Zoning Board of Appeals —- Proceedings by Authority
State of New York,
City of Jamestown, ss:
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Jamestown, New York, was held on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ellen Ditonto, Richard Hanson, Sally Martinez, Patricia Calanni, Jim Olson, Judith Sandson
Members Absent: Peter Larson
Others Present: Larry Scalise, Marilyn Fiore-Lehman
Mrs. Ditonto called the meeting to order.
Mrs. Ditonto: Just a couple of housekeeping items. For people who have petition requests in, it does take four votes to have your petition approved. Each person who has a petition, or each business, has the right to give us more information, so when your petition is read, please come up to one of the microphones here at the table. Each time you address the board, you must state your name and home address. If you are representing a group and you have a comment either for or against one of the petitions, you can have time during the public comment section for that and you can go to one of the microphones, either on the left or the right of the room. Again, state your name and home address and limit your remarks to five minutes or less. You must speak to the variance request at the time you are putting together your remarks. We have three petitions on the agenda today, so I will ask that the first be read.
CHAUTAUQUA RESOURCES, INC., 200 DUNHAM AVE. 370.20-4-34
The petition of Ron Carlson of Chautauqua Resources, Inc., 200 Dunham Avenue, Jamestown, New York 14701, for an area variance to add capacity to an existing parking lot at the intersection of Jeffords Ave. and East Second Street, parcel 370.20-4-34 and 370.20-4-35, including removal of pavement and incorporating greenspace and stormwater management. (Section 300-0502, Design and Layout Standards. The required setback for automotive use areas in the CM district is 15’. Proposed is 10’ from Austin Place on the west property line and 6.7’ from East Second Street on the east property line.)
Mrs. Ditonto: Is there someone here representing the petitioner? If you would, please state your name and home address and then you’ll have a couple of minutes to tell us a little bit more about the request.
Mr. Carlson: My name is Ron Carlson, 123 Thayer Street, Jamestown, New York.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. Speak into the microphone if you would, thank you. And you are?
Mr. Marchinson: I’m Matt Marchinson and I’m here representing Ellicott Design Group. We helped them out with the site plan.
Mr. Thomas: Please speak more into the microphone for the recorder.
Mrs. Ditonto: Mr. Carlson, do you want to tell us a little bit more or Mr. Marchinson, about this request?
Mr. Carlson: We have an existing parking lot and we bought the adjacent property to expand the parking lot because we are increasing some of our services across the road at 883 East Second Street; some of the healthcare services. We just needed some additional parking.
Mrs. Ditonto: Usually one of our first questions is about the drainage and what provisions you’ll make for drainage on additional asphalt, so could you address that?
Mr. Carlson: We’re adding additional drainage to it.
Mr. Marchinson: Yes, there’s actually a whole storm water management that we’ve worked up. Basically, there’s a catch basin on the existing lot and we’re going to add an additional catch basin with some submerged underground piping that’s perforated to help control it. If we have a major storm event, that’s going to back something into those pipes and holds it there so it can release it slower either into the existing catch basins or into the water table around the piping.
Mrs. Ditonto: Other questions from members of the board?
Mr. Olson: Larry has the Planning Commission or have you guys reviewed this from a site plan standpoint?
Mr. Scalise: Staff has looked at it and is okay with it. It does need, I believe to go to through the Planning Commission just because it’s overflow parking places and so that’s pending.
Mr. Marchinson: I think we actually did pass the Planning Commission already Larry. It was last month.
Mr. Scalise: Okay. I wasn’t sure.
Mr. Marchinson; I wasn’t sure if I let you know or not.
Mr. Olson: Did they put conditions on it, approval, parking-wise or anything that might have been missing off of the drawings or was everything correct?
Mr. Scalise: I was not at the meeting. I don’t know if any conditions were placed on it or not. We had the plan beforehand and I’m sure the planner would have had those addressed at the time.
Mrs. Ditonto: Other questions?
Ms. Martinez: My question is about the project removing the portions of the pavement that are already there. What you mean is you’re just moving it off of the setback?
Mr. Marchinson: Yes, that’s correct. Basically, it’s over the property line as it sits now and we’re going to peel that back to what the setbacks are.
Ms. Martinez: What the setbacks are going to be.
Mr. Marchinson: Yes, and both the sides of the property have been met. Basically, the need for the variance is just at the top and bottom if you look at the drawing.
Ms. Martinez: But it’s still going to be paved and it’s going to have some greenery.
Mr. Marchinson: Yes, quite a bit. We’re adding…
Mr. Scalise: The way it’s proposed, there’s twice as much landscaping as there was originally with the small parking lot.
Ms. Martinez: Great.
Mrs. Ditonto: Other questions?
Ms. Sandson: When you had the approval, did they have any conditions on it or no?
Mr. Marchinson: No. They didn’t have any questions or comments on it. They seemed pretty happy with everything.
Ms. Martinez: We know you need parking. You also need a bigger handicap strip to get people across.
Mr. Carlson: Yes, that’s a real issue there.
Ms. Martinez: Yes, that’s got to happen. These narrow things don’t do anything.
Mr. Carlson: Yes, we’ve been trying to do a lot with the state, but we’re not having too much success with that.
Ms. Martinez: Is that who has to do that Larry? The state comes in and does that?
Mr. Scalise: Yes, 394 is a state route so that has to be approved through them.
Ms. Martinez: Well, with the signs being this high and then the thing being this wide, it really is a problem for anybody that’s trying to get out of The Resource Center on Jones and Gifford and everywhere else.
Mrs. Ditonto: Any other questions from members of the board? Seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. Again, the petition is for Chautauqua Resources for their property at Jeffords Avenue and East Second Street to increase the parking on that property. It is an area variance request. If you’d like to speak either for or against the request, you can go to one of the microphones and state your name and address before your remarks. One more time, is there anyone who would like to speak either for or against the petition request for the Jeffords Avenue parking. Seeing none, we will close that portion. At this time, we will look to our Clerk for any written correspondence.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, Madame Chairperson. There was one piece of correspondence received on this which I will read into the record. A letter from Michael Longley, Junior Planner, Chautauqua County Planning and Economic Development, concerning this property.
Dear Chairperson Ditonto:
This letter is in response to your municipal zoning referral received in full by this office on February 9, 2018 regarding an area variance for the expansion of an existing parking lot on East Second Street, tax parcels 370.20-4-34 and 370.20-4-35. The parcels on which this proposal is located are on the service and highway commercial district. As one of the designated staff to the Chautauqua County Planning Board, I have reviewed the above noted referral with regard to General Municipal Law 239-M, this proposal is subject to a referral to the county since it is located within 500’ of New York State Route 394.
I have referred the pertinent inter-community and county-wide considerations with respect to this proposal and its effect on the relevant concerns that are listed under General Municipal Law 239-L. Based on this review, I find the proposed action would have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact and that the proposal would be a matter of local concern. However, in an effort to assist the Zoning Board of Appeals with its decision, I offer the following informal comments:
The greenscaping and landscaping that has been proposed for the parking lot appears to be consist with standards from Visualizing Our Options, Chautauqua County’s design principals guidebook. The proposed site plan would result in significant visual improvements when compared to current conditions at the site and could lead to streetscape enhancements along this section of East Second Street. Additionally, the proposed sidewalk connecting the parking lot to East Second street, would improve the flow of pedestrians at the site and would prevent the disturbance of landscaped areas. More information on the design of attractive areas can be found on pages 14,15 and 22 of Visualizing our Options.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office as I noted.
Mrs. Ditonto: At this point, are there any other questions from members of the board? Seeing none, we would be looking for a motion on the petition for an area variance for the Jeffords Avenue and East Second Street parcels.
Mr. Hanson: It looks to me like a very good improvement to the area and I would move that we would accept the proposal.
Mrs. Ditonto: Mr. Hanson has moved approval of the area variance for the Jeffords and Second Street site. Is there a second?
Mr. Olson: Second.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you Mr. Olson. Are there questions on the motion? Seeing none, please call the roll.
Carried: 6 – 0
TED HENRY 128 WHITEHALL AVE., 404.07-3-19
The petition of Ted Henry, 128 Whitehill Avenue, Jamestown, New York 14701, for a use variance to allow a 10’x20’ shed to remain on the vacant lot on the west side of the South Main Street/Sabin Street intersection, parcel number 404.07-3-19. (Section 300-0305, R-1 Single Family Residential District. Shed/garage buildings and storage of camp/utility trailers are accessory uses which are only allowed where there is a primary allowed use (Single family dwelling.))
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you. Would you like to identify yourself, name and home address?
Mr. Henry: Yes, my name is Ted Henry of 128 Whitehill Avenue, Jamestown.
Mrs. Ditonto: Mr. Henry, would you like to tell us a little bit more about your request for this use variance?
Mr. Henry: Yes. We purchased, several years ago, a vacant lot that the city had held at the tax auction and we’ve made improvements to it in order to clear the lot to make it accessible. In order to do this, we used several pieces of equipment, which at the time, I needed storage for. We installed a storage building on the southwest corner of the property and after that was there, we received a notice that we could not have that due to a restriction of having to own a home on the same or adjacent property. So, we’re requesting a variance to allow that to remain there to keep the equipment there and I also have a petition that should have been submitted to the council by our local councilwoman, Maria Jones. She did petition all adjacent properties and neighbors to see if there was any response that would be on the negative side of that and she did not come up with any.
