) methods to achieve the benefit
sought by Applicant?
Yes. - The documents and testimony presented to the Zoning Board
of Appeals demonstrate that surrounding sites, including the Village
ofWappingers Falls water tank, are not suitable.! However, at the
same time, Applicant acknowledged that the tower could be
relocated further southward, eliminating the necessity for any
variance from residential structures and minimizing the variance
from school buildings.
3.
Is the requested variance substantial?
No. - The remaining variance of 120 feet from Section 240-
81G(4)(c)(l) is approximately 8%.
4.
Will the variances cause adv'erse effects on the physical and/or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?
No. The physical modifications to the land. are extremely small and
limited essentially to placement of a foundation and small building
for the ground based electronics equipment. Such disturbances are
far less than would be required to construct a single family
residence. Further, the antenna site will be set as far away from
surrounding residences and educational facilities as possible, more
than 750 and approximately 1,500 feet, respectively. The antenna
will be located within a wooded area near a NYSDEC wetland and
regulated area. Any significant development is effectively prohibit
within these regulated areas both on the subject property and on
adjacent lands. In this manner, neither existing nor future dwel1ings
will be close to the proposed antenna site. The regulated areas will
also help to ensure that the adjoining lands remain undisturbed from
development and remain as a visual buffer to the lower portions of
the tower and ground equipment. The granting of the variance to
allow the antenna to be 120 feet closer to an educational facility than
the otherwise recommended 1,500 foot siting objective standar~ will
I Ronald E. Graiffs engineering report dated July 10.2000 indicated that the Village water tank
was only 105 feet in height which would not provide adequate coverage for Cellular One.
9
DEC-19 00 17:16 FROM:FP CLRRK RSSOCIRTES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PRGE: 111'18
have no noticeable impact upon visual impacts or property values.
The proposed site is on a large non-residentially used Jot which
provides a buffer to residential areas via its size and the large areas
of woodland and wetlands and regulated areas which significantly
limit future development, thereby minimizing visual and property
value impacts. Further, the town-owned property has a history of use
for a non-residential public purpose, including an existing
communications tower, which history of use has been factored into
the assumptions ofland use and property value of adjoining
residential properties. In this manner, the property values of lands
adjoining such town-owned and non-residentially used lands will be
least adversely impacted with respect to property values because
their values already reflect the existing public and non-residential
uses and the reasonable likelihood of other similar uses on such
properties. Granting of the variance will allow use ofa site which
not only meets the intent of the objective standards to maximize the
separation of such facilities from dwe1lings, but also benefits from
the fact that the site is already llsed for public and municipal non-
residential uses and purposes. The property also has the added
benefit of existing woodlands and NYSDEC wetlands and associated
regulated areas which will serve to buffer the antenna facility from
adjoining residential properties. In this manner, any potential
adverse visual impacts or impacts u.pon property values are avoided
and minimized to the extent possible. The subject site best achieves
the siting objectives in accordance with the Zoning Law while
meeting the technicallocational requirements of Cellular One.
5.
Is the difficulty self created?
Answer:
No. - Public necessity requires that the Applicant provide safe and
adequate service and the proposed location is the most suitable site.
FINDINGS AS TO HEIGHT V ARlANCE FOR FENCE
Appeal No. 00-7063
1. An eight (8) foot chain link fence, as opposed to a six (6) foot fence, as
required by Section 240-81G(5), will provide greater security and safety for
the proposed site.
2. In reaching the decision hereinafter, the Zoning Board of Appeals ,
considered the following factors and made the following determinations:
10
DEC-19 00 17:17 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 12/18
] a.Will the requested variance be detrimental to nearby properties?
Answer: No. - The increased height of the fence will have no detrimental
effect on nearby properties since the proposed site is near protected
wetlands, has limited on-site area that could be developed and is
covered by dense vegetation, which will essentially shield the fence
from view.
1 b. Will an undesirable change occur in the character of the
neighborhood'}
Answer: No. - There will be n.o undesirable change considering the
characteristics of the site.
2. Are there any alternative (feasible) methods to achieve the benefit
sought by Applicant?
Answer: No. - An increased height of the fence is the most feasible method to
provide greater safety and security.
3. Is the requested variance substantial?
Answer: No.
4. Will the variance cause adverse effects on the physical and/or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? .
Answer: No. - The alternative site is near protected wetlands, has limited on-
site area that could be developed, and is covered by dense
vegetation. The proposed fence will not be visible from off-site,
regardless of whether it is 6 or 8 feet in height.
