Town of Olive August 2, 2001 Meeting

Minutes of a Public Hearing of the Town Board of the Town of Olive held Thursday, August 2, 2001, 7:30 pm at the Town Meeting Hall in Shokan, NY. The purpose of the Public Hearing as stated in the legal notice is to hear all in favor of or those opposed to the Masterpage Communications, Inc., application for a special permit to construct a Wireless Telecommunication Tower on South Mountain. Said tower shall be 142 feet in height. An exemption from the Town zoning law maximum height of 35 feet must be granted. An exemption from the minimum setback from a boundary line must be granted. The property owner upon which the tower will be constructed is Susan Desanna.

Members Present:	Berndt Leifeld, Supervisor
	Cindy Johansen, Council Member
	Helen Chase, Council Member
	Bruce La Monda, Council Member
	Linda Burkhardt, Council Member
Recording Secretary: Sylvia Rozzelle, Town Clerk

Others Present: Richard Comi, Town Consultant; Peter Graham, Attorney for the Town; David Lenefsky, Attorney for the applicant; Barry Meddenbach & Michael Sheeley of Meddenbach & Eggers, P. C.; Kevin Kellerhouse, Pres., Masterpage Comunications, Inc.; and Carl Grabalda, A-1 Communications, Inc, Consultant to the applicant

Supervisor Leifeld called the meeting to order and stated this public hearing is for the Town Board to hear comments from the public; therefore, those approximately thirty-five (35) persons in attendance will not hear any comments from the Town Board members. He stated the Town Board is here to gather information and to listen to the public’s thoughts. He noted these thoughts will become a part of the permanent record and will be taken into consideration by the Town Board members. He reiterated this is not the time for the Town Board to be heard and stated now is the time for the public to ask questions. He noted our Town Consultant Richard Comi will fill in the spaces and the Attorney for the Town Peter Graham is present to see that everything is done legally.

David Lenefsky, Attorney representing Masterpage Communications, Inc., distributed a summary of the project (#39-01) and introduced the persons in attendance representing the applicant. He stated in an effort to save time the applicant has printed up these sheets for distribution.

Jack Conaway of Olivebridge asked if there are any provisions for taking this damned thing down when it is not needed any more. Mr. Lenefsky answered “yes”, that part of the application is a commitment on the part of the applicant. Mr. Lenefsky stated this project will be bonded and if technology makes the facility obsolete then the applicant has an obligation to remove it. James Sofranko of West Shokan asked how much the bond is for. Mr. Lenefsky responded that amount has to be set between the applicant and the Town Board. Mr. Conaway asked if the bond would be good even if the company goes out of business. Mr. Lenfefsky responded, “absolutely”.

Dale Hughes, Attorney representing Dr. and Mrs. Adams of West Shokan, stated his clients are against this proposal. He stated they believe the access across their property is not legal and if that access were received it will harm them both aesthetically and materially and will reduce the value of their property. He stated that some of the issues that need to be addressed before the Town Board proceeds any further is the issue about the Town of Olive Zoning having a height variance of 35 feet. He noted the Town Attorney has indicated the Town Board needs to address the issue that the more restrictive law applies so the applicant would need a zoning variance before even being before the Town Board under the local wireless law. Mr. Hughes stated that under the Town’s Zoning Ordinance Section 311.01 an applicant is only permitted to have a single principal building on a lot and there is already a cabin there used as residential; so, if the applicant is going to convert the use to tower use then it would appear that the cabin would have to be removed under the town’s zoning law. Mr. Hughes stated that he is primarily in attendance regarding the access issue but in quick review of Olive’s wireless law and zoning law it is not clear to him how the two work together. He noted the Town Board is clearly the lead agency under the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Law but it seems that the Zoning Ordinance should also apply; so, probably the applicant should appear before the Planning Board. He stated that also under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 337 prohibits any application for a special permit where there are existing violations. He stated the existing tower there now was built without a building permit and illegally; therefore, this application should not be received until that tower is removed. Mr. Hughes noted that once those issues are addressed then the issues before the town can rightfully be addressed. He stated it is very clear that the town should do a positive declaration and require a full environmental impact statement since there are so many issues that need to be addressed and the only way the town can adequately do that is through the full SEQRA process. He noted, for example, the New York State Natural Heritage database lists two protected species that are along the access road and may be on the site itself. He stated their application indicates there are no threatened or endangered species there and that is really incorrect. Mr. Hughes stated the visual impact—though he is not a resident of the Town of Olive—especially from the dividing weir, is one of the most spectacular views anywhere. He stated on a personal note he feels the board should give due consideration to protecting that view as their role as stewards, not only for everyone in the Town of Olive, but for everyone who cares about the Catskill Park. Mr. Hughes stated there are also alternatives that need to be considered such as how high does the tower have to be and are there other locations that would work. He noted those things should come out in the environmental impact statement showing the different heights and different locations being considered. He noted that Dan Shuster, Planner, and the Ulster County Planning Board both recommended this. He noted the location the applicant picked, a private site, is the lowest on the priority list in the town’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Law. He stated the Town Board should get adequate explanations as to why other sites were not considered and noted that just the flat out statement that there are not others appropriate is not sufficient. Mr. Hughes stated that considering the number of parcels in the Town of Olive, other locations should be looked at to determine what other comparable location sites are available. He stated the applicant talks about the height of the tower being necessitated by the tree height and the applicant keeps talking about an 80 ft. tree height. Mr. Hughes questioned where the applicant gets that information. He noted that on their own site plan they have several trees measured on the plan showing an oak tree at 60.8 feet, another at 55.3 ft., and another one at 45.7 ft. Mr. Hughes stated he is sure if the applicant went to the trouble of measuring trees they did not pick the shortest ones up there, they picked the tallest ones; so, he doesn’t understand where the 80 ft. came from noting it looks more like 50 ft. or 60 ft. Mr. Hughes stated it could be considered in an environmental impact process not just one tower but a lower tower at a more concealed location. He stated the access issue most closely affects his clients, which is the main reason he is in attendance. He stated there is a reference in a February 22, 2001, letter from Attorney Lenefsky stating the applicant is going to do improvements along that right of way. He stated even assuming that right of way exists and is legal, as it now stands there is no right to improve it or widen it or to put in electrical facilities under case law. He stated those rights simply do not exist no matter how you construe the right to drive up and down that road. He stated they did some research and there is one page from the title company about the access road. Mr. Hughes noted this goes back to 1873 when lands were divided into two parcels to Abram Bell and Roland Bell. He stated it explains the Adams parcel came out of part of the Roland Bell parcel and that parcel is burdened by a right of way. He noted in addition to the parcel being burdened, there has to be a benefited parcel—what parcel gets to cross that land to use that right of way—and there are no records whatsoever on this to the Desanna property being a benefited parcel under this supposed right of way after the right of way was created in the 1873 deeds. He stated, furthermore, those 1873 deeds refer to a road as it now exists. He stated that is where the right of way is—it is only over a road as it exists in 1873. He stated he doesn’t know anyone who would know where that road is now and the chances of it being on the road that is currently being used is zero. Mr. Hughes stated one should think about the way roads were constructed in 1873—they would have followed contours, general grades, and stream corridors. He noted if you go up that driveway it is a direct route straight up the mountain and would not be indicative of how roads would have been built then. He noted the existing driveway was built in the 1980’s and 1990’s in connection with logging. Mr. Hughes stated the one point he wants to make clear is that his clients definitely object to the applicant using their right of way across their property. He stated his clients have given license, in effect, to use that right of way for access to a hunting cabin but they will not allow access to the tower site for tower building purposes. Mr. Hughes stated there are so many questions raised in this application that need to be answered and that is why he suggests going through the environmental impact process. He stated the one thing they know for sure is that the existing driveway, the one crossing the Adams’ property, can’t possibly be the 1873 road referred to in the two deeds and that 1873 road is the only place where they may have a right to access—assuming they are a benefited parcel, which they haven’t shown.