Mrs. Ditonto: We do have that and we will read that into the record when we get to correspondence. At this point, we’ll have an opportunity for the board to question you on the variance request.
Mr. Olson: Is the other material, such as the camper, is that supposed to be there Larry? The adjacent stuff?
Mr. Scalise: No, the shed, the camper, the trailer all require a primary use which would be the single-family home.
Mr. Olson: Okay, but we’re only asking for the shed at this time?
Mr. Scalise: When I put in the application in, it was for all the other items as well. I listed them out specifically.
Ms. Martinez: This lot is adjacent to your home?
Mr. Henry: It is not.
Ms. Martinez: It is not. So, where is your home then?
Mr. Henry: My home is on Whitehill Avenue. The property is located 5 blocks away on South Main Street.
Ms. Martinez: It looks like it goes with the house that is right there.
Mr. Henry: The people that live next door to it, the Bennetts, they appreciate it because it makes their property look larger and actually I’m on very good terms with them. In fact, I take care of their lawn when I’m actually doing mine. But, just in response to your question about that, there has been a pad installed. There’s a 4” stone pad retreated, surrounding for the shed and also for the camper. I was looking for the camper too. As being on Whitehill, if you’ve been there, they’re very short driveways, there’s not actually room. This is a tow-behind. This is a short, 17’ recreational camper.
Mr. Olson: I didn’t notice yesterday when I drove up there, is there a driveway there? I know there’s an apron. Is there a driveway going back to the shed? There was snow over it yesterday.
Mr. Henry: Yes, there is an existing driveway there, but the blacktop is pretty deteriorated. The driveway is about 12’x38’ that was in there. That was existing from the original house.
Mr. Olson: Right because the house burned down or blew up, didn’t it? From what I remember.
Mrs. Ditonto: Mr. Henry, could I ask what your long-term plan is for the property? It’s obviously not adjacent to your home. Do you plan to build on it at any point?
Mr. Henry: Actually, the original point of buying the property right from the start was to simply be able to clear it to see about petitioning the city to build a home on it. We have three children that have special needs that would not be moving away from us, so our intention was to be able to build a small home and garage on the property, the same that existed, so that we could keep them, at least two of them, quite close to us so that they had accessibility at any time. So, yes, I would be looking, in the future to get a permit to build a home on the property to replace the one that was there.
Mrs. Ditonto: I think one of the concerns that I have when I drove past it and looked, is that there are some tires stored on the property it looked like behind maybe? I don’t know if that’s even yours, but maybe somebody had put some that are just adjacent to it. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t anything that you plan to store there for any kind of a commercial business.
Mr. Henry: Absolutely not. There should be no tires – no tires have been on the property in the past. There is a trailer, there is an RV and there is the shed there and there should be nothing else on the property. I count on the neighbors there too, to watch it for me, but I’m close and I drive by almost on a daily basis. But no, there will be no – the idea is to start landscaping in the spring, even more than it is now.
Ms. Martinez: Larry is it a buildable lot?
Mr. Scalise: Yes, it is. It’s just barely big enough. Even if it was a substandard lot, if they build a single-family home it would meet all the setbacks. It can be built anyway.
Ms. Martinez: And that’s what you’d be building? A single-family?
Mr. Henry: It’d be a small ranch single-family home. That’s why we purchased both lots. There are actually two lots, like Larry can tell you, one is pretty narrow, it’s not enough to even consider.
Ms. Martinez: Two lots that have been blended.
Mr. Henry: Into one, right. We had them deeded as one unit.
Mrs. Ditonto: Other questions? Seeing none at this point we would open it up for public comment on the petition for a use variance at South Main Street and Sabin Street on a property there where there is a shed and no single residence. Are there people who would like to speak? You would have to go to either of the microphones and state your name and home address first.
Mr. Peterson: Mrs. Ditonto? I’m Todd Peterson, I’m with the Department of Development and I’m the Code Enforcement Official that issued the original citation and based on the accessory use and structure law, Mr. Scalise and I have discussed this matter for more than a year at this particular point in time. Ted had mentioned trying to find out who in fact complained. Our only complaint was an anonymous source, which I have here, that says a few months ago I sent you a complaint about a shed, camper and trailer being on vacant land in the city and in parenthesis says as I wasn’t allowed to do so, and it is all still there, why haven’t you taken care of this yet. That is considered unfair. That was directed to my supervisor, Mr. DeJoy. We had some correspondence back and forth and we had invited Ted to come up and discuss this matter and discuss the reasoning behind the law and why you cannot do this. It is routinely not done in the city anywhere. I’m all for his care of the property. He does a wonderful job caring for the property, that’s never been in question. I wish other owners kept it as well as he did. The problem was, he talks about wanting to build a house. Again, wonderful idea, but the shed and the trailers do not belong on that property until a house is constructed and all the approvals have been given by the city to allow and all the approvals have been given by the city to put that building up. That basically is the gist of our position on it. We were simply citing exactly what the code indicated needed to be cited. I was in communicated with Larry Scalise on this virtually from day one. Again, I want to reiterate again that we have no problem with the condition with the condition of the property at all. When court appearances came, he was required to come, Mr. Henry did not come to court. He had the opportunity to come to court to discuss this. At the very end of this in May of this past year, we obtained an order that in fact allowed the city, if it became necessary, to go up and remove the shed and trailers. My understanding is also that the shed is without permit and without discussion with Mr. Scalise prior to it being put up.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you Mr. Peterson. Mr. Scalise do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Scalise: No, that’s pretty much what’s occurred. We just expressed to Mr. Henry that he needed to contact me and go through the process what we’re doing right now. If the board were to grant him the ability to have it, he would just need to obtain a shed permit and life could go on. But, unfortunately, I don’t have a choice in the matter, he needs to come for a variance and we’re here.
Mr. Henry: I can respond to that. In terms of the permit that is needed for the shed, that is my oversight by going by hearsay of a contractor and other people that have done it, so that is my fault that I did not obtain it so I do need to pay for that and that’s not an issue to me at all. Certainly, if I can get the variance, I would pay the permit that’s needed to have the shed there.
Mr. Scalise: It commonly happens so I don’t hold that against the property owner, but I can’t write the permit unless he gets the variance so that’s the conundrum I’m in at the moment.
Mrs. Ditonto: Are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this petition request? Please state your name and home address.
Ms. Jones: My name is Maria Jones. I live at 455 Broadhead Avenue in Jamestown. I’m here as the councilwoman for Ward V and also I’m a neighbor of that lot. It’s around the corner from my home. And I don’t want to belabor this, but for those of you that don’t have a history of this particular lot, there was a house there. It was an eyesore when the house was there. And the house burnt down; it was even worse. And then the house was torn down and our biggest fear at that point was that it was going to become a dumping ground for empty paint cans and old tires. But that didn’t happen because the Henry family bought that lot and they pretty much transformed it into something that – the neighbors love it because it looks like it’s all part of their lawn. I appreciate that we’re able to get variances in the city. This is why we’re here today and I’m here to support his getting that variance. Mr. Peterson makes mention that we should have more people in the city that take care of their lots and make sure that they look good and that they’re respectful of the people in the neighborhood like Mr. Henry. That’s exactly what Mr. Henry has done. He’s improved the value of that rat-hole lot, I call it. He’s improved the value of it and he has plans, long-term plans, which are to build a home, possibly build a home on that lot. To build a home in the city of Jamestown, you all know what I know. It doesn’t happen every time. It doesn’t happen every day. It doesn’t happen like it should. And so, to see a family who wants to come to that lot and build a home and be a part of the neighborhood. And here’s the other thing he doesn’t tell you is that he’s from that neighborhood. He was raised three doors down on the other side of the street. He’s a young man who’s coming home in a sense in our neighborhood. We appreciate it, we appreciate his family and we appreciate your thoughtfulness around accepting his variance. And I’d like to support that and those folk that are on that petition as well. Thank you.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you Ms. Jones. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or opposition of this request? Seeing none, we’ll move to correspondence, please.
Mr. Thomas: We received a petition to allow a variance at 504 South Main St., Jamestown, to allow a variance for the shed currently in place at 504 South Main Street in the city of Jamestown. The owners are Mr. and Mrs. Ted Henry. We, the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now for the variance for the shed. Signed by ten homeowners in the area. Honestly, I can’t make out all the names to read them in, but the members of the commission have each been given a copy of this.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you. Is that the only correspondence?
Mr. Thomas: That is.
Mrs. Ditonto: Are there questions from members of the board?
Ms. Martinez: Do you have any idea how soon you would be building the single-family home there?
Mr. Henry: Realistically, about five years.
Ms. Martinez: Within five years or after five years?
Mr. Henry: Within five years. I’d like to start soon. I have one going off to college and when she graduates, I hope that she’s going to be staying in this area. It’s the other two that are younger that are in high school and junior high right now that I plan on keeping in this area.
Mrs. Ditonto: To the Corporation Counsel, is this something that we can limit to this particular property owner? The use variance. If the property is sold, it would revert back.
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: The board has done that in the past with respect to businesses that have been in residential areas. So, you could put that condition on it, yes.
Mrs. Ditonto: Any other questions? Seeing none, we’d be looking for a motion.
Ms. Martinez: I move that we approve this with the stipulation that the house be built within five years and that if there is a reverted clause if the lot is sold and before the house is built.
