VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
MINUTES OF THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
A meeting of the Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Luntz acting as chairperson
Charles Kane (taking the place of Stuart Greenbaum)
ABSENT: Fran Allen
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O'Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Robert Luntz acting as chairperson in Fran Allen’s absence.
2. New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless – Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for the Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the DPW Facility, Veteran’s Plaza – Consistency Review:
Michael Sheridan, Esq. of Snyder & Snyder, LLP and Anthony Botta of Tectonic Engineering were present to represent the Applicant.
Mr. Sheridan stated that the Applicant Verizon Wireless proposes to collocate on the existing cell tower at 26 Veteran’s Plaza. Their proposal consists of installing small panel antennas on the existing tower and installing the related equipment in the fenced-in compound at the base of the tower. Mr. Sheridan said that they are present tonight in the hopes of receiving a favorable recommendation from the WAC to the Village Board.
Mr. Luntz noted that Verizon Wireless would be the fourth carrier to be approved for collocation on the cell tower in a pre-determined location on the tower. Mr. Luntz said that, if the Verizon Wireless application were approved and their antennas installed, there would still be a spot on the tower for one more carrier to collocate. Mr. Luntz noted that there would also still be room at the highest point on the tower for the Village’s antennas.
The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant has filled out the Coastal Assessment Form (CAF). The WAC usually reviews the answers to the questions in the CAF. Mr. Luntz read aloud those questions which were answered “yes” in sections C.1, C.2 and C.3 on pages 2 and 3 of the CAF. The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant answered “yes” to question C.3(h) “Will the proposed action involve or result in development within a designated flood or erosion hazard area?” The Village Engineer said that the answer is “yes” because the cell tower is located within a designated flood zone.
The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant answered “yes” to question C.4(a)5 “Do essential public services and facilities presently exist at or near the site?” The answer is “yes” because of the existence of public utilities (electric and gas lines) in that location.
Mr. Kane referred to question C.4(b)1 “Will the project protect, maintain and/or increase the level and types of public access to water-related recreation resources and facilities?” and question C.4(b)2 “If located in the foreshore, will access to those and adjacent lands be provided?” and asked the Applicant why they answered “yes” to both of these questions. Mr. Sheridan gave their reasons for answering “yes,” stating that collocating on the cell tower would neither increase nor decrease public access to the waterfront. The project (collocation) would, instead, maintain the level of access that currently exists. Mr. Sheridan noted that the answers to these two questions could not be “no.” The only alternative was to answer the questions “yes.” The Village Engineer said that,
as he understands it, the point the Applicant is making is that the existing access to the waterfront is not being affected by the project being proposed, to which Mr. Sheridan said that this is, indeed, the case.
The Village Engineer stated that the answer given to question C.4(j) “Does the project involve transport, storage, treatment or disposal of solid waste or hazardous materials?” is “no.” The Village Engineer said that he would think the answer to this question should be “yes.” The Village Engineer noted that the project involves the transport of petroleum-contaminated soil and possibly railroad ties, which are considered solid waste.
The Village Engineer noted to the WAC members that Verizon is installing a building (shelter) at the foot of the tower to house their equipment. The Village Engineer noted that equipment platforms rather than a building are being used to house the equipment of the other carriers on the cell tower. Mr. Kane asked which way storm water would be directed from the roof of the equipment building being proposed, to which the Village Engineer replied that water from the roof would be discharged into the gravel surface of the compound. Anthony Botta of Tectonic Engineering said that, in so far as the storm water runoff is concerned, he would look at the plan(s) to make certain that this is accomplished.
Mr. Kane asked about the recycling of batteries on site, to which Mr. Sheridan said that there is a note on Drawing C-3 of the plans prepared by Tectonic Engineering pertaining to the disposal of batteries. Ms. Restuccia said that batteries need to be recycled properly. This matter was brought up by Charles Kane during the MetroPCS review. Ms. Restuccia said that she read the note pertaining to the disposal of batteries on Drawing C-3 and it does not seem to her to be a very pressing note. She questioned how the Applicant is going to make certain that these batteries are disposed of and that it is done properly. Mr. Sheridan said that a sign pertaining to the disposal of batteries would be mounted to the equipment building at the base of the cell tower. Mr. Sheridan said that this is how
information is conveyed at the site. Mr. Sheridan said that this should be sufficient. Mr. Kane told Mr. Sheridan that there has to be a process in place for battery disposal. Old batteries cannot just lay there for years. Mr. Kane questioned what this process is (would be), to which Mr. Botta said that he knows that the Applicant Verizon Wireless does have a process in place. He is certain of that because they have had to implement this process on other sites. Mr. Botta said that he does not know the exact process but he knows that it exists, to which Mr. Kane said that he is satisfied with this answer.
Mr. Kane told the Applicant that the packet of application materials submitted for the WAC’s review is very well done. It is complete and well executed. He complimented the Applicant on their good work.
Mr. Luntz asked if there were any other comments from the WAC members, to which there were none.
Mr. Luntz entertained a motion to recommend to the Village Board that they find this project consistent with the policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) with the change to the CAF discussed tonight. The motion was made by Mr. Kane, seconded by Ms. Restuccia and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
The Village Engineer said that the memorandum from the WAC to the Village Board would be prepared by his office in time for the Village Board meeting of March 15th. A copy of this memorandum would be provided to the Applicant.
3. Approval of Minutes:
Approval of the minutes of the Wednesday, September 2, 2009 and Tuesday, December 15, 2009 WAC meetings was tabled until the next scheduled meeting of the WAC.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:27 P.M.
Village of Croton-on-Hudson