Attorney David Lenefsky stated the applicant has a survey that inch by inch defines the right of way and, secondly, they have a title report that states they have a right of way, and, third, just two days ago at the request of one of the Council members, he has a document stating this survey is consistent with the title report. Mr. Lenefsky stated this should put the issue to bed as far as the Town Board is concerned. Mr. Lenefsky stated that if the Adams family says they do not have a right of way then they can take his client to court and try to obtain a preliminary injunction. He stated if they get one, then obviously his client will respect the court and not do anything. He stated he does not think it is the position of the Town Board to come between a property issue between the applicant and the adjoining landowner. Mr. Lenefsky stated, as far as the other issues are concerned, if the board wants he will let Mr. Comi, the consultant, address them.

Mr. Hughes stated the information on the survey is correct, there is a metes and bounds description on the survey. He noted that description is the existing road but it has nothing to do with what was there in 1873 and is irrelevant to the current situation.

Carole Davis of West Shokan stated she lives near the area and that road was not there prior to 1977 or 1976. She stated they bulldozed the roads to make a logging trail. Ms. Davis stated it is correct that the road was not there back in the 1800’s.

Charlie Davis of West Shokan stated they were able to prove in a lawsuit that the Desannas did not have a right of way over their property that was to the maximum that they said. He stated the Desannas said they had 50 feet and they were able to limit the Desannas to a compromise for their benefit noting the right of way as 11 ft. Mr. Davis stated the Desannas were not able to prove their right of way.

Supervisor Leifeld reminded all that the Town Board will not be responding during this public hearing. He noted that everything the public says will be put down on the record and the Town Board members will scrutinize it later.

Donna Bryan of West Shokan stated this proposed tower is literally and figuratively right over her head. She stated that on the fact sheet handed out from Masterpage the very last statement says, “Due to the remote location of the proposed facility and its extreme distance to any populated areas, the visual impact of this project on the surrounding community is negligible.” Ms. Bryan stated there has been a lot of talk of visual impact and endangered species. She stated she is aware that under the Telecommunications Act anyone that is in a public position is enjoined from speaking about health effects. Ms. Bryan stated, first, this is not an unpopulated area, there are plenty of us folks there; it’s not a remote location, and the health effects have been documented extensively. She stated that since people in a public position may not be able to talk about these health effects there is very little that’s been said about the health issue. She stated there are mountains and mountains of information on documented health effects, particularly from cell and digital phone service towers. She stated the Vatican is currently fighting with Italy because they operate their transmission towers at levels much higher than the internationally acceptable levels and Italy is fighting because all the children in the surrounding community are developing leukemia, brain tumors, and cancers at alarming rates. She stated this is documented; yet, it never comes up in discussion on this tower. Ms. Bryan stated that in speaking to her neighbors so many people did not know about the tower, what was happening or what was going on further noting that people are either misinformed or not informed at all. Ms. Bryan stated these health issues are very serious. She stated this is radiation we are talking about, this is not a remote location and it is not about ruining the site plan. She stated this is about all of us in the immediate area having to live under something that is very dangerous to human health. She noted that it is very seldom addressed in these discussions. Donna Bryan read a letter (#40-01) from her neighbor Anne Marie Johansson who could not be in attendance at the public hearing. After reading Ms. Johansson’s letter urging the Town Board to reject this tower site proposal, Ms. Bryan stated if there is an obligation to take this tower down once it is no longer useful then why is there an urgent need for it to accommodate telecommunication carriers such as cellular and digital phone service. She urged all to look at the health information noting this is a very serious issue. She stated it’s not just about whether it looks pretty; it’s about money in that the Telecommunications Act supports an industry and we need to ask ourselves why our federal government is enjoining public officials by saying you cannot discuss health effects. She stated they would not enjoin you from saying that if they did not know that there were serious health effects present with this technology. She urged everyone to find out what these health effects are and to really consider that.

Carol Robin of West Shokan stated she seconds that comment. She stated she knows the interim of the law says that you can’t comment on the health issues but thinks it very important that we all look at those very seriously. She stated there are phrases in a lot of the information about the health issues that say things like they are less dangerous if you are more than a mile away from the tower. She stated you will find there is a greater danger when you are less than a mile. She stated when you’re talking about anything living nearby it’s really crucial to look at those health issues--to look at what is happening to children in this country and all over the world where they are growing up near towers and near this kind of radiation and the kinds of life threatening health issues that are happening. She noted that cancer rates and leukemia rates are astronomical in children and adults who are exposed to this kind of radiation. Ms. Robin stated she felt it crucial that this be taken into consideration since it is not a harmless, benign thing. She stated as much as she would hate to see the beauty of the Catskills marred by this, obviously towers will go up in places because technology requires them, but the health issues of the human beings living nearby are very crucial.

Amy Fradon of West Shokan thanked the previous speakers for their comments. She stated it seems that whenever something like this comes up it ends up being about legal this or legal that or it’s written this or it’s written that. She stated that she would like to ask each of the board members to ask themselves in their hearts about the future and something we cannot prove now. She requested the board look in terms of the health and in terms of the beauty, and beauty is health. She noted in terms of the health and the cancer rates and the potential damage that radiation does she asked the Town Board to think about thirty years from now. She stated it might be convenient now but in thirty years they might find out that cell phones are really killing us all. She stated if we set a precedent that one tower can go up, then we are setting a precedent for zillions of towers and pretty soon we won’t have one place on earth that is free from that or relatively safe from that. Ms. Fradon asked the Town Board to please give consideration to and think about the future, even though the future is not provable.

Ramona Fradon of West Shokan stated as one of the unpersons who live in the unpopulated distance between the tower and the populated areas, she registered her extreme concern about this issue. She stated in walking her dog everyday one can see that beautiful mountain noting she would hate to see a tower looming up over us there. She stated not to mention the health issue, which is a big concern or hers, she hopes the board will decide against this.

James Sofranko of West Shokan stated he would also like to take issue with the last statement on the fact sheet from Masterpage in regards to the remote location and visual impact being negligible. Mr. Sofranko stated he believes just the opposite. He stated we live in a rural area and the visual impact would be the greatest here. He stated if this tower were constructed in New York City then the visual impact would not be noticed; but, it is because we are in a rural, sparsely populated area it will be most noticeable. Mr. Sofranko stated because of the area we live in, the remoteness and the beautiful mountains are a huge asset for our community for tourism and also for our own benefit. He stated that Anne Marie Johansson has a bed and breakfast below the proposed site and this will affect tourism. He stated people will look at this and see a tower on the mountain and say “Isn’t that too bad?”. He stated it is the duty of the board to take this seriously into consideration on the impact of what it does to the visual character of our community. He stated one should only look at the murals painted on these courtroom walls with the beautiful mountains and the reservoirs and asked should we put little towers on top of the mountains in the murals.