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: You can do it with businesses, you can put the condition on it, but I’m not sure that it would hold up if it was sold under Real Property Law. It’s been done in the past with respect to businesses that have been requested in a particular residence and they’ve been limited with respect to that. I’m not sure it would hold up if the property were to be sold in the future and that could be challenged and likely would be upheld by the courts. It’s obviously up to the property owner too when he goes to sell it.
Mr. Henry: At this point, there is no plan to sell the property. It’s already been willed to one of my children, so I don’t plan on releasing it for any reason even if we did nothing with it, I see no reason to release the property in the future. The sale isn’t worth, what we could get for it.
Mrs. Ditonto: So, the motion is to approve the use variance with the following conditions; that the home be built within five years on the property and that if the property is sold without any home on it, that the use variance would be retracted so that a shed could not be kept on the property if it’s sold as a blank lot with no home. Is there a second for that?
Ms. Calanni: I’ll second that.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you. Any questions on the motion? Seeing none, please call the roll.
Carried: 6 – 0
Mrs. Ditonto: Please make sure that you work with Larry Scalise; get the proper shed permit as well and he can fill you in on the specifics of the language so that you are within the framework.
JARED C. LUSK, NIXON PEABODY 40 HALLOCK ST., 387.13-9-1
Mrs. Ditonto: We have a tabled request on our agenda today, so before we can discuss or have it read, we need to have a motion to remove it from the table.
Moved by Ms. Martinez. Seconded by Mr. Hanson.
Carried: 6 – 0
The petition of Jared C. Lusk, Partner, Nixon, Peabody, LLP Attorneys for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems of Allentown, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 1300 Clinton Square, Rochester, New York 14604-1792 for a use and area variance to install a 100’ wireless telecommunications tower adjacent to 40 Hallock Street, on parcel 387.13-9-1, owned by Chandler Street Baptist Church in a R-1 Zone. (Section 300-0216, Cellular Phone Towers: Cellular Phone Towers are only permitted in a “C” and “M” District, the proposed is in an R-1 District; Cellular Phone Towers shall not exceed 60’ in height from the ground; the proposed is 100’ in height).
Mrs. Ditonto: Good afternoon. Would you like to state your name and home address?
Mr. Brenner: Yes. Good afternoon Madame Chair, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Robert Brenner with the law firm Nixon, Peabody here on behalf of Verizon Wireless.
Mrs. Ditonto: Would you like to introduce yourself as well?
Mr. Makubire: Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Makubire. I am a RF Engineer for Verizon Wireless and my address is 1275 John Street in Henrietta.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you. You have provided us, very late I must say, some additional information that I see you want to review.
Mr. Brenner: Yes, and I’d like to give the board a bit of background, Madame Chair. The reason the matter has been held over is, per the board’s direction, Verizon Wireless met with staff and also had a meeting with Corporation Counsel to discuss the matter. At a meeting that we had with staff, Mr. Scalise printed a map of the vicinity which I have with me that highlighted specific alternative candidates that the city wanted evaluated. Those are what the materials are responsive to. Again, those alternate sites were outside the Verizon Wireless search area and we’ve talked previously about the radio frequency reasons for why the search area needed to be where it was. But, nonetheless, we wanted to evaluate those alternatives and submit documentation for you to review in connection with those alternatives and I’d be pleased to take you through the submittal that the chairperson referenced.
If you flip to Tab W of that submittal, there it delineates the nine alternatives that Mr. Scalise, as staff for the city, asked us to review. So, if you flip to the propagation maps that we’ve discussed previously; it’s the third page of Tab W. There you see the existing AWS coverage and the vicinity of the project site with the gap in coverage circled there in red. And just as a point of clarification; this project is both to remedy a gap in coverage as well as to address capacity issues. I know there is some confusion regarding that point. That’s been our position since the May 15th application and if you look to Tab G of that May 15th application, there’s a clear section in that RF analysis regarding capacity and there’s also a clear section there regarding coverage. So again, this map that we’ve submitted with the most recent letter shows the gap in coverage in what we call the Hillcrest cell and to its right you see the proposed coverage on AWS frequency to be gained by the proposed Hillcrest site at an 86’ antenna centerline. I just want to underscore the height request. The antenna centerline is at 86’. The reason for the 100’ tower request is to accommodate some of the stealthing that’s associated with this particular project that we’re proposing and I can get into detail, what that stealthing is, as we move through the presentation. But, the centerline is at 86’ and that’s the radio frequency height that’s needed for the antennas to propagate their signal.
As you flip to the next page, we evaluated five locations in Bergman Park that were provided to us by Mr. Scalise. Per Madame Chair’s request at the prior hearings, we evaluated them at a height level that was beyond what would be acceptable from a radio frequency perspective, but for illustrious purposes we wanted to show the mapping at a 200’ antenna centerline so you can see there, hypothetical Bergman 1 at a 200’ antenna centerline and we still have a similar gap in coverage there in white. What’s showing in green is what would be obtained by that Berman Park 1 so we would not be satisfying the coverage and capacity objective with Bergman 1.
As you flip to Bergman 2, you see a similar gap in coverage there associated with that site. Again, we’re not achieving the RF objective at Bergman 2. Same deal, and I won’t belabor the point, with candidate Bergman 3, Bergman 4 and Bergman 5. Again, showing the gap in coverage and the capacity area that would not be addressed by the five hypothetical Bergman locations at a 200’ antenna centerline, which again, from the Verizon Wireless RF perspective is a height that’s too high to satisfy AWS objectives and to reach the users from that antenna centerline.
The next location that Mr. Scalise asked us to evaluate was a social security office location. There you can see the existing coverage with the gap in coverage area as well as the capacity area that we think is deficient from Patrick’s analysis. And then to the right, the hypothetical propagation mapping and the 200’ antenna center line. The next page is an office park location that was provided to us by Mr. Scalise. Again, we did the same analysis showing the propagation mapping at a 200’ antenna centerline from that location. The next location was also provided to us by Mr. Scalise and it was in the vicinity of Schutt’s Saw and again, there are gaps in coverage and there is a capacity deficient area relating from a hypothetical alternative location at that spot. And the next slide is a hypothetical location near the 7-11 that was also provided to us by Mr. Scalise for evaluation and there again, you see that we are not obtaining the RF objectives.
The next slide relates to a comment that was raised by two members of the Zoning Board of Appeals at the last hearing. There was a question about what was going to happen to the north of the proposed Hillcrest cell and how was that gap going to be filled in. We wanted to illustrate what we’re doing elsewhere in the greater Jamestown area and you can see we have a solution that the company is currently working on called Celoron South. And you can see the overlap between the Hillcrest cell and the Celoron South cell in pink there, really building out the network and addressing the coverage gap and the capacity issue in a seamless way to address that targeted coverage and capacity area there in the left that’s circled.
Based on comments received, again from the Zoning Board and from the public at prior hearings, there were also several statements about the call data or capacity data folks in the audience felt was deficient from our submittal, so the following two slides, if you keep flipping through Tab W, show connection data and you can see the upward trend which addresses the capacity concern that we have on the network in the area. Jamestown DT as we call it, is serving the Hillcrest cell currently and that sector is reaching max capacity and you can see that the daily connections are increasing and there have been certain times, since we started this project, we’re showing a map from July to the current, you can see there’s an upward trend there and you can see certain events where it’s peaking and reaching max capacity and bordering on overload and potential failure.
The next chart, again, is a scheduled eligible user chart and you can see the upward trend there just as we’ve been going through the application process here; this is a chart from July to the present showing peak events and also an upward trend evidencing the capacity issue that we’ve been discussing. So, those are some of the alternative sites that we’ve evaluated based on Mr. Scalise’s direction in a meeting that we had with staff. Before I proceed through the rest of the supplement, I’d be happy to pause and address any questions that the board has.
Mrs. Ditonto: Are there questions on the information so far?
Mr. Brenner: I’d also be glad to take questions at the end if that’s more appropriate.
Ms. Martinez: Is this tower then undersized then, no matter where you put it, it’s undersized to cut through the coverage? I mean, is there an add-on for a tower that would cover – I mean, you’re getting much better coverage down below, but it’s not getting that specific coverage within the red circles. Right?
Mr. Makubire: That’s correct.
Ms. Martinez: Okay. So, is there an add-on from anywhere that could be added on to be directional to that specific circle?
Mr. Makubire: Let me see if I understand your question. You mean, from the proposed alternative sites?
Ms. Martinez: From all of the alternative sites.
Mr. Makubire: Is there anything else we can add on to it?
Ms. Martinez: Would there be another directional something that you can add on.
Mr. Makubire: No. We just have three sectors.
Ms. Martinez: And this is the biggest tower that it can be?
Mr. Makubire: That’s correct.
Ms. Martinez: For a specific site in a city? Or a specific site anywhere?
Mr. Makubire: I guess what it is rule of thumb going forward due to interference issues with the network. We try to keep the towers as low as possible and at a height of anything below, really, 199’. And if you look across Upstate New York, most of our cell sites now that we’re building actually are less than 150’, would be the average.
Ms. Martinez: Except out in the country and places like that.
Mr. Makubire: Correct, but we’re actually lowering those too now. That way we’re as close to the user as possible, but in this case, this would be pretty high for an urban are like this to get a 200’ –
Ms. Martinez: Well, I’m not even talking about height as much as I am directional. So, are we at the point that it really can’t be some kind of a directional, that’s outside the area that you’re talking about; the Hillcrest area. Something that’s directional that still covers it with no add-on, that’s what I’m saying.