5. Is the difficulty "self created?U
Answer: No. - Public necessity requires that the Applicant provide safe and
adequate service.
SEO:R FlNDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
In accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law,and
6 NYCRR Part 617 and the Wappinger Environmental Quality Review Law, and
based upon the review of the EAF and all other application materials submitted,
the Zoning Board of Appeals has detennined that the proposed action is an
11
DEC-1900 17:17 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 13/18
Unlisted Action, and hereby makes the following detenninations of significance
for the Proposed Action involving the granting of area variances of the minimum
separation requirements ~etween wireless facilities and residences and educational
facilities and the maximum height ofa fence enclosure of the base equipment
facilities associated. with the construction of a wireless telecommunication services
facility as shown on the submitted plans as revised and amended, and adopts a
Negative Declaration:
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact as a result of physical change to the project site since the physical
alterations to the land will be less than that required for a single family
house, and such issues are not otherwise affected by the requested area
variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on any unique or unusual land fonns found on the site since none
exist in the area to be disturbed and the physical alterations to the land will
be less than that required for a single family house, and such issues are not
otherwise affected by the requested area variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on any water body designated as protected since none exist in the
vicinity of the area to be disturbed and the physical alterations to the land
will be less than that required for a single family house, and such issues are
not otherwise affected by the requested area variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on any non-protected existing or new body of water since none exist
within 100 feet of the area to be disturbed and the physical alterations to the
land will be less than that required for a single family house, and such
issues are not otherwise affected by the requested area variances.
· The proposed action will not have a signi.ficant adverse environmental
impact on surface or groundwater quality or quantity since there will be no
surface or subsurface discharge of wastes of any kind, and very little
impervious surface and no alteration to the drainage patterns, and the
physical alterations to the land will be less than that required for a single
family house, and such issues are not otherwise affected by the requested
area variances.
· The proposed aotion will not have a significant adverse environmental..
impact as a result of altered ~rainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff since there will be very little impervious surface, no alteration to the
12
DEC-19 00 17:18 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
.
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 14/18
drainage patterns, and the physical alterations to the land will be less than
that required for a single family house, and such issues are not otherwise
affected by the requested area variances.
.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on air quality since there will be no emissions generated by the
facility and less vehicular traffic than that for a single family residence, and
such issues are not otherwise affected by the requested area variances.
.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on any threatened or endangered species as none were expected or
identified in or around the project area, and such issues are not otherwise
affected by the requested area variances.
.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on non-threatened or non-endangered species as none were expected
or identified in or around the project area, and such issues are not otherwise
affected by the requested area variances.
.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on agricultural land resources as none exist in the project site, and
such issues are not otherwise affected by the requested area variances.
.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on aesthetic resources based upon the visual assessment materials
submitted as part of the project including maps identifying zones of .
visibility and photographs of crane tests on the site from various
thoroughfares, important viewsheds and vantage points and surrounding
properties, and since the project will minimize the proliferation of such
facilities in the area, and such issues are not materially affected by the
requested area variances.
.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological
importance as none were expected or identified in or around the project
area, and the physical alterations to the land will be less than that required
for a single family house, and such issues are not otherwise affected by the
requested area variances.
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental..
impact on the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or
recreational opportunities, and such issues are not otherwise affected by the
requested area variances.
13
DEC-19 00 17:18 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 15/18
The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on existing transportation systems since there will only be one or
two visits to the site per carrier per month, there is excellent access from
existing roadways, and the traffic generated will be less than that required
for a single family house, and such issues are not otherwise affected by the
requested. area variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on the community's sources of fuel or energy supply due to the
nature of the facility and minor energy demands, and such issues afe not
othelWise affected by the requested afea variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact as a res~1t of objectionable odors, noise, or vibration since all
mechanical equipment is electronic, enclosed within a building and there
will be no noise generated greater than that required for a single family
house, and such issues are not otherwise affected by the requested area
variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on the public health, safety and welfare since the construction site is
surrounded and buffered by town-owned land and NYSDEC Wetlands
which limit use of the lands, and such issues are not otherwise affected by
the requested area variances.