Liz Cuzack of West Shokan stated as a mother of a 16 month old and the stepmother of a boy in remission from leukemia she is really concerned about the health issues.

Richard Elliot of Samsonville asked if the Town Board would consider the health problems. Supervisor Leifeld stated they would consider every comment that is made. Mr. Elliott stated he meant in a sense, are they allowed to in that he had heard rumors that they are not allowed to. Supervisor Leifeld stated the way he understands it is that the board can only go so far with that issue and perhaps the town consultant could answer that concern.

Richard Comi of Telecom Associates stated he will not comment on the fact that whether twenty or thirty years from now he’s any better at prognosis than anyone else relevant to physical effects that could occur; but, the federal government has declared that as long as the carrier meets the federal emissions standards that have been established then this board cannot make a determination to turn it down based on that issue. Mr. Comi noted if the board does turn it down based on that issue he can assure all present there have been a number of cases throughout this country that have been overturned in the courts and the facility went up. He stated the board can make sure that it does meet the standards, but as long as the issue meets the standards they have been preempted from ruling on that decision. Mr. Comi stated the way to get that changed, and the only way to get that changed, is to change the law at the federal level.

Richard Elliot of Samsonville asked if there has ever been any tower stopped from being put up.

Mr. Comi answered “yes” stating they’ve been involved in a number of them.

Richard Elliot asked what kind of rationale was used, in general.

Mr. Comi answered that number one, they couldn’t justify the need for the service because you can not deny them the service either; so, if they couldn’t justify the need and they already had the coverage was one particular reason. Number two, Mr. Comi noted is that if they could get their service by using another tall structure already in existence. He stated that only on one occasion—noting his company does this in twelve states for about 250 municipalities and is dealing with over 100 applications at any one time and they work only for the municipality—they have found one location on a rooftop where the cumulative emissions exceeded the standard. He stated that before that carrier could go on that rooftop they’d have to change the design of the existing equipment and others. He noted that is the only occasion and it is a legal issue.

Gary Alexander of West Shokan stated the town does have leeway on placement of a tower and does have something to say. Mr. Alexander asked what Mr. Comi would estimate would be the town’s future liability when they allow a tower in a residential area.

Mr. Comi stated he has difficulty about something that is not proposed here this evening. He stated the town has in front of them an application for a particular place. He stated he understands the nature of the community and has been on South Mountain personally. When asked how he got up there, Mr. Comi stated they tried to go up in a four wheel drive vehicle and it collapsed on them; so, he walked it. He stated the town does have some issues and some control in where these are placed. Mr. Comi stated the second thing the town cannot do is to zone the applicant out of the community, noting this is based on the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and all of the wireless service providers, of which these folks are one, must be considered the same. Mr. Comi stated you can not simply say you don’t want them and if it goes to court you will loose that issue. He stated in the Town of Guilderland they tried that with a law saying facilities couldn’t go in residential areas and the Town of Guilderland is 91% residential. He stated they were taken to court, they lost the case, and the tower when up the same day. He stated that as far as the issue down the road in a residential area, in this kind of community you don’t have that kind of residential population, so, he can’t see that happening within a few hundred feet of the residences. He stated there is no reason for that issue here. Mr. Comi stated he would like to comment and it is not an opinion; folks, there is more radio frequency emission right here in this room, right now, from the clock, from the lights, from the wrist watch, the other issues, or in your kitchen than you will see within two or three hundred feet of that site. Mr. Comi stated he is not saying it is right or wrong, he’s just saying that it is there.

Gary Alexander stated that Mr. Comi is speaking about 60 mhz household utility current noting a microwave tower is ultra high frequency microwave radiation and there is a difference; it is totally different. Mr. Comi said, “no, sir”. Gary Alexander responded, “yes, it is.” Mr. Comi stated the government and engineers have looked at the statistics of the microwave in your kitchen, the lights that you’re involved with, the radio, and the pc you are in front of. Mr. Comi stated he is not saying it is right or wrong, he is simply saying it is fact. Several people in attendance replied that it is not fact.

Carol Robin stated if he is wearing a microwave wristwatch then maybe…Mr. Comi stated “no” he is wearing a wristwatch that has transmission. He stated if you had the ability to see what is floating around in this room right now you would be scared, folks, in terms of what’s here. Mr. Comi stated he hasn’t heard anyone complain about the radio tower that’s at 15,000 watts that gives you your radio service when wireless and pcs and paging is at 100 watts. Mr. Comi stated there is a difference in the terms of the tower output. Gary Alexander stated there is a difference in the ultra high frequency microwave radiation. Mr. Comi responded he is not saying it’s healthy, he’s saying those are the standards that are established.

Donna Mauer of Olivebridge asked if Mr. Comi is supposed to be biased noting he sounds like a commercial for cell towers. Mr. Comi stated he is supposed to make the board have the ability to make an informed decision.

Council Member La Monda addressed Mr. Comi by saying that he didn’t think the purpose of this hearing is for Mr. Comi to become aggravating to the public. Council Member La Monda stated he didn’t think it Mr. Comi’s place to tell the public that they should be scared in comparing the town hall lighting to a cell tower; but, thought Mr. Comi’s place is to tell his technical opinion regarding this application.

James Sofranko of West Shokan stated he had a question for Mr. Comi. Mr. Comi responded by asking Mr. Sofranko to make his comments to the board noting he wasn’t going to get into an argument with you folks. Mr. Sofranko stated this is not a medical question, this is a question of what Mr. Comi just said, it is a point of order. Mr. Sofranko stated that Mr. Comi said the board cannot make a decision based on health reasons because that’s a federal jurisdiction thing; but, Mr. Sofranko noted that Mr. Comi said the board can make a determination based on visual impact and local rule. Mr. Comi responded, “yes, sir, they can”.

Amy Fradon of West Shokan stated, in that case, she would like to go on record to say she hopes the board doesn’t vote to mar our visual. She stated forget the future and forget our health; just make it pretty.

James Sofranko asked, is it the applicant’s responsibility to look at other alternative sites if there is visual impact. Mr. Comi responded, “yes”, that under the law they have to do that and they have done that. Mr. Sofranko asked if they could share with the public what alternative sites they have looked at. Mr. Comi stated they have looked at a number of others and, in fact, have looked at a lower height at this location, all of which were to come up with coverage within your municipality as required under the town’s law. He stated the issue that the town has is whether right or wrong—cause he has done this in hundreds of communities and doesn’t always give the people what they want to hear all the time—the technology they are talking about is lower than cellular and even much lower than pcs. He stated it goes further in terms of distance and for a paging company to adequately cover this town, which is what this law says, they must be on high terrain. He stated if they go down in the valley and end up going other places on Route 28 they will not cover this community noting this is just a technical issue. James Sofranko asked if Mr. Comi was saying that by placing this tower on South Mountain it will cover 100% of our community. Mr. Comi responded essentially 100% of our community, in fact, they have done technical studies and it will cover most of the holes, the vast majority. Mr. Sofranko stated if you’re saying it has to cover the whole town and it doesn’t cover the whole town then it’s not necessary. Mr. Comi stated essentially it will cover all the service that this carrier needs to cover in this community. Mr. Comi stated you can never cover 100% of everything. Mr. Sofranko stated that was his point.