Mr. Makubire: That’s correct.
Ms. Martinez: Okay. So, is this a tower that actually is receiving signals from 360 degrees?
Mr. Makubire: Correct. The southside has actually three sectors, but you may have four; Alpha, Gamma and Beta, which is the norm, but if you needed a fourth sector you could add it, but in this case, it still wouldn’t help because the distance, the antenna and basically the (inaudible) So, even adding one sector would not help facilitate the coverage gap to the north. Because I actually have the alpha sector actually pointed to the north.
Ms. Martinez: And it still doesn’t pick up the signals?
Mr. Makubire: Absolutely does not.
Ms. Martinez: It does pick up signals, but it doesn’t pick them up clearly and make sure that they stay or it doesn’t pick up anybody’s signal. If I drive up there with a Verizon phone, I’m not going to get any coverage there?
Mr. Makubire: No, you will get coverage, but it’s fairly weak. You’re going to get at least -125 to begin with. 115 to -125 which is very weak.
Ms. Martinez: Well I’ve driven through the mountains of West Virginia and North Carolina with my former phone with Verizon and having full coverage. I can’t understand why…
Mr. Makubire: Right. This is the thing; with the cell phone, it might show full bars, but if you actually want to look at the extra signal strength by going into your phone setting. That will actually give you a unit of what your signal strength is. You may see all the full bars, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve got full signal strength. But in rural areas, usually you’re only going to say very suburban to rural areas, you want a signal strength of about 1 to 5. In this area that we’re trying to focus on right now, it’s negative 115 to 125 and I think I do have that in exhibits too. So, you might see three or four bars there, but having not necessarily you do have signal.
Ms. Martinez: The only place I’ve had problems is in the mountains of Vermont.
Ms. Sandson: Yes. I have Verizon too and have never had connection problems.
Mrs. Ditonto: Are there other questions on the section with the documents so far? Before we go to the next section? I just had a couple of questions. Actually, a comment first; I think, Mr. Brenner you said that I had requested that you rate it at 200’. I just said if there was a low-lying area at Bergman you might have to go up higher, like up to 200’.
Mr. Brenner: Yes. So, we propagated the maximum height possible.
Mrs. Ditonto: My question is, would it help if it was any lower in that area to get that northern coverage? If it was less than 200’, more than 100’, which you’re proposing in that residential area, could you cover any of this northern sector that is not covered in any of these alternatives?
Mr. Makubire: Could you repeat that?
Mrs. Ditonto: Yes. I think in the display of the 200’ ACL and that was because we had said you could go up to 200’ if you were in a commercial area possibly. Would it help any if the cell tower was lower than that to address that northern area that you now say does not get adequate coverage in the alternatives?
Mr. Makubire: No, it would not.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. As probably the people in the audience know and the board knows, the northern area is actually an area very light density in terms of people. If you’re looking at the park and that area going into Busti and the outlying area. My question is concerning some of the documentation you provided on how you are almost at capacity. I think it’s on your Jamestown DT sector; capacity issues. Can you give us a little bit more detail on dropped calls, people who have complained that they have no 911 access? That’s all information that we feel is vital to this. If there are people in this sector that have complained that they can’t get service, I think that’s one of the needs that we need to address.
Mr. Brenner: I can answer that. From our perspective, and we’ve done this throughout Upstate New York and the company does this nationwide. We’re relying on these charts and this data to be proactive. We don’t want it to get to a point where folks are calling and saying I can’t make an emergency services call or a 911 call. As an FCC licensed provider, we have a duty to make sure that the network operates and that folks can place phone calls without interruption. So, the company uses metrics, such as the ones that we submitted, to be proactive and to get out in front of those issues. So, the point’s well taken and I think, and Patrick can correct me if I’m wrong, but these are indications that the company uses and that the RF team uses when it has its meetings to say this sector’s failing or this is a problematic area and from what I’ve been told, the Jamestown Downtown Sector is one of the most urgent sectors in Upstate New York that needs to be addressed. It’s in real danger of failing.
Mrs. Ditonto: And I think you addressed that in November; about some of the changes you were making in other towers because of capacity and coverage issues. So, the information that you provided in these graphs; there are some peaks that look like they’re reaching the top of the chart, but what we can’t tell is; what time of day, how many weeks, how many days is that? It peaks. Is it at 12 noon? Once a day? I guess we need a little bit more information. Can you interpret that for us?
Mr. Makubire: Sure. Basically, as I say, this is an average schedule. This is basically an average taken between the month of July up until December. It also encapsulates the busiest hours which are usually between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm and also lunchtimes. And it averages that. And if you look at it, that average is actually trending upward. So, it’s all taken into consideration.
Mrs. Ditonto: So at least two times a day, you would say that the sector, that Jamestown DT sector, is actually maximizing.
Mr. Makubire: Not necessarily. You may have festivals going on. It depends. That’s way it’s an average. All locations are taken in perspective and times. Everything is taken into consideration. And it’s generated using NPT to generate the graph.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you for that. And then, you also presented us information on a proposed Celoron South. I don’t think we talked about that in November. We talked about some other capacity and coverage improvements. Can you tell us where Celoron South is going to be? We can see that in the pink it’s got some coverage there, but where is that tower going to be?
Mr. Makubire: I think actually we did speak about it when I mentioned the small cell along…
Mrs. Ditonto: The one near Sams Club?
Mr. Makubire: Exactly.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. So that’s what that…
Mr. Makubire: Correct. To the north of…
Mr. Brenner: And you had also asked, Madame Chair, that when we come back we make sure that you have the latest propagation mapping reflecting all upgrades that have been performed so there have been certain upgrades that have been performed since we started speaking about this and the coverage maps that you have in front of you reflect those upgrades coming online.
Mrs. Ditonto: So, Celoron is active now?
Mr. Brenner: Celoron is not active. It’s proposed to be active so we’re showing that with the hypothetical Hillcrest propagation showing you how we’re filling in that gap in coverage and capacity overlay.
Mrs. Ditonto: And can you tell us what the timeframe is for Celoron cell?
Mr. Makubire: Yes. As we speak, we’re actually working on trying to get it up I believe during the third or fourth quarter of this year. If everything goes to its plan. It’s a 2018 cell site.
Ms. Martinez: Especially with the new hotel in that area and everything else coming up.
MR. Makubire: Correct.
Mrs. Ditonto: I think in answer to my question about specific call drops and 911 issues, you can’t answer that based on this information. That’s something that you don’t get from your records or you don’t care to divulge? I’m not sure.
Mr. Makubire: That would be correct, ma’am.
Mr. Brenner: And again, these are the metrics that the company uses throughout Upstate New York as planning tools and we’ve been using them in many communities that we’ve done zoning and land use applications in. And they really go to the company’s network design and understand that the zoning board and members of the public may disagree with the way Verizon’s designing its network, but there are certain criteria under the Public Utility Law and the standards that afford public utilities relaxed zoning treatment and specific standards as to how zoning approvals are to be administered and approved.
Mrs. Ditonto: We’re aware of those, we just wanted more information in order to make a decision. And if we had many of your Verizon customers telling us that they live in this Hillcrest cell and they were not able to get service, or you could tell us that, that would certainly be dramatically important to us.
Mr. Brenner: Understood. And again, we’re relying on these documents; this sector, some of the information is proprietary to the extent we’re not going to share the number of calls that have been dropped, but I’ll say again for the record, that these two documents are the planning tools that we use; the Jamestown DT sector from a company perspective is overloaded and failing. I can say that affirmatively as part of your decision-making process and represent that that sector is failing and there are calls that are dropping.
Ms. Martinez: And there’s nothing in the future that’s coming along that’s going to take care of this with maybe a bigger cost for you guys to buy originally?
Mr. Brenner: No and quite frankly, and I discussed this with Corporation Counsel, this particular project, as it’s proposed, and I’ll talk to the revision in a moment; it’s one of the most costly projects Verizon Wireless is proposing anywhere in Upstate New York. This isn’t an inexpensive project by any means. This isn’t a project that doesn’t have all of the bells and whistles that are possible to stealth it and to screen it and to make it tolerable to all the folks in the area that have voiced their concerns. This is a very, very expensive project for Verizon and its multitudes more expensive than a standard cell tower project.
Mrs. Ditonto: Would you like to go on to the next tab?