· The proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental
impact on the character of the existing community since the proposed use is
a permitted use, the impact has been m.inimized through the selection of a
site which will minimize the need for additional facilities in the area and
thereby minimizes the cumulative impacts, which site has few existing
residences in the surrounding area and due to the proximity of State
designated wetlands, any future development of additional residences o:r
other significant uses in the surrounding area is extremely limited, which
site and the adjacent town-owned property will not be used for residential
use, and which properties are wooded, and the impacts have been mitigated
to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the mandate of
applicable federal law, and'such issues are not otherwise affected by the
requested area variances.
· There are no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts related
to the proposed project.
14
DEC-19 00 17:19 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
..
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 16/18
Appeal No. 00-7062
DECISION
1. The Zoning Administrator of the Town of Wappinger correctly detennined
that the Planning Board did not have the authority to waive or modify siting
objectives with regard. to the cell tower placement as set forth in Sections
240-81G(4)(c)(1) and (c)(2). '
2. Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 applies to
CelJular One's application.
3. The Applicant, Cellular One, is a public utility and is entitled. to a less
demanding standard of review.
4. The Applicant has demonstrated public necessity in that the proposed site is
necessary to enable the Applicant to render safe and adequate service.
5. The subject property is the most suitable location for the proposed tower.
6. A height of less than 150 feet (but at least 120 feet) may be sufficient to
provide adequate service. This issue is referred to the Planning Board fOr
conside:ration.
7. In considering the Applicant's variance requests, the Zoning Board of
Appeals has taken into consideration the following factors:
A. There is a public need for adequate service.
B. The testimony revealed that the Tower could be relocated southward
on Town property which would place the proposed tower in
substantial compliance with the Town's siting objectives eliminating
the necessity for any variance from residential structures and
minimizing the variance from school buildings.
C. The alternative site is most consistent with the Town's siting
objectives.
D. The relocated site is adjacent to protected wetlands. The wetlandS
extend onto adjoining properties limiting development not only on-
site but also in the immediate area. The relocated site is covered.
with dense vegetation which would screen the fence and in part the
tower from view. The site also has an existing tower used by the
15
DEC-19 00 17:20 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 17/18
New York State Trooper and there will be no undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood.
E. Considering that the subject property and adjacent site is near
protected wetlands, has limited on-site and on adjacent properties
that could be developed, is covered with dense vegetation, and has
an existing tower used by the New York State Trooper facility, there
will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
F. The requested variances are not substantial.
G. The diffi.culty is not self created.
8. Based on the foregoing, the application for two (2) variances is decided as
follows:
A. the requested variance of350 feet from Section 240-81G(4)(c)(1) of
the Zoning Code of the Town of Wappinger, requiring that a cell
tower be I ;500 feet from an educational institution is granted to the
limited extent that the tower be placed no closer than 1,380 feet to
any educational institution (resulting in a variance of 120 feet); and
B. the requested 130 foot variance from Section 240-81G(4)(c)(2) of
the Zoning Code of the Town of Wappinger requiring that a cell
tower be 750 feet from an existing dwelling is denied.
Appeal No. 00-7063
1. An eight (8) foot chain-linked fence around the proposed cell tower facility
will provide safety and security.
2. In considering the Applicant's variance request, the Zoning Board of
Appeals has taken into consideration the following factors:
A. Greater safety and security is consistent with the intent of Sections
240-8 I G(5).
B. Considering that the proposed site is near protected wetlands, has
limited area on-site that could be developed, and is covered with
dense vegetation, there will be no undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood.
C. The requested variance is not substantial.
16
, ,-
DEC-19 00 17:21 FROM:FP CLARK ASSOCIATES 9149676615
, ..
TO:914 297 4558
PAGE: 18/18
D. The difficulty is not self-created.
3. Based on the foregoing, the Application for a two (2) foot variance
increasing the six (6) foot maximum of the fence around the cell tower
facility as set forth in from Section 240-81G(5) of the Zoning Code of the
Town of Wappinger is granted.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing Decisions was duly put to a vote on
roll call, which resulted as follows:
Appeal No. 00-7062
Alan Lehigh, Chainnan
Gerald diPierno, Member
Douglas Warren, Member
Howard Prager, Member
Victor Fanuele, Member
Appeal No. 00-7063
Alan Lehigh, Chainnan
Gerald diPiemo, Member
Douglas Warren, Member
Howard Prager, Member
Viotor Fanuele, Member
Dated:
voting
voting
voting
voting
voting
voting
voting
voting
voting
voting
December 19,2000
Wappingers Falls, New York
J :\docs2\S OO\wlIppinger\ccll one. prn2ba.dkw.doe
12119/002:36 PM
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Ave
Aye
Aye
17