Amy Fradon asked, “Where are the other sites?”

Mr. Comi stated they have looked at other sites lower, they have looked at this one lower, in fact, the community has even talked to some of the cellular companies about other sites down low.

Amy Fradon asked, “Where are the other sites, we’ve asked?” Several persons asked where are the other sites.

Barry Meddenbach stated that actually they did not look at other specific sites, stating they did not have specific sites they looked at. He stated they had information of other people who investigated other sites that are not available. He noted that one of the problems is availability of property noting you just can’t go to any piece of property and put a tower there, you first must have access to that site with the landowner participating. Mr. Meddenbach stated this is the only site that…..Mr. Comi stated the number one requirement under the local law is for them to go on an existing tower or other tall structure. Mr. Comi stated that in this community there are essentially no existing towers or other tall structures of any significant size or shape. James Sofranko asked about the old Pitcairn estate on Route 28.

Mr. Lenefsky stated the statute is very clear. He stated the first priority is location on existing communications’ towers and there aren’t any in town. He noted the second priority is co-location on a site with an existing wireless telecommunications facility or structure, noting there aren’t any. He stated the third priority is on town owned property and there isn’t anything high enough that would accommodate the applicant; and, the fourth is on other property in town and that is where we are on South Mountain. He stated they have met the statute noting the first three priorities just do not exist.

Donna Bryan stated the applicant is considering a site that already has an illegal structure on it.

Mr. Lenefsky stated there is no building violation on that site. He stated he has been through that issue with the Code Enforcement Officer, with the building department supervisor, for lack of better phraseology, and there is no violation on this structure on the property.

Donna Bryan stated that according to Mr. Hughes that property should not have been up there and not have been zoned for anything else.

Mr. Lenefsky stated he is afraid that is a mistake.

Linda Barash of Olivebridge asked Mr. Lenefsky if he could please tell her what specific cellular phone companies are interested in the South Mountain site because our town law also says that the company should not be on spec that there should be specific phone companies interested in that site.

Mr. Lenefsky stated the statute doesn’t talk about speculation at all. He noted the fact of the matter is Verizon has expressed very strong interest and one other. Ms. Barash asked what other. Mr. Lenefsky responded, Nextel.

Linda Barash asked what the other wide variety of use is? Mr. Lenefsky stated that is commercial use, for example, there is a medical doctor who serves in rural communities. Ms. Barash requested his name. Mr. Lenefsky stated it is in the application and this doctor is out in the field in a rural community and if he gets a call he needs to not be able to go back to his office in Kingston but he needs to be able to pick up that call on a pager so he can service someone’s medical needs. Mr. Lenefsky stated that another example is a utility company, someone selling fuel into the rural area, if they get a call from someone who needs a fuel delivery on a short notice basis he needs to be able to communicate with his home office through a paging system rather than after each delivery going back to his home base to see if anything has developed.

Paul Duffy of Olivebridge stated that most fuel delivery companies in Ulster County have two-way radio communication with delivery trucks. Mr. Lenefsky stated and they use facilities such as Masterpage. Carol Robin stated paging is already functioning in this town.

Linda Barash asked Mr. Lenefsky what emergency services would be interested because we are only required to accommodate for the Town of Olive, noting that in the application she did not see any Town of Olive emergency services listed as being interested. Donna Bryan stated the emergency services that said they were interested could not be found. Donna Mauer of Olivebridge stated they were told at another meeting that the 911 services would not be interested in this tower. Donna Bryan stated that the names of the emergency systems that are extensively interested are not really on record in a concrete way—they seem to be companies that have nebulous titles and locations. Donna Mauer stated since this is the Masterpage fact sheet, who are the emergency services?

Supervisor Leifeld asked those present to try to stay away from conversation and to establish an order to their comments in an effort to assist the Town Clerk in the taking of Minutes.

Ramona Fradon stated there was a statement made that this is the first application the board has reviewed under this law and asked if the town board would be reviewing other applications. Supervisor Leifeld responded this is the only application the town has.

Town Clerk Rozzelle asked if there had been an answer to the question regarding the emergency services question.

Mr. Lenefsky stated there is a letter as part of the application from Duncan D. Wilson who is the coordinator of the Ulster County Fire & Emergency Service. Linda Barash asked if that was the Town of Olive. Mr. Lenefsky answered it was not the Town of Olive. Linda Barash stated we only need to take care of the Town of Olive. Mr. Lenefsky stated you only have to take care of the Town of Olive and can tell Phoenicia, Woodstock, and the surrounding communities that you have no interest in them. He stated they also have a letter of interest from the New York
State Police and the town does not have to service them either. Ms. Barash stated that is right.

James Sofranko stated he is concerned as to the precedent that this sets based on the visual impact. He stated a tower with potential lights on one mountain opens the floodgates for other telecommunications companies to come to town and we will be looked at as an easy town. He stated he is not quite certain what Mr. Lenefsky is leading to when he says this is a paging company and the concerns we’re addressing as a town seem to be relative to paging; yet, there seems to be a tail end on this which has big money to it which is the telecommunications industry and phone service. Mr. Sofranko stated it seems to him the tail is wagging the dog and he is not quite sure what our obligations to the telecommunications industry are under this statute. Mr. Lenefsky stated the town obviously does not have any obligation to the industry, the town has an obligation to adhere to the law that the Congress passed and adhere to the law that the Town Board passed. Mr. Lenefsky stated the town’s consultant has told the Town Board and is telling the community unambiguously that the application that we have submitted satisfies the town law. Mr. Lenefsky stated there is no light on this tower. The federal law does not require a light on a tower less than 200 feet. Town Clerk Rozzelle asked if there is a certification from the FAA specific to that site stating that. Mr. Lenefsky responded “yes” it is in the application.

Amy Fradon stated there have been questions asked that were not answered thoroughly enough. She asked what is the actual supply and demand nature of this for the Town of Olive and what is the actual speculative nature of this for this company. Mr. Lenefsky stated the issue is do we adhere to the town statute, do we adhere to federal statute, there is no requirement in either the town or the federal statute that the applicant has to have on-signed, executed leases with cellular phone companies or with anyone. Mr. Lenefsky stated the application stands on its own and it satisfies both the Congressional act and the town act.

Amy Fradon asked if the applicant cares if we don’t want them here.

Mr. Lenefsky stated that is very clear.

Mr. Lenefsky stated to Supervisor Leifeld that this is not supposed to be a dialogue between “us” and “them”, not in every instance. He stated he is glad to answer their questions if Supervisor Leifeld tells him to do it. Supervisor Leifeld stated no one said you can’t answer them.

Pat Webb asked when a full SEQR review would be appropriate and she suggested it be done immediately.