Mr. Brenner: Sure. Tab X is a letter that we’ve submitted from Techtonic, who is the site acquisition consultant working on this project, and that dovetails with what’s behind Tabs Y and Z, so if the board doesn’t mind, I’ll explain all three together. Since we last met with the zoning board, we spoke with the church to get clear authorization from them on alternative locations on their property, where the project could be moved to and the reason for reaching out to the church, really was a result of the zoning board’s feedback and comment as well as comments that were received by members of the public at the prior two public hearings. There were several folks that had indicated that the project, to the extent it was possible, should be moved further away from Summit Avenue, further into the woods. The church had initially pushed back and said that from their perspective, they wanted the project to be in the location that it was originally approved by the church board. In our discussions with the church, we indicated that this type of process is really – it’s a balancing process with the city and the zoning board and the community and the church understood that and wanted to be a good neighbor and the church board agreed to a hypothetical relocation of the project to the extent that it’s preferable to the zoning board, to the location that you can see behind Tab Y. In that effect of what the church board approved, pulls the tower site itself approximately 200’ to the south and further away from the residences. And you can see there the proposed 50’x50’ leased area in dark gray is intended to be tucked about 60-70% into the trees, which was a request of one of the neighbors. We can also, to the extent that it’s preferable to the neighborhood and to the board, we can also work with the church to ensure that maintenance vehicles and any Verizon personnel that would be visiting the tower would use the church parking lot and the entrance off of Hallock because I know there’s been some concern about the driveway off of Summit. That came up at the last public hearing. So, in connection with the revised location, we could minimize access off of Summit and have Verizon maintenance vehicles and personnel access the site off of Hallock. And just to give some color to those visits, Verizon personnel would only be visiting the site every one to two months; typically, even if that frequently, so there’s not going to be routine visits to the site. They just check on it to make sure that everything’s operating appropriately.
Ms. Martinez: Will they check on it with big trucks?
Mr. Brenner: No, it would be a maintenance vehicle like a pickup truck or a minivan size vehicle. So, again, we’re proposing to the extent that’s it’s preferable to the city, to staff and to the board, a revised location approximately 200’ south of the residences along Summit and tucked into the trees. If you flip to Tab Z, you can see there on that first color page, an arrow showing the site location. Previously it was closer to Summit Avenue. If you split the difference between that site arrow and Summit Avenue itself, we’re about I want to say, between two and two and a half times a greater distance away from Summit Avenue. Photo 1 shows the existing conditions. Photo 2 shows a standard Verizon Wireless tower just to give a contextual basis for the project that we would typically propose and then as I had indicated, this project is significantly more costly, what we’re proposing in the third photo and what’s been approved by the church board, is a fully stealthed monopine tree. It’s what we came in with originally. I knew there was some hesitation on the part of the board when we discussed the bell tower concept. The church also was concerned about that and its capability with the neighborhood. The church was concerned about what a bell tower would look like and how it would be perceived by the neighbors so they actually pushed us to stick with the tree design, but the concession that Verizon Wireless has made is they’ve substantially increased the amount of branching on the proposed monopine tree and it’s significantly closer to the base of the tower than was originally proposed. And that’s at significant expense. The branching itself, from what I understand, per foot is in excess of $1000.00 or $2000.00 per foot of branching, so they’ve extended that by about 20’-30’ to address some of the neighbor concerns. We’ve also proposed a board-on-board fence to be consistent with residential treatment in the area rather than a chain link that we would typically do to the extent that the board would find it more appropriate to have an increased height in fence, we can certainly talk to the church about that to further shield that equipment. But again, that is one of the most stealthed and visually compatible designs that we can produce. And we did that, again, in concert with the resident concerns and the requirements of the city zoning ordinance that talks about making sure a project is compatible with the areas that they’re proposed. And I understand that there’s a prohibition on wireless telecommunications towers outside of commercial and manufacturing districts in the city and that’s why we’re here before you, but in looking at the city zoning map and discussing with staff to make sure that the city is appropriately covered and there’s adequate public utility service in the city, facilities are needed outside commercial and manufacturing districts. If you look at the zoning map, and I brought a copy with me today, the entire area that we’re looking at where there’s coverage deficiencies is residential and there’s good reason for that because the network’s being taxed by residential users and we tried to find a site location while in a residential area that was somewhat commercial in nature and would minimize the impact of the facility.
Mrs. Ditonto: Questions on this section? No questions? Your comment, Mr. Brenner, about using the driveway off of Hallock, is that for the vehicles that would be building this site as well?
Mr. Brenner: It would be relatively difficult to limit access to Hallock for construction, but to the extent that that’s a significant issue for the city and you wanted to condition a use variance on that, that’s something that we would need to work with the church and the construction team on complying with. I think it would create a practical hardship for Verizon Wireless, but to the extent that that’s a condition that you would want to impose, that’s certainly your prerogative.
Mrs. Ditonto: I think there was a concern expressed at the last meeting about having to use that after the road had been rebuilt recently and additional drainage and would any trees be needed to be removed in order to get to that site from Summit.
Mr. Brenner: We wouldn’t be proposing any tree removal or any improvement to that existing access roadway and we had submitted a supplement in our October 20 submission regarding impacts on drainage. It’s exhibit T and at that time, we had a professional engineer evaluate potential impacts associated with the project on the Hillcrest Baptist Church property. The conclusion of that study was that it would actually improve drainage measures based on some swales and things would be installed in connection with the project.
Mrs. Ditonto: And that’s still valid although you moved this.
Mr. Brenner: Correct. It is. We asked him.
Mrs. Ditonto: You moved that.
Mr. Brenner: The design engineer that is proposing the revised location is also the same design engineer that offered that drainage letter. He confirmed that the net effect on drainage would be the same.
Mrs. Ditonto: any other questions?
Mr. Olson: Marilyn, if a condition was put on regarding damage that was done to the street, would they be liable for that?
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: Well, they’d be liable for that anyway if any of the work that they did damaged the street. Just like any other utility that comes into the city and causes damage to the streets. They would have to repair that.
Mrs. Ditonto: Any other questions at this point? Well open it up for public comment then. Again, members of the public must address the petition request specifically. Please state your name and home address, limit your remarks to five minutes. You can go to either of the microphones on either side of the room.
Mr. Wilfong: I’m Dave Wilfong. I live at 39 Norton Avenue, city of Jamestown. I certainly do appreciate the hard work that Nixon Peabody has done for the Baptist church on the corner. And I do understand the revenue that the church would be getting, but I, my wife and our neighbors, we do not want a cell tower in our neighborhood. We purchased our houses in a residential neighborhood and we do not want it. I don’t care if it looks like a tree or it looks like a regular cell tower. Individuals come to this town just like these gentlemen, and I’m not knocking them, they’re going to come, they’re going to drop this on it and myself and the other property owners that are here are going to have to live with this decision. We come here today to get your opinion. We really trust what you’re going to be doing and we want to make sure that you represent us properly when it comes to building cell towers in residential areas. I’m sure you’re going to hear some other people in my neighborhood that they’re going to say that they don’t want it either. So, I hope you’re going to do the right thing by the people that pay taxes, that have invested their lives in their homes. This is the most expensive thing we’ll ever purchase is our home and all of the sudden we’re going to have to look at a cell tower. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wilfong: Hi, my name is Elizabeth Wilfong and I live at 39 Norton Avenue in Jamestown. First of all, I want to say I lived in that house a long time and we have a Verizon cell phone and an AT&T cell phone and never have any dropped calls or data. So, we really don’t have any trouble. What I am concerned about in the residential neighborhood, are the health risks that that can produce by having a cell tower in our neighborhood, with residents, with children, with elderly, with us. I’m not going to go into the health risks because it’s very depressing, but I just think in a residential area you have to consider that. And another issue that I’m worried about; we let Verizon put their cell tower there, then other companies are going to – AT&T can pay Verizon rent to put their equipment up and numerous other companies can come, they pay them rent, they pay the church rent. It’s a money-grab. So, now you’re not only dealing with the Verizon cell tower, you can have several companies with their equipment on that same tower. And that’s another concern that I have. But, mostly I’ve been researching and reading this and really the health risk in a residential area and there’s a daycare, preschool, right at Hillcrest. There’s children in that area and we’re already exposed to enough and that really is a concern as a resident. Thank you.
Ms. Carrubba: I’m Marie Carrubba. I live at 19 Widrig Avenue and I represent the Fourth Ward. I’ll remind you that we submitted a petition with over 60 names of individuals who live in that area, are homeowner or renters and they agree, they do not want the cell tower in our neighborhood. I’m concerned, it is one of the nicest areas of the city, it’s well maintained, we have very few properties that are a problem and the fact that once you agree to this, if it’s agreed to, where else will they want to put these in residential areas of the city. It’s a domino effect and it will, I’m sure, they’ll find other reasons why there are areas that need cell tower coverage and they’ll try basing it on this, you’ve agreed to it here now you’re going to have to agree to it somewhere else. The other issue that I’ve raised is that there is a drainage issue. And I don’t care what you’ve said. Until you’ve been on Newland Avenue, which abuts with the Hillcrest property, there are neighbors there who have water up to their knees in their backyards and that’s been an ongoing issue. They can talk to you. And there is actually one neighbor who owns a lot of the property going back into the woods and abutting Hillcrest that thinks this may actually be on his property. And I’m not sure who was asking the questions about that as well, if this is actually on Hillcrest property or his property since he owns all the woods going back. I think it’s a disservice to the neighbors on Summit who have very well-maintained properties. I know people will say that it will not devalue their property, but I’m sure when they try to sell their homes and someone is looking at one of these stealth trees, it’s going to detract and people are going to say I like your house, but I don’t like what I have to look at either out my back door or out my front door. The neighbors there are very legitimately concerned. You brought up the issue of the street which was just rebuilt at a great expense to the city to try to address some of the drainage issues on Summit. To see that work deteriorate or be affected or impacted by anything going on with this construction of this cell tower, would be a real shame. And I know the traffic on Hallock with the kids in school, the kids walking, have concerns about the construction going on during that time period and again, I just don’t see this being done in a residential neighborhood and I think it’s a really bad precedent to set to put it in the area. And I agree, I have Verizon as well and haven’t had issues with it, have not had any calls or concerns from any constituents other than we do not want this cell tower in our neighborhood, please don’t let them do that. Thank you.
Mr. Carver: Good afternoon, Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is Donald Carver and I reside at 210 Pennsylvania Avenue on the west side of the city. I would like to support Mr. and Mrs. Wilfong. They put it very well as far as my feelings are concerned. My main concern is the strategic position of the city of Jamestown with respect to its R-1 zoning. I know that’s been mentioned already. I think it’s a very poor move to breach the contract between the city of Jamestown and all of those persons who have invested countless amounts of money in their R-1 homes. The petition to install a 100’ cell phone tower disguised as a giant tree in our neighborhood should be defeated. The neighborhood to be used by the telecommunications companies is zoned R-1 single family residential. Cell phone towers are not permitted in R-1 zones. Residents of R-1 zones invested in their homes with the understanding that R-1 zoning means what it says. Actions in violation are a breach of trust between the city and its residents. It seems to me that the mayor and the city council members have a responsibility to stand strongly in support of the residents who are being affected. And I trust they do. In truth, Jamestown cannot afford to allow any devaluation of its R-1 single family residential housing that would tend to discourage new construction or encourage residents already invested to get out before their home values drop. And that’s exactly what will happen if that 100’ cell tower tree is located adjacent to 40 Hallock Street. It’s the responsibility of the telecommunications companies to find a location that does not violate our zoning laws. Not to try to change them. My family lives near to the area in question. I stand with those residents directly affected; such as the Wilfongs and I am opposed to this petition. Thank you.
Mr. Kirsch: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Kirsch, 200 Summit Avenue in the city. I would like to respond to part of the supplemental application that was submitted; a letter submitted March 1st from Techtonic regarding the relocated Hillcrest site. In the letter, it was stated that the new site was landlocked and therefore became an infeasible property. The maps show that that property really is not landlocked if you consider that Hillcrest Baptist parking lot part of that frontage. And my question would be, if that property is infeasible, what would make the original property more feasible since it was surrounded 100% by trees. All the other evaluated sites seem to indicate that they are also infeasible for a number of reasons. But, what hasn’t really been answered here then is if all of these sites are infeasible, what site is the feasible site and which site are we really looking at focusing on. It was mentioned that the access road off of Summit Avenue would not be required, but there would still need to be some improvements made to that road. As you know, the city spent most of the summer reconstructing Summit Avenue with drainage and reprofiling and reprofiling of the adjacent land around it and even with all that reconstruction, if you combine, on a day like today, with all the snow melt coming down from the church lot comes right down that driveway, right across to the frontage of my house. That whole corner from Ohio Street past the driveway becomes a skating rink and it has a thin film of ice on it that lasts as long as the temperature is below 32 degrees. By widening that road to 30’, it essentially doubles the amount of square footage that that water is going to be coming down, just impacting that even more. Regardless, the fact remains that this is still a residential district and the petitioner is requesting a 100’ tower and just relocating that site from the original Hillcrest site to this relocated Hillcrest site, doesn’t really mitigate any of the original problem was that this is an R-1 and the tower is higher than allowed by the city. Everything and the proposals to it regarding coverage is considered hypothetical and I understand that word, hypothetical, but in my opinion, hypothetical also means manipulatable and I think you can make a hypothetical show anything that you want it to show. And all of these hypotheticals show that no site is appropriate; except for that original Hillcrest site which has additional data from the Celoron and the other new sites which are not included in the other coverage maps. I just think there are way too many questions left to be answered before anything moves forward. Thank you.
Mr. Coulter: Good evening. I’m Bill Coulter. I live at 125 Ellis Avenue, just off of Third Street. During the discussion, you guys were talking about Celoron South tower and after he talked about that he was saying in the discussion that it wasn’t even operational now.
Mrs. Ditonto: That’s what the Verizon rep has told us. It is not operational yet.
Mr. Coulter: Yes. And is it hypothetical that if that tower is a strong tower, it must go – what’s the radius of this thing that you can serve? Is it ten miles? You have to have a tower every ten miles, every five miles?
Mrs. Ditonto: Let’s see if I can get that question answered Mr. Coulter after your statement.
Mr. Coulter: It’s a technical thing. I’m not sure that the waves bend around the curve of the earth or go straight. Because it seems that the Hillcrest site it’s like it’s at the top, top, top, top of the hill; probably a pretty good place to put it if the rays go straight. But maybe if they bend a bit, maybe Celoron South… and the other one is the Celoron South the one that exists on Livingston Avenue? Right by the Carrier Coach place, I’m just wondering if there’s a tower there and I’m wondering if that is the Celoron South tower.
Mrs. Ditonto: I’ll get confirmation on that for you.
Mr. Coulter: Thank you.
Mr. Olson: Guy Olson, 104 Summit Avenue. I agree with what everybody else has said and do not want a tower up on the top of the hill there. It’s going to ruin a beautiful wooded area. There’s a playground there, there’s a lot of wildlife and a tower would just be totally ugly and would ruin the area and no matter what you do, it is not going to look like a tree. It’s ridiculous. It’s stupid to even consider. So, that’s my opinion. Don’t allow it. Thank you.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this? If not, I would try to clarify the question that was raised by the resident about the Celoron tower. Apparently, there are two, one on Livingston Avenue; that’s an existing tower and then one that’s proposed. Is that correct?
Mr. Makubire: Celoron was actually an existing tower that we would actually look to collocate.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. So, that is an existing tower. Is that the tower on Livingston Avenue as the resident had asked?
Mr. Makubire: I’m not (inaudible)
Mrs. Ditonto: So, it’s an existing tower that you just plan to add hardware to.
Mr. Brenner: It’s an existing – correct. Verizon Wireless does not have a facility on right now. And just to answer some of the other questions that were raised. Regarding property values, we submitted documentation indicating that there would be no adverse effect on property values in our October 20 submission and I know we discussed that previously. And to the extent that there were concerns about impacts on property values, I’d argue that the proposed alternate location relocated on the church property 200’ to the south would further mitigate any adverse potential impacts on property values even though we don’t think there are any and we submitted an article in the American Bar Association regarding property values. Regarding health risks, we submitted in our original application of May 15, an emission study and I know we’ve discussed that previously. The federal government, the FCC regulates emissions, but not withstanding that, we submitted documentation confirming that there are no health risks posed by this facility and that is in Tab Q of the May 15th submission.
Regarding the precedential effect of granting a use variance for this facility; I would defer to Corporation Counsel on that, but I would argue that there is no precedential effect. Each application should be considered on its own merits in the context of public utility use and area variance, there is no precedent. There are very different standards that apply to public utilities in the state of New York then under traditional town, village or city law regarding variety use and area variance applications. I didn’t know if you were…
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: The board is probably aware that each application, the fact that you, if the board were to grant this, would not set any precedent at any other location. It could be argued a petitioner, but that doesn’t mean that the board has to give that any more weight or credibility than any other argument that a petitioner would raise on any other application.
Ms. Calanni: So, what is our obligation under the FCC rules?
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: Well, the FCC has ruled, as well as the New York State Court of Appeals has ruled that cellular providers are treated as public utilities and so as a public utility, if they show that there is a coverage gap, then that’s something that the board has to take into consideration and the usual questions with respect to hardship; they are exempt from those questions because of their status as a public utility. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the board has to make a decision based on that alone, but they have to take that in consideration whereas another commercial business would come in and the question would be put to them with respect to hardship and whether or not the hardship was self-created. Those are not questions that can be put in this context because of their status as a public utility.
Mr. Brenner: Three more points that I wanted to hit on that were raised during the course of the public hearing. Regarding the monopine versus a traditional monopole tower; if it’s preferential to residents and to the board, we can certainly construct a monopole tower. The church had indicated that a monopine is preferable from their perspective because they think it’s more consistent with the neighborhood and we tend to agree, that’s why we proposed it. But, it’s at significant expense for Verizon Wireless, so if that’s not perceived as an appropriate visual measure, we can certainly build something else.
Regarding colocation, it’s relatively difficult to collocate on a monopine tower, so the notion of their being five or six carriers; there aren’t even that many in Upstate New York, but I wouldn’t envision there being more than one or two co-locators potentially, if any, on this tower because of the fact that it’s a stealthed tree.
Regarding impacts on roads and the newly constructed portion of Summit Avenue and the improvements; we can certainly post a bond for any damage to roads during construction if that’s deemed appropriate by Corporation Counsel and the board. And again, I know that there’s public opposition and comment regarding this project. I would just urge the board to consider the public utility standard as Corporation Counsel laid it out. There are court cases in the context of wireless telecommunications that indicate that community opposition alone is not an appropriate factor to consider for denying a public utility application for wireless telecommunications facility.
Mrs. Ditonto: Thank you Mr. Brenner for that refresher. I think you did mention that there could be colocation at one of our earlier sessions. So, it may not be four or six, but you would plan colocation in order to make profit on that.
Mr. Brenner: No. And we’re not planning anything. And to the extent that the board doesn’t find it to be appropriate you can condition your use variance and indicate that there shouldn’t be colocation. This isn’t a profit gain. This isn’t a measure where we’re building a tower out of speculation, we’re building it for a demonstrated Verizon Wireless public utility need, so to the extent that you would want to limit or prohibit colocation, that would be a condition that Verizon would have to comply with.
Mrs. Ditonto: Could we go back to the hypotheticals because part of our concern is to make sure that all the alternatives have been fully reviewed. And if you look at the Bergman – I’m looking at Bergman 1, Bergman 2, I guess it doesn’t really matter because it doesn’t look like there’s much variance in terms of where you suggested, where those towers would be. But, if you look at the Celoron South pink section, and put that up against any of those Bergman 1, 2, 3, you will see that you have maximized coverage. If you put a tower at Bergman and have Celoron become active, you will have covered, substantially, the Hillcrest.
Mr. Brenner: No, there’s still a gap that’s left and I can state –
Mrs. Ditonto: Well, tell me where that gap is, because I’m having trouble. I’m having trouble in seeing where it’s a significant gap.
Mr. Brenner: We have done that study and to the extent that the board feels like it’s appropriate to have them, we’ll certainly submit them. We have them with us today.
Mrs. Ditonto: Oh, you do have them?
Mr. Brenner: We’d be glad – yes, we provided the overlays, Celoron South for the proposed, but we’ve done that analysis to the extent you’d like to see it, we’re happy to share it.
Mrs. Ditonto: Because what we’re looking at is a separate on for Bergman and a separate one where you put Hillcrest and Celoron, but not where you had put Bergman and Celoron. And I guess while you’re looking for that, can you tell us how far apart you checked the tower structure possibilities in Bergman? Did you go in a small circle? Were they 50’ apart?
Mr. Brenner: We propagated from the locations provided by staff and I can provide this map. This was marked up by staff at our meeting. We essentially propagated at the perimeter of the park because staff’s perspective on locating a tower in the middle of the ball fields they didn’t think it was appropriate and would have adverse impacts on the park. So, we’ve got locations marked in the four corners.
Mrs. Ditonto: And in the last meeting, we talked about how important it was in terms of height of the ground level. Was that the highest ground point where you…
Mr. Brenner: Yes. There were a variety of topographic – there were differing topographic elevations that were selected for the four locations. I can provide this map to the extent that you’d like to see it.
Mrs. Ditonto: That would be helpful because as you know, the zoning board is the one that has to make the decision, so…
Mr. Brenner: Absolutely. And maybe staff can clarify for the board what we were asked to look at.
Ms. Sandson: With Bergman Park, even if you take the hypothetical, the 7-11 and the Celoron, it would cover the entire gap.
Mr. Brenner: It still leaves a gap.
Mrs. Ditonto: Did you mark up…
Mr. Scalise: We were. As a group…
Ms. Sandson: But not as dramatic as the gap that you’re showing.
Mr. Brenner: That’s correct. But it still leaves a gap.
Ms. Sandson: When I take this all apart and compare them apples to apples…
Ms. Martinez: It doesn’t leave a gap inside the red circle.
Ms. Sandson: It doesn’t leave a gap inside the red circle where you’re focusing so on the red circle, where the pink comes in, take the 7-11, it would actually cover the hypothetical 7-11 gap.
Mrs. Ditonto: We just want to see that overlay together so we can see…
Mr. Brenner: I’d be happy to submit those.
Mrs. Ditonto: And again, as we reviewed in November, there were some other improvements being made, Patrick, I think you told us at Jamestown, the Downtown tower, I think it’s on the Furniture Mart Building and some others that…
Mr. Makubire: Jamestown Downtown is here.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. Here, that you were making some improvements in terms of equipment. Have those improvements been completed?
Mr. Makubire: Yes ma’am. We added AWS3 which is another spectrum that we added and the next improvement will be 850 LTE. That’s coming up sometime this year.
Mrs. Ditonto: Just on this tower here, at City Hall.
Mr. Makubire: Correct. This is Jamestown Downtown, correct.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay, so any other towers that will be getting improvements?
Mr. Makubire: Yes. Then we have Jamestown South. It was only a two-sector site. One sector facing north and the other facing south. We added a third sector. That sector actually faces to the east, so that was completed.
Mrs. Ditonto: Is that south tower the one on Orchard Road?
Mr. Makubire: It’s on…
Mr. Olson: Is it on Foote Avenue behind the auto body shop?
Mr. Makubire: It would be south of Jamestown Downtown.
Mrs. Ditonto: Along Foote Avenue, Route 60.
Mr. Makubire: Correct. Yes, Route 60.
Mrs. Ditonto: So that’s the one on Foote Avenue.
Mr. Makubire: Correct. The work on that was completed in December. So, that’s up and running.
Mrs. Ditonto: You’re going to have to just hold up a few minutes so we have a chance to look at this. So, since you did these new maps, with Celoron South and the alternatives, have the improvements that you made at Jamestown South and Jamestown DT, would they have taken some of the issues of capacity and coverage away that are now an issue for you in what you call the Hillcrest cell?
Mr. Makubire: Slightly. If you look at the schedule and the exhibits that were submitted, it’s still trending upward because –
Mrs. Ditonto: The traffic is trending upward?
Mr. Makubire: Absolutely.
Mrs. Ditonto: That’s not a surprise.
Mr. Makubire: So, if you look at the average scheduled user, which was from July to December and these projects were completed by the end of December, end of year, the trend’s showing that everything is trending upwards including our connections, the users…
Mrs. Ditonto: Even though Verizon has proprietary information it doesn’t want to release about dropped calls, can you at least give us some kind of an average number or increased number of users in that Hillcrest site? Say, from a year or two ago when you didn’t have capacity and coverage issues to now?
Mr. Makubire: That’s something that I would actually have to check if I can actually provide that. I did my research, the information provided is what I can provide.
Mr. Brenner: Maybe what he could talk about is based on your staff meetings, you could give some context for the board about the failing nature of the sector, visa vie everything else in Upstate New York and give some context about that.
Mrs. Ditonto: Or even for the other areas where there are towers in the Jamestown area. I think what I heard, I think Mr. Brenner said, that this DT area is one of the closest to failure in terms of over-capacity.
Mr. Makubire: Absolutely. It’s the fourth worst performing, last year, it was the fourth worst performing site in Upstate New York.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. And so that’s why you’ve now looked at the Celoron site and the improvements that you made here, at DT, as well as at South.
Mr. Makubire: Correct. That’s the reason we came up with these solutions, but they’re still not adequate enough. We still need to add another site and the Hillcrest site is the best solution in regards to improving Jamestown because of it’s proximity to the traffic. Most of the traffic is actually within a mile of Jamestown Downtown. So, in regards to relieving its capacity, we need a site close to our users and the Hillcrest site is the only site that can adequately do this.
Ms. Sandson: So, the Celoron site isn’t even active yet.
Mr. Makubire: No.
Ms. Sandson: When is that going to be active?
Mr. Brenner: Later this year.
Ms. Sandson: So, what is the radius of these towers?
Mr. Brenner: We’ve shown it on the propagation map.
Ms. Sandson: Right. Because I’m saying, how can you base Hillcrest as the sole solution without even having that tower active?
Mr. Brenner: Well we’ve shown the overlay of what that tower will provide. So, as the network planning is happening – the way the company builds its network and all providers build their network is, we think of it as a honeycomb grid. So, we’re essentially building the honeycomb nature of the network. So, Hillcrest is one solution to satisfy the issues that are related to Jamestown DT. Celoron South is another solution that is necessary and essential to the north. Those two solutions need to work hand in hand. One will never replace the other. And the mapping that we have from our working group meetings that the chair asked for that we’ve provided, shows that. And again, I just want to underscore the point; we’ve discussed this at prior meetings, that all of these alternatives that we are talking about, are outside of the original search area that was generated. Verizon develops a very technical search area based on it’s network data and its need. And the proposed locations that are studied are always limited within that search area. All of these alternatives that we’re discussing are well outside that search ring, but we’re doing it because we want to engage in a conversation with the board and help everyone understand the project and the need for the project, but all of these alternatives from our perspective are well beyond even a potential gray area or are well beyond an area where we can even have “compromised service” these are just so far away and looking at a map, they don’t seem that way, but in radio frequency-speak and the company’s network design-speak, they’re so far outside the area that we just simply cannot make them work and it would create significant issues within the network and it essentially would undermine everything we’re trying to do with this proposed solution.
Mr. Olson: But you do have to understand you’re going into a residential neighborhood, correct?
Mr. Brenner: Understood. And that’s not abnormal –
Mr. Olson: And so, you have to understand that the individuals, whether it devalues their property or not, you still have to understand that you’re putting a commercial cell tower into an R-1 residential zone, correct?
Mr. Brenner: We absolutely understand that and that’s not even-
Mr. Olson: So, in the city looking at alternatives, obviously that was something that could and should be done to try to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors in that area and I think that’s why that area, such as Bergman Park, which I believe is not far from a height standpoint, equal to or greater than what the Hillcrest is on the top of Hallock Street. And so, I think that alternatives within that area were looked at because of that. Because they’re trying to alleviate it going in that residential area or if there are gaps in other parts of the city that you may be coming back and as Marilyn said, each property is unique. But, then looking at other residential areas, just because there’s gaps, I think you also have to consider that it’s a single-family residential area as well.
Mr. Brenner: Absolutely and we fully understand that. And that’s the reason why we’ve gone through an iterative approach with the church to try to pull the site further away from the residences in response to the comments. That’s why we’re proposing a fully stealthed facility that is significantly more expensive than the standard Verizon Wireless facility that we construct in Upstate New York, so we fully understand and recognize that we’re in a R-1 residential district and that’s not dissimilar to many of the projects that the company is now working on and proposing throughout Upstate New York with the proliferation of usage on cell networks, they need to be closer and closer to the users and we often find that we need facilities in residential areas because of that.
Mrs. Ditonto: And in the case of Jamestown we have in our zoning laws that there cannot be cell towers in residential neighborhoods. That was done, probably, with a lot of work by the city council at some point.
Mr. Brenner: Understood. And I shared with Corporation Counsel my opinion on the regulation. I suspect, and this is not dissimilar to regulations we’ve seen throughout Upstate New York. I suspect this was enacted after the 1996 Telecommunications Act first came out. And when there were prohibitions placed from a zoning district perspective in municipal ordinances, these were imposed at a time where maybe only one or two towers were needed to serve an entire community. And as the technology has evolved over the past 20, 25 years, there’s more and more facilities that are necessary and they’re in a variety of zoning districts throughout Upstate New York and in neighboring communities and many of the projects, as I mentioned, that we work on are in residential districts because we need to satisfy the FCC mandate that we provide adequate and reliable public utility service to our customers.
Mrs. Ditonto: That’s what we’re still trying to determine and we’re looking at these alternative sites because part of the responsibility that we have is that we have looked at all less-intrusive alternative sites with you so that we can see, is there some other option besides your original request. So, that’s why we’re taking the time to look at this, knowing that you didn’t really give us this information in advance, so it’s very difficult to do this.
Mr. Brenner: And the reason that we’ve provided that again is because we think that there are still gaps and what we didn’t provide was the overlay with Celoron South, but we did provide that with the proposed. But, as I mentioned, we’re happy to share those documents with you.
Ms. Sandson: I would really like to see a fair comparison, including with this Celoron tower because I’d like to see true overlays for this one, as you’ve shown here, with Hillcrest, I’d like to see the same overlap for the 7-11 and the Bergman Park.
Mr. Brenner: That’s what the Chair has.
Mrs. Ditonto: That’s what these are.
Ms. Calanni: In Verizon’s opinion, is it an all or nothing? All for Hillcrest, or you’ll continue to pursue that above the zoning board?
Mr. Brenner: We need a solution and the Hillcrest cell; from our perspective, we believe we’ve done everything we possibly can to study alternate sites, modify the project, move the project. We need a solution in this area and to the extent we need to pursue it elsewhere, we’re certainly willing to do that. We don’t want to do that, I’ve expressed that previously. We’re looking to work with the zoning board. We want to have a discussion with you instead of some other arbiter about what you think is appropriate for the neighborhood based on your expertise and to the extent that you’re unwilling to have those conversations and we have to go elsewhere, we can’t talk about the nitty-gritty based on your knowledge of Summit Avenue and the fact that it was recently improved and drainage measures and things like that. It would take away that ability so that’s why we’ve tried to go through this iterative approach and we’re willing to redesign the project as we’ve done, we’re willing to move it, we’re willing to build it to look like something else, whether it’s a monopole tower or a modified tree or a different colored tree. We’re certainly willing to have those discussions and we have been since we applied about eight months ago.
Mrs. Ditonto: And as we look at these alternatives, for instance, Bergman 5 with the Celoron overlay, there is some small white gaps in areas that I don’t know are intensely populated. Is that something that you could, again, do a little bit more work on and see if that would be relatively good as an alternative. It looks like it.
Mr. Brenner: From our perspective, we’ve looked at those maps and that’s the reason why Patrick had them with him and we spoke about them at length. From an RF network design perspective for Verizon Wireless, they simply do not work. So, there’s nothing else we can do. We’ve looked –
Mrs. Ditonto: Could you explain that a little bit or maybe Patrick or somebody else could. Explain what that means, that they don’t work. Because it looks like, with the coloration of the map, except for a small section, that’s still in white or yellow-ish white, that it covers most of it. So, can you explain.
Mr. Makubire: Basically, that area you’re looking at where that gap is actually has, like I mentioned before, it has very weak RF signal and the goal is to, first of all, the initial goal is to actually offload because they’re on the site. The second, we also provide coverage. Those alternative sites literally, when they serve that area, the signal is very weak because it’s at the edge of the cell. So, you’re not getting as strong a signal as you are with adding Hillcrest because of the –
Mrs. Ditonto: Are you getting a better signal than not having any tower at all like now?
Mr. Makubire: No. it’s weak.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. So, it’s weak now with no tower. If you add a tower in this Bergman 5 section and the Celoron tower came up, which is the pink, what about the RF then?
Mr. Makubire: It’s going to improve. It’s going to improve, but it’s not going to improve as much as we want it to with the Hillcrest site there because the Hillcrest site is closer to the traffic.
Mrs. Ditonto: I understand, but when you say it will improve, is it acceptable with that?
Mr. Makubire: Acceptable levels? I think it’s negative 106 to 110 because prior to that, the signal levels are at 115. So, there is some improvement.
Mrs. Ditonto: So, there would be some improvement?
Mr. Makubire: Correct.
Mrs. Ditonto: Based on just what you’re saying, with Celoron coming up and if you were at one of the Bergman sites.
Mr. Makubire. Absolutely. It’s going to improve, but it’s not going to basically improve as well as it would with the Hillcrest site. It’s not going to work.
Mrs. Ditonto: I understand that. And so, we’re looking at alternatives that might be somewhat of a condition where it’s not ideal but is it practical because it would not be in a residential neighborhood. It would still be in the city, it would be on city property; Bergman Park. Would that be an alternative that would work, maybe not ideally for an RF signal that you say would not be as strong as you desire, but would it be a working solution?
Mr. Makubire: It would not.
Mrs. Ditonto: It would not.
Mr. Makubire: No. it would not.
Mrs. Ditonto: So, you’re saying that Bergman and Celoron together are absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. Makubire: Absolutely unacceptable.
Ms. Calanni: So, Verizon would not pursue that if we, if the zoning board amended – I’m assuming you would not pursue those locations.
Mr. Brenner: No. And I’ve said this previously, and this isn’t the reason why they’re not being pursued, but as another layer to that, it would require alienation of parkland from the New York State Legislature –
Mrs. Ditonto: We understand that and we don’t really feel that’s our…
Mr. Brenner: That’s why I’ve raised it. We’re ruling them out from a radio frequency perspective.
Mrs. Ditonto: But, we’re looking at this and saying it looks like it’s a fair alternative.
Mr. Brenner: And from the RF Engineer’s perspective, he just indicated that it wasn’t. and I agree that we’re disagreeing on that point.
Mrs. Ditonto: And our job – is there a less intrusive alternative site. That’s what we have to go and look at. And thankfully you have provided some of that information to us. Other questions from members of the board? Anything further? No correspondence?
Mr. Thomas: We have not received any correspondence.
Mrs. Ditonto: We did receive the correspondence at our last meeting in November. We had a petition, correct?
Mr. Thomas: We did receive a petition. I don’t remember when, but we entered it into the record at that time.
Mrs. Ditonto: Okay. Thank you. At this point we would be looking for a motion and this is for both an area and a use variance. And because this is an issue that has taken up many, many meetings, we want to make sure that the motion is stated correctly so, if somebody is making a motion, please make sure that you state it fully so that we can review it. We do need a motion at some point on this agenda item.
Mr. Olson: Madame Chairman, I would move that the petition be denied. I believe that the information that they’ve provided, as you have just indicated, shows that there may be alternatives, while not perfect, but alternatives that would be acceptable. It would remove the structure from the residential area and I think we’re not looking at the drainage issues or anything like that, but just from a coverage standpoint, I believe that locating it in an alternative location, like you had just indicated, that the coverage would still be adequate in that area. So, I would move to deny it.
Mrs. Ditonto: The motion has been made by Mr. Olson. Is there a second to the motion?
Ms. Sandson: I’ll second the motion.
Mrs. Ditonto: Is there a question on the motion as stated? An aye vote would mean that you would be denying the area and use variance because the board, as the motion states, believes that there are alternatives that would be acceptable, although not ideal as we have been told.
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: I would just advise the board at this time. I believe that Mrs. Ditonto understands this, but not to affect your decision at all, but to let you know that if the decision of the board is to deny the petition, there actually has to be a written statement. So, that would have to be issued at some point and you would have notify the petitioner of when that decision would be provided.
Mr. Olson: Is the written petition outside of the minutes of the meeting or in the motion that was stated? What do you mean by written?
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: It has to be a written decision. And that’s been relayed to Mrs. Ditonto in the past and I think it was forwarded on to the board members as well in some email communication. I just want to remind the board of that.
Mr. Olson; Correct. I just didn’t know if it was outside of just the minutes of the meeting and the motion and the vote whatever that’s going to be. I didn’t know what outside – is that something that would be written by you or be from the board’s standpoint?
Ms. Fiore-Lehman: Drafted by a member of the board and then make sure that the board is in agreement with whatever the decision says and then it will be forwarded on to the petitioner.
Mrs. Ditonto: We have a motion and a second. Are there any other questions on the motion? Seeing none, will you call the roll?
Carried: 6 – 0
Mrs. Ditonto: Six to nothing. Thank you. At this point, we’ll send you the written response. We’ll have to get you a date as soon as we have time to get the minutes transcribed. Thank you very much.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Todd M. Thomas, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals