Loading...
UV30-2000 Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Charles A. McNulty, Secretary 192 Lake Parkway 14 Twicwood Lane Lake George, New York 12845 Queensbury, New York 12804 TO: SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. PROJECT FOR: SBA, Inc. 855 Central Avenue, Suite LL110 & Southwestern Bell Corp. Albany, NY 12206 The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Use Variance No. 30-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. Meeting Date: Thursday, April 20, 2000 Approved ___ Denied ___ Tabled __X_ Withdrawn ___ SEQRA Review ___ [Tabled: applicant has sixty (60 days) to come back with the application] MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000 SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For more information. The minimum information to be provided is an idea of whether or not the FAA would require a light on this tower, a representation of what this tower would look like from 149, from the Lake George RV Park perspective, for example, and any other information of an alternate size. The applicant has asked that it be on the agenda for the month of May. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes Sincerely, Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals LS/sh cc: Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq. Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Charles A. McNulty, Secretary 192 Lake Parkway 14 Twicwood Lane Lake George, New York 12845 Queensbury, New York 12804 TO: SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. PROJECT FOR: SBA, Inc. 855 Central Avenue, Suite LL110 & Southwestern Bell Corp. Albany, NY 12206 The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Use Variance No. 30-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. Meeting Date: Thursday, May 17, 2000 Approved ___ Denied ___ Tabled __X_ Withdrawn ___ SEQRA Review ___ [Tabled: applicant has sixty (60 days) to come back with the application] MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000, SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: For specific information regarding the apparent appearance of the tower as constructed, taken from the perspective of the Lake George RV Park, namely the driveway or what is considered to be the most obvious place on their property, in terms of visibility, and I would ask that the applicant work in conjunction with Mr. King, if he is so willing, to help site the camera, in terms of where he thinks it would be most visible. Mr. King has agreed to work with the applicant, and this would be on the agenda for next month. That the applicant prepare a statement with specific sites and owners contacted and conversations that were held with these people and their particular positions, and that the applicant has asked that it be on the agenda for the month of June, any information to be submitted by June 9th. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant Sincerely, Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals LS/sh cc: Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq. Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Charles A. McNulty, Secretary 192 Lake Parkway 14 Twicwood Lane Lake George, New York 12845 Queensbury, New York 12804 TO: SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. PROJECT FOR: SBA, Inc. 855 Central Avenue, Suite LL110 & Southwestern Bell Corp. Albany, NY 12206 The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Use Variance No. 30-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. Meeting Date: Thursday, June 15, 2000 Approved _X__ Denied ___ Tabled ___ Withdrawn ___ SEQRA Review ___ [Tabled: applicant has sixty (60 days) to come back with the application] MOTION THAT UPON REVIEW OF LONG FORM SEQRA PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT, WE FIND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND THEREFORE WE ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN TERMS OF THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000, SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 61 State Route 149. Applicant proposes installation of a 195 foot tall wireless telephone tower, and is seeking relief for the construction of a nonconforming use, specifically the applicant requests relief from the allowable uses as outlined in the Rural Residential zone, Section 179-15. In considering the approval of this variance, we’re considering four factors. First, can the page 1 of 2 continued resolution: UV 30-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. ZBA Meeting: Wed., June 15, 2000 applicant realize a reasonable return provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. This standard, when addressing public utilities, has been modified to consider safe and adequate service rather than reasonable return, a test of public necessity rather than unnecessary hardship where an entity requesting a Use Variance is a public utility, and this was established in the matter of Consolidated Edison vs. Hoffman, and I believe that the applicant has shown to us that there is a public necessity for improved coverage in the area in question. Number Two, is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? While the hardship may not be unique to this particular property, it is unique to this portion of Town because of the Town laws restricting the construction of cell towers to just Light Industrial areas, and there is no Light Industrial area anywhere near this part of Town. Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action, since there are currently no structures with features or this configuration in the immediate area. However, given that a fair share of the tower will be screened by the natural trees existing in the area, I think probably the impact certainly would be no more than moderate, and perhaps minimal, and finally is the alleged hardship self-created, I would suggest that it is not self-created, in that the applicant is simply responding to the demand of the public for good service that’s provided by the applicant. For these reasons, I move approval of this Use Variance. In dealing with whether the variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, in assessing the impact being minimal to moderate, it’s the understanding of this Board that the tower will not be lighted unless, at some point, the FAA requires it to be so, but it is our understanding, and the expectation of the applicant, that it will not be lighted. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2000, by the following: AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes Sincerely, Lewis N. Stone, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals LS/sh cc: Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq. page 2 of 2