Gary Alexander asked Mr. Lenefsky if there was a new version of the application because the one he has seen has a lot of inaccuracies and falsehoods. He stated they do not list the proper closest resident to the tower—that’s incorrectly listed. Mr. Alexander stated the application has RJM, an electronic shop in Boise, Idaho, and A-1 Communications, a digital satellite tv service. Mr. Alexander asked if there had been a change to the application since they put it in. Mr. Lenefsky responded “no”.

Carol Robin noted it has been stated that one of the important things is to show there is a need and the whole question of what are the emergency services, who are these companies, what exactly is this going to serve, doesn’t seem to be clear that there really is a need. She stated it is not simply a question of if the applicant fulfills the law according to the national regulations then they have a right to do this. She stated if there is no need for these services in our town then her understanding is the town is not obligated to provide space. She stated a concern is when it was said that one of the top criteria for choosing a location is if there is an existing tower and by bringing in a tower that we don’t necessarily have a need for, then that’s setting it up for further companies to come in and say there is an existing tower. Ms. Robin noted perhaps you are not going to put a light on this tower but what about the next people who say the best sight for us is this existing tower and now it will be bigger and now will have more lights on it. She stated when we talk about visual impact, as someone said earlier, if we were in New York City it wouldn’t make any difference and you wouldn’t even notice it. She noted that a lot of our economy is based on tourism, which is based purely on aesthetics in this area and purely on the visual impact of this area. She stated this is a very serious economic issue if you bring something in that is going to seriously impact the economy and how people make their living because we’re marring something that is basically one of our most valued resources. She noted this issue should be given serious consideration.

James Sofranko stated he would like to address the issue made by one lady concerning showing a need for the service. He stated he unfortunately has a phone based in New York City with AT& T and he can not get service here; but, all his friends with Verizon or the Bell system say their phone works fine in Olive. He stated in addition to people who say there phone works he has several friends who are veterinarians and doctors who do use a pager and it does work in the Town of Olive. Mr. Sofranko stated it’s when one gets out to Phoenicia and further west that their pager doesn’t work.

Mr. Comi stated he would like to comment on the “need issue” by terms of clearing up what the law says. He stated there are nine wireless service providers licensed everywhere in the country including Olive. He stated there are also paging carriers that have licenses for service. He stated the definition of need is not if there are people who will buy this service in the community, it’s an issue of does that particular carrier have service coverage in that area. Mr. Comi noted that by law, by the license the applicant has, they have the right to have coverage. He stated this is one paging company and if you had five carriers worth of service in this community and number six came along and said I want to be here, the federal government says because you’ve got five you can’t turn down number six. Mr. Comi stated it’s an issue of do they have coverage that is the “need” we are talking about. He stated the applicant has made a business decision that says it’s a right judgment for us and we want to have service in this area and they have the license.

James Sofranko stated his point is that he feels that the community does have service and maybe Masterpage’s business opportunities lie further west.

Mr. Comi stated if Masterpage decides to go further west that’s their choice but they have a license to cover this area.

James Sofranko stated but there is a reason it is on top of the mountain and not on the Olive side of the mountain.

Mr. Comi stated “I understand”.

Ramon Fradon stated then the need refers to the company’s need not our need.

Mr. Comi responded, “Yes, by law that is true.”

Amy Fradon asked the town consultant then by law what rights do we, the residents of this town, have here in this public hearing.

Mr. Comi stated you have a federal law that states the applicant has a right to service and you have, believe it or not, one of the most stringent community laws in the country. He stated the carriers will tell you that. He stated there are certain things that can be done and certain things that cannot be done. He stated his responsibility is based on interpreting the laws they have put in place and to review the application to see if it follows the law, not to argue with the law. He noted you cannot zone the carrier out.

Amy Fradon stated, “I asked you what rights do I as a citizen of this town have here to discuss this. Do I have any?”

Mr. Comi stated you have all the rights you want in terms of expressing your concern and if you can find other alternatives that do not confront and avoid the federal or local law then this board should take them into consideration. He stated the reason you are here is to talk about issues and items and so forth and you have every right to do that and say that. He stated this board has to consider that. He stated when he says they can’t turn it down he doesn’t really mean that. He stated this board can make any decision it wants to. He’s simply saying that based on law it’s very, very likely that if they turn it down for certain reasons it will end up in court, your community will spend money, you’ll lose it, and you’ll see the tower there. He stated the board can make any judgment they want to. He stated what we’re talking about is the federal issues. Mr. Comi stated you have the right to any of the comments and to provide that information and input to the Town Board noting that’s what the public is here for.

Jack Conaway stated he happens to own a cell phone and it doesn’t work in most of the places in most of the community and that is fine with him. He stated he uses it for business and it would be nice; but, his concern is not this tower per se but what seems to be happening in this area--the door thing. He stated you slide something under the door so you can say it is in there so you can open the door. He stated he understands the bind the Town Board is in and how hard this is. He stated he wants the Town Board to try the best they can, given the restrictions they are under, to think about the future. He stated he will give up his cell phone gladly to preserve the viewshed from the weir that he crosses every day of his life. He stated he doesn’t want the fact that one tower comes then means the next tower is going to be right behind it. He stated he happens to be technically informed and technology is changing very rapidly and there is technology on the drawing board that will obviate the need for these towers in ten years and asked the Town Board to think about that and keep the future in mind.

Mr. Lenefsky stated as part of the application they did a visual analysis by a company that the town chose, noting it was not the applicant’s choice, and the applicant paid for it but it was the town’s decision. Mr. Lenefsky displayed an enlarged photograph with a view of South Mountain from the weir as part of the public record. Several persons requested an explanation of the display. Mr. Meddenbach stated balloons were flown, there was a test flown. He noted the actual height of the balloon was measured and photographs of that balloon were taken from several areas throughout the community. Mr. Meddenbach stated by having the exact location of that balloon when the photograph was taken the company was able to establish where the tower height would be. He stated in this blow up the resolution isn’t as good, noting there are some original photos the public might want to look at that are a little better. Mr. Meddenbach stated these computer specialists then made a model of the tower and also included all of the equipment that would ever be put on this tower and they simulated it into that photograph. Mr. Lenefsky stated this is a blow up, that’s not what you can see. Mr. Meddenbach stated it is a 210 blow up. Mr. Lenefsky pointed out where the tower was. Pointing to the photograph, Mr. Meddenbach said if you come up close you can see it here.

John DeGondea stated that is not what he can see from his house. Several agreed that is not what they see from their houses. James Sofranko stated the resolution is so bad. Mr. Lenefsky responded to Mr. DeGondea by stating this is from the weir. Mr. DeGondea stated he is strongly opposed to this tower and would like that to go on the record. Mr. Lenefsky displayed another photograph stating it is the actual computer simulation from the weir of what they want to build and the original photo he displayed is an enlargement of that. Mr. Lenefsky stated to Mr. DeGondea that there is also, in the application, what you will see from West Shokan Heights Road. Mr. DeGondea stated he doesn’t have to see pictures to let him know what is going to be there. Jack Conaway stated that towers are lousy but they are a lot better than that photograph.

Carole Davis stated when the balloon was flying over the mountain she took a video from their house on High Point Mountain Road and the video from High Point and Whispell Road is so visible. Charlie Davis stated it is astonishing. Carole Davis reiterated it is astonishing how you can see it. She stated that maybe, perhaps at the weir you won’t be able to see it as clear; but, if you get on High Point Mountain and Whispell Road it is as clear as a bell. She stated she is sorry she did not bring the film tonight; but, they have the video and it is very obvious and it is very visible.

Donna Bryan stated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is at the basis of all of what is being discussed and the act is being challenged on a first amendment basis because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives corporations that are not people first amendment rights. She stated that people are trying to challenge the act and are having a very hard time because our government would much rather force technology on us that they don’t want the health effects discussed— technology that will harm us. She stated it is a billion dollar a year business and that is what it is about. She stated her question is what do companies like Masterpage have in their plan in terms of liability for the future, in terms of insurance, in terms of immediate effects of a tower like this, should somebody be injured, should somebody go up to the site and something happen, for the property values that will be effected, and for all of us in this “unpopulated” area. What plan do they have in place to address those issues? She stated the Telecommunications Act is being forced down our throat by a government that cares more about profit and technology than it does about its citizens. Ms. Bryan urged all to investigate it further noting that really is all that can be done is to challenge the Telecommunications Act on a first amendment basis because corporations who are not living entities now have rights under the first amendment.

Liz Cuzack stated one can’t speak of health issues but those health issues will indirectly affect the property values as mentioned earlier. She stated that people are aware of the truth, it’s not in our every day media, but we’re not stupid. We’re here and that says something.

Amy Fradon stated one of the reasons she doesn’t come to these meetings is because she feels powerless. She stated she can always say what she wants to say and you can tell me the future doesn’t count legally. Ms. Fradon stated what she is asking from the Town Board, as her representatives she helped to vote in, is that since she can’t afford to hire a lawyer—though she would love to but she can’t—she is asking the Town Board to consider the health ramifications and to take the visual impact seriously for her benefit. She stated the Town Board as her elected officials are all that she has. She stated she can’t hire a lawyer to fight this though she guarantees the Town Board she would if she could because of health issues, mainly. She stated she does not believe in any way that this technology is not potentially dangerous.

Bruce Kanvin stated he would not want to be in the Town Board’s shoes as they have a very difficult decision to make. He noted that on one hand the board has the concerns of the community and on the other hand they have the law. He stated he has lived in this town for more than thirty years and has seen it develop from a really rural area. He stated back then if you said you lived in the Town of Olive people would say you lived in the sticks. He stated the town has grown and we’ve progressed and after listening to everyone here tonight he will be in the minority but in these days minorities get heard, too. He stated people talk about visual impact but what is to prevent someone from buying twenty acres on any given mountain, building a house up there, and clear cutting it or carving a heart with the trees or something else—visual impact. Mr. Kanvin stated the Town Board spent many nights here going over the proposed law that went into effect. He stated he spent many a night with them and he didn’t see many people here even though it was publicized. He stated that once the law was passed everybody said it’s not very good. He stated he just came back from a couple of weeks in Europe and there are towers, microwave transmitters, power lines, you name it in what we would consider pristine valleys, on mountain tops, and next to apartment buildings. He stated he did not look at the towers he looked at the view. Mr. Kanvin stated again he would not want to be in the board’s shoes since they have to go by what the townspeople would like to see and what the law says they have to do or can do. He stated his wife came across an accident on the reservoir, a motorcycle was involved and a person was injured. He stated cell phones did not work and it took 15-20 minutes more to get the ambulance there. He stated that emergency services would benefit greatly by any tower and he is in favor of the tower. He stated that he lives in Olivebridge and crosses the reservoir everyday.

James Sofranko stated the visual impact is something that the board can address if they can’t address the health aspects. He stated if the visual impact is something that the board determines will occur this will bring down property values then that affects the tax base as well. Mr. Sofranko questioned if the Town Board has done any kind of survey or understands the consequences if homeownership values go down then how will that affect the tax base.

Charlie Davis stated he is neither for nor against the tower noting his son works for Olive ambulance as a First Lieutenant. He said he had a few questions about the right of way on the map as it is drawn. He stated he lives at the base on High Point Mountain Road and that right of way goes over his property. He stated the map is illusionary because the right of way going over his property on the map is shown as the same width over his property as it is through other parts of the applicant’s property and it is not. He stated in a recent court decision the applicant was awarded an eleven (11) ft. right of way. He stated he would like to see the map corrected to reflect the real width of the right of way, which is 11 ft. and not 50 ft. Mr. Davis stated on his property with the 11 ft. right of way, it is almost impossible for cars and trucks going up there now to make left or right turns onto the applicant’s property. He noted they are continually knocking down his survey markers and cutting the corners off of his property simply because the road is too narrow. He stated he would like for the board to consider that if this proposal does happen. Mr. Davis said the applicant has publicly stated he would not be using Mr. Davis’ right of way but stated that if the applicant does use his right of way it will cost a lot of litigation with the town in property damage and will open up a Pandora’s box. He stated he would like to also address the other right of way that is coming off further down the road from him. He stated that right of way has a fire number on it that is very different from the applicant’s fire number and that road frontage is totally posted by a different person in the Town of Olive. He questioned how the site map can show that to be the property of the applicant with a right of way through it when it is apparent through rumors around town that he doesn’t even own it. He stated he is bringing up a point of order. Mr. Davis stated there is nothing in deeds that show that, there is no research that shows it, there is nothing that shows who owns the property, and on the subdivision map it shows that the applicant owns all the property. Mr. Davis stated the rumor is the applicant does not nor does he own half the property that is in his name. He stated the map here and the map at the County Clerk’s office does not appear to be true. He stated that before the town gets into this, the deeds should be checked and the map should be clearer. Mr. Davis stated he just did a subdivision on his property and had to provide at great expense to him a 25 ft. road right of way road front for each lot or build a road to town specifications. He noted he also had to have an agreement between all the persons that are going to be purchasing the property—all at huge expense. He stated he opted to make the 25 ft. road frontage which made the subdivision odd angled. He stated he looked at the subdivision of the applicant and he doesn’t see where he was ever required to have 25 ft. of road frontage, or where he was ever required to have an agreement or build that road up to town specifications. He stated that the gentleman over here (Mr. Comi) just said it is a jeep trail but let’s call it a goat trail. Mr. Davis asked how does this work noting he had to spend all that money so why didn’t the applicant have to. Mr. Davis questioned if the applicant’s subdivision is legal. He stated he has been to the Town Office building talking to people about additions on that house up there and he’s been told there are pictures of an illegal addition on the house on the property. He stated he doesn’t know if anyone has done any research on it but somebody might want to do that. He stated that before these things get us into litigation with the town and neighbors somebody might want to check out more carefully what is really happening up there. He stated he had been in a lawsuit with the applicant over right of way ten years ago and the court awarded an 11 ft. right of way as a settlement. Mr. Davis asked Council Member La Monda if he did surveying on the right of way for the applicant. Council Member La Monda responded “no”, he is doing a survey for Brian Burns. Mr. Davis stated if he is surveying that lot for Brian Burns then does that map indicate that. Council Member La Monda stated they have not gone before the Planning Board yet. Mr. Davis asked Council Member La Monda if he did any surveying for the applicant. Council Member La Monda responded “no”.

Richard Elliott stated this is a heck of a decision and asked if there is a time period as far as the town and company are concerned on when this has to be decided. Town Attorney Peter Graham stated it has to be a reasonable time noting that it cannot be unduly delayed or can’t be put off forever. Richard Elliott stated if in the town’s total and complete examination decides that the best thing to do is to challenge the tower, noting that Mr. Comi told us it is just a matter of time, then what will that time period do? Mr. Elliott asked if that will give somebody else a chance to come in and look at it even more decisively? Attorney Graham stated this is only a part of the process noting this public hearing is to listen to your comments. Attorney Graham noted the Town Board has to make a decision on this application and it also has to consider whether or not to grant a variance of the height restrictions that are 35 ft. and to grant a set back since the tower is close to the property line. Mr. Graham noted there is also a SEQR process that is going along concurrently with the application review. He noted the planner happens to not be available tonight but that process also has its own procedures and they are not complete yet. He noted there are a number of different places for input from the public and the Town Board has many items under this law to consider—the visual impact, effects on traffic—noting there are many different criteria by which the town can judge this application and reiterated there is also the SEQR process.

Carol Robin asked as a procedural question if given all the issues and ambiguities of right of ways is it possible for the town to decide that they could ask the applicant to come up with some alternative sites? She asked if it is possible under the laws of the town that the town can come back, rather than say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, give us an alternative site proposal to compare? Attorney Graham stated, in his opinion “no”. Attorney Dale Hughes stated in his opinion “yes’ in that under SEQR one can clearly ask for alternative sites to be examined and it doesn’t have to be a single site. He stated the town can require analysis of several sites to provide comparable service. Mr. Hughes stated the town could ask for three shorter towers at different locations to provide the same service and would be perfectly within their rights. Regarding the questions on what basis the town can turn it down, Attorney Hughes stated the town could turn it down based on visual impact under SEQR. He noted the town could say “no” if they didn’t think the applicant was doing enough to protect the endangered species that are along the trail and possibly on the site after that has been studied. He noted that if the applicant couldn’t protect them then the town could say “no”. Mr. Hughes stated in an earlier discussion about violations, Mr. Lenefsky indicated that there is no current violation. He stated by that he thinks Mr. Lenefsky means a piece of paper issued by the Code Enforcement Officer saying this is in violation. Attorney Hughes asked Attorney Lenefsky if that is what he was talking about. Mr. Lenefsky responded, “That’s correct”. Mr. Hughes stated that is one part of it but the real issue is the actual act—“Can you build a 40 ft. tower in the town of Olive without a building permit?”—and the answer to that is clearly “no”. Mr. Hughes asked was there a building permit obtained and further stated the answer for that he believes is “no”; therefore, that is a violation. Mr. Hughes noted that whether the violation has been issued or not is a separate issue. Mr. Hughes noted the second part of the issue is that under the zoning law commercial radio, television, and other similar electronic transmission structures are a permitted principal use in the R/C zone; but, it requires site plan review and special use permit. Mr. Hughes asked when that forty (40) ft. tower was built, did the applicant apply to the Planning Board or to the Town Board for a special permit further stating he believes the answer to that is “no”. Mr. Hughes stated the tower clearly is in violation of the zoning law; therefore, the Town Board cannot act on this application until that existing violation is remedied—even if it is not issued as a violation. Mr. Hughes asked if in the title search and the title report there is a statement that “that existing driveway on the survey is the road that’s referred to in the 1873 deeds”. Attorney Lenefsky answered “yes” noting that is exactly what one Council Member asked him to acquire for him three days ago. Mr. Hughes stated he looked in the files today and that was not in the files in the Clerk’s office. Mr. Lenefsky stated it is in the file as of an hour and a half ago.

Donna Mauer of Olivebridge stated that Section 6f of the wireless law states the applicant has to provide documentation that demonstrates the need for the wireless telecommunication facility to provide service primarily within the town. Ms. Mauer asked if the application has the documentation and, if so, how can Olive CARES have access to this information.

Mr. Lenefsky responded by saying the answer to that is twofold. He stated they will make copies available if anyone doesn’t have it. He stated it is a determination made by the town’s consultant that the applicant does satisfy the town law and also the federal law.

Judy Chaifetz of Olivebridge stated her understanding is that the applicant doesn’t satisfy the law since they are asking for all kinds of variances like towers higher than the town law allows and they also have problems with access to roads. She noted there are things the applicant is asking for that if the Town Board decides to turn them down for those things the applicant can’t build this. She stated she does not think the applicant is in code and is in violation and stated she felt the applicant is not telling the truth.

Mr. Comi stated as far as the access he will not comment since that is a whole issue he has not been involved with; but, as far as the ordinance, there is a requirement that if they request a waiver such as height the applicant must justify a need for the height based on their required service issue. He stated that is how it is justified. He stated the board has a decision to decide whether or not the applicant justifies that height based on their service; so, “yes”, the applicant has requested a waiver on height, and “yes”, they have also requested a waiver on the setback under the law. He stated the applicant is requesting that issue, it is being looked at, and it has been reviewed noting that once the decision is made whether or not that’s allowed is part of the process. He stated the applicant has gone through that process to request that which the law allows them to do.

Ms. Chaifetz stated that what is being stated by Mr. Lenefsky is that there is no violation of any kind and that everything is just wonderful and that is not true. She stated the applicant is already asking for all kinds of variances. Mr. Lenefsky stated it is not a violation to ask for a variance. Ms. Chaifetz stated it’s not a violation to ask for a variance but the statement that Mr. Lenefsky made was that according to the federal law and according to the town law the applicant meets all specifications and the applicant does not meet all the specifications—that’s why you’re applying for all these variances. Mr. Lenefsky stated they are seeking two variances, one on the height and one on the setback, as well as two conditional approvals pursuant to the recommendation by the town consultant. He noted that one is on a study of the land that should be done after the town issues a special permit, if they do; and, the second is concerning the structural load of the tower—again at the suggestion of the town consultant. Mr. Lenefsky stated there is nothing illegal or improper with asking for a variance in a statute like this. Mr. Lenefsky stated it is a matter of discretion. He stated that New York State at first objected to the setback but the state withdrew its objection—the state being 10 ft. away from the proposed tower—and the state made the statement in its letter that they don’t object to the tower being built where it is proposed and it does not have an adverse visual impact on the walking trails that the state has established. He stated he might have a difference of opinion with his colleague, Peter Graham, on what controls, whether it’s a 140 ft. tower that Mr. Comi wrote and the town approved or a 35 ft. structure that is in zoning noting that’s a matter of legislative interpretation. Mr. Lenefsky noted that be that as it may there is nothing wrong with asking for variances. He stated the applicant has worked with the town consultant, noting Mr. Comi is the town’s consultant not the applicant’s consultant, and the applicant has satisfied Mr. Comi that Masterpage needs this facility where it is proposed with the setback and with the height variance.

Donna Bryan stated that in reference to the setback the Forester for the NYS DEC, Mr. Gerty, retired in the spring and there is a letter on record that he was very much opposed to this project because of the setback and because of the environmental impact. Ms. Bryan noted that after he retired from that office there have been no responses from that office to her about what their position is on this; so, the state was not in favor of it so that statement is not entirely true. She noted the Forester who was in charge of reviewing the project was very much opposed to it and, as of yet, though she is not aware but perhaps the applicant may have information, that the state has not answered with any response to or for it. Ms. Bryan stated that she believes, but is not entirely sure, that the state is not opposed to it all of the sudden after this Forester retired.

Mr. Lenefsky stated that is true regarding the Forester who met with them the day before he retired noting that he did not tell them that he was going to retire within twelve hours after the meeting. Mr. Lenefsky noted that when he did retire his replacement was someone who is superior in the agency to a Forest Ranger and that letter is dated May 8, 2001. Ms. Bryan noted that he was a Forester, not a Forest Ranger. Mr. Lenefsky stated but he has authority to talk for the State of New York noting it is on the state stationery. Ms. Bryan stated Mr. Lenefsky had stated Forest Ranger and he was a Forester. Mr. Lenefsky stated this person supervises the Forest Ranger and on behalf of the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation he states the department staff that reviewed the visual analysis prepared for the town by Creative Visuals has concluded that the visual impact of the proposed tower as it may be seen from public lands managed by this department is not significant. He noted the letter goes on to state that the department will not object should the town choose to allow Masterpage to construct a tower closer to the state’s property line than present town law allows. Ms. Bryan asked who the letter is from. Mr. Lenefsky responded the Natural Resources Supervisor, NY State Department of Environmental Conservation who supervises the Forest Ranger. Several asked the persons name. Mr. Lenefsky responded that his name is William Rudge. Ms. Bryan stated that is the one who superceded Mr. Gerty who was opposed to it. Mr. Lenefsky stated absolutely and he would be glad to provide copies—it is in the file. Ms. Bryan stated that Mr. Gerty was very much opposed to this project and Mr. Rudge, who succeeded Mr. Gerty after he retired, has not returned phone calls.

James Sofranko stated he has a comment regarding the visuals in that he is curious what happens when we have the blown up photo where the tower is one pixel of the photograph and they build the tower and then go out and take that same picture and the tower is twice as high. He asked if the town has recourse to anything like that even though the town hired these consultants. He stated it just seems very unusual that it is a blown up thing to make it so small. Mr. Sofranko stated he is proposing that for the board to consider.

Mr. Meddenbach stated he would like to speak up for the credibility of the people who did the work. He stated that all Creative Visuals does is photo simulation, predominantly on towers, and they’ve showed a lot of work they have done where they have created simulations before construction and then photos after construction and if you see them side by side you cannot tell a difference. He stated their work is incredibly good and their work has gone to court and it has held up. He stated they are considered the state experts in this field and it was not cheap.

Mr. Sofranko stated the smaller pictures where the resolution is not blown up as much seems to make the tower much more apparent than the image that is blown up so large.

Ms. Chaifetz asked about the people on South Mountain who are certainly concerned about it visually, but, when economically their property values plummet, “Do they have legal recourse or any recourse”? She asked if the company would give property owners the difference in money when their property is no longer as valuable as it was before.

Delia Adams stated she has a private comment which is just a foolish one, but she now knows why the Bushkill Bridge went out so we all have to drive that way every day and look at that mountain.

Richard Elliot stated that one thing he knows for sure is that everybody’s heart seems to be in the right place and that is important to mention. He stated that everybody’s coming out for what they really and truly believe in and that’s one of the most important things about a town in that it comes out, it gets out, and that we deal with each other as a community and that issue, not only the law but the community, takes an equal balance as who we are, what we’re doing and the future of our community.

Supervisor Leifeld introduced five letters for the record that he stated though they are not being read aloud will not go unnoticed:

Florence (Penny) Schetzel stated her opposition to the tower on South Mountain in that it will be unsightly, a threat to the environment and a threat to health, and will lower property values for those who live in the area.

Vance and Ann Crawford state they oppose the application as they would oppose any construction that would degrade one of the most spectacular views in the Northeast noting we should not destroy a treasure that we should hold in trust for our grandchildren.

Matt and Melissa Cooper state they understand the town’s obligation to provide cell phone service within the town and support the process; however, they believe the current application for a pager service tower is not fitting with this cell phone obligation. They suggest the town evaluate other sites and not consider this site simply because it is the first application submitted. They state the clear cut area that has been allowed at the site on South Mountain with a tower there can been seen from any vantage point in the town and to consider a tower that will stretch above the ridge line on that site is incongruous with the natural beauty and charter of the area.

Chester Karwatowski stated he has always been concerned that the town has tolerated a clear-cut area on and below the ridge of South Mountain with the tower over the ridge line on that site being incongruous with the natural beauty of the area. He stated the construction of road access and power access will add to this visual insult.

Supervisor Leifeld stated that the Town Board recognizes that this information and comments will not go unnoticed. He stated that the applicant, Masterpage Communications, Inc., provides a service, are not enemies, and are conducting a legitimate business. He stated that a number of years ago Patten Realty came in and we had a similar problem and the town reacted to it. He noted that this time the Town Board had its laws in place beforehand and though everyone may not be completely happy in the end, at least we have our laws in place. He stated that these companies with towers today have a right to do what they are doing and all we are going to do is hope to get what we need. He commended his board for the 2½ years of their work in getting the law in effect noting that if that hadn’t happened we wouldn’t be here in this manner and the tower would probably be up already. He asked the public to please give the board the credit of at least trying and to not go home frustrated assuring those in attendance that they were not wasting there time tonight. He noted that a lot of points were brought up tonight that will be on paper and the town will go over with the town’s attorney, consultant, and environmental planner, Mr. Shuster. Supervisor Leifeld noted that Mr. Shuster is not in attendance due to being on vacation. He noted that Masterpage Communications has been cooperative and has paid every bill regarding this process and as the gentleman stated, it is not cheap.

Mrs. Butler of Olivebridge stated that after listening to all the comments this evening it seems to her that their basic argument is with our federal government and not with our board or with the Masterpage applicants.

Jack Conaway stated he would like to point out that the real issue lies with your federal representatives and the law that sits on top of this issue has nothing to do with the applicants. Mr. Conway asked the board if it were possible if more or less the transcript of this can be publicized.

Town Clerk Rozzelle stated that Town Board minutes posted on the town website and will be available as soon as possible.

Mr. Lenefsky stated that since he represents Congressman Hinchey he would like to note that the Congressman was one of only twenty-six out of 434 members of Congress who voted against this act.

Carol Robin thanked the board for all the work they have done over the past few years to which the response was applause. Carol Robin stated that even though they are voicing a lot of frustration and anger and a lot of other emotion it is not directed at the Town Board. She stated that this is a federal law we are struggling with and one that people in communities all over the country are struggling with and that is something that we should keep in mind that whatever is being done to fight that on a first amendment basis we should try to follow up on and support.

All persons present having been heard the Town Board the Town Board adjourned the public hearing at 9:20 pm on a Leifeld/Johansen motion.

Sylvia B. Rozzelle, Town Clerk