845-583-4350 Ext 15 845-583-4710 (F)
Town of Bethel
Planning Board
PO Box 300, 3454 Route 55
White Lake, NY 12786
The Town of Bethel Planning Board held a Work Session on November 12th at 7 PM. A regular meeting of the Planning Board followed on the same date at 7:30 PM.
In attendance: Daniel Gettel Chairman, Steve Simpson, Vice Chairman, David Biren, Michael Cassaro, Susan Brown Otto, David Slater, Wilfred Hughson, Walter Norris, Alternate, BJ Gettel Code Enforcement Officer, Daniel Sturm, Supervisor, Vicky Vassmer-Simpson, Councilwoman, Lillian Hendrickson, Councilwoman, Jacqueline Ricciani, Attorney, Glenn Smith, Engineer, and Jannetta MacArthur Recording Secretary
A full board was present
On the Agenda at this time were the following:
Pledge to the flag
7:30 pm
The minutes from the October 29th meeting are still being transcribed.
1) Public Hearing for a renewal of a special use permit and site plan for retail use as a Craft and Flea Market, located at the corner of Pine Grove Road and NYS Route 17B, known as Bethel Tax Map SBL 37-1-19, 20 & 21, was proposed by Lipman Associates, L.P. (“Lipman”)
Motion to open public hearing by Susan Brown Otto, second by Steve Simpson.
All in favor – 7 Opposed - 0 Agreed and carried
Let the record show that the certified mailing receipts were turned in by the applicant.
Daniel Gettel: Mr. Altman would you give a brief presentation.
Steve Altman: I have been the manager and have been operating the Flea Market on Pine Grove Road the last few years. Most of the vendors are local vendors. There is a vendor that makes chairs, tables and benches. He is doing really well. We have a vendor that sells fruits and vegetables. Most are local, they make and sell crafts, they embroider stuff, they make jewelry, have garage sales, and most of the vendors know each other. There was an accident at the end of the summer by the Dollar General, a couple of the vendors assisted and directed traffic. If you have any questions, you can always ask me.
Daniel Gettel: Thank you Mr. Altman. No one has signed up to speak at this public hearing, but if someone has a comment.
Bob Barrett: I am here from Smallwood. I would like to speak on behalf of the Flea Market. I really think they have done a terrific job, I think there has been very little problem within Smallwood, with traffic, or any other kind of problems. I think it has been an asset to the community. I think there should be a permanent extension for the Special Use Permit because I think they have proven they are willing to cooperate, they do things and make the area attractive enough for people to come and spend an afternoon if they wish to do so. The only thing I say is that road, is Pine Grove and 17B, it causes problems there with that bump in the road. I know it is not the Planning Board issue, it is the Town Board, the DOT says they don’t see any problem there. Everything the Flea Market has done has been an asset to the community.
Motion to close this public hearing and go back to our regular meeting by David Brien, second by David Slater
All in favor – 7 Opposed - 0 Agreed and carried
Daniel Gettel: We did send this application to the State and the County for their 239 reviews. No one responded. In the past we did give this a Special Use Permit with a number of conditions. We are looking to continue that with the same conditions as last year. They are as follows:
1. The Craft and Flea market shall only be permitted to operate from May 1st to September 1st from 9:00 am to 8:00 pm, and from September 2nd to November 30th from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm.
2. The maximum number of vendors per day shall be 35.
3. All vendors shall be set up in their location prior to the opening of the Craft and Flea market at 9:00 am prior to opening.
4. There shall be a manager at the Craft and Flea Market each morning to direct and organize the vendors.
5. The sign for the Craft and Flea Market shall be the only advertisement found on the property. Individual vendors as well as other local businesses shall not be permitted to post advertising signs at the Craft and Flea Market. (That has been a problem in the past, but we realize these are mostly on the State Right of Way).
6. All fees shall be paid to the Town of Bethel.
7. The special use permit shall be renewed after five years pursuant to section 345 -30 H of the code of The Town of Bethel. The applicant may petition the Town of Bethel Planning Board anytime after November 2018 for the renewal of the Special Use Permit.
Daniel Gettel: Mr. Altman, will these conditions work for you?
Steve Altman: That will work.
Motion to grant this application a Special Use Permit with the above conditions by David Biren, second by Steve Simpson
Roll call vote
Mike Cassaro – Y
Susan Brown Otto – Y
Steve Simpson – Y
David Biren – Y
Wilfred Hughson – Y
David Slater – Y
Daniel Gettel - Y
All in favor - 7 Opposed - 0 Agreed and carried
2) Public Hearing for an additional antenna, equipment, to an existing cell tower located at 6 George Stephenson Road, known as Bethel Tax Map #40-1-39.1, proposed by Crown Castle.
Kevin John Allen: The purpose is to have better cell service in this area. There is no environmental impact. We are not adding a building. This is a preexisting situation.
Daniel Gettel: We forwarded this application to the County for a 239 review and sent out the Ag Data Statement as the property is in an Agricultural zone. The County recommended approval. We did not hear back on the Ag Data submission. We do have a short EAF. We did ask for the agreement with the owner. They did provide us with that information. We also received information that the tower is structurally sufficient to handle this addition. We have all of the information we need, but we have to wait until 8:00 pm for the public hearing as that is the time it was scheduled to begin.
BJ Gettel: We do have the certified mail receipts for the mailings.
8:00 pm
Motion to go into public hearing by Susan Brown Otto, second by Steve Simpson
All in favor - 7 Opposed – 0 Agreed and carried
Daniel Gettel: I have a number of people who have signed up to speak.
Paula Barber: My husband owns the property that the cell tower is on. We did not receive any receipt of the letter. We were blindsided by this. My question is the stability of the tower. It is rocking now. It is not stable.
Daniel Gettel: Mrs. Barber, we do have an engineers report that the tower does have the proper capacity to carry this new antennae. It is on record at town hall if you would like to look at it. That is part of our review.
Paula Barber: I don’t know why we didn’t get a certified letter.
Daniel Gettel: Typically the owner of the property doesn’t get a letter. This is unusual because you are not the applicant. Just the neighbors surrounding the area by 500 ft received the letters. Typically the property owner is also the applicant.
Daniel Gettel: Mr. Barrett, please.
Bob Barrett: The only reason I am speaking on it, every night before I go to bed I look out and I see the red light flashing. Paula just mentioned the stability. The service is only being used by Sprint. Are there plans for other users that will use this tower? It would enhance the ability to get cell phone service in the area. It would widen the range. I feel it is a positive thing.
Daniel Gettel: The town zoning is set up that so that we encourage other providers to collocate on existing towers. We don’t encourage new towers in the Town of Bethel.
Bob Barrett: It was my thought to encourage more providers.
Motion to close this public hearing and go back to our regular meeting by Steve Simpson, second by David Slater
All in favor – 7 Opposed - 0 Agreed and carried
Daniel Gettel: We do have a short EAF for this application. There is no land disturbance, so I will not read through Part 1.
Parts 2 and 3:
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? No.
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No.
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No.
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? No.
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No.
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No.
7a. Will the proposed action impact existing public / private water supplies? No.
7b. Will the proposed action impact public / private wastewater treatment utilities? No.
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources? No.
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? No.
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? No.
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? No.
Part 3 reads that the for every question in Part 2 that was answered “moderate to large impact may occur”, or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact will or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts.
Daniel Gettel: Even though it is not required I completed this section simply by stating that there should be no environmental impact. I also stated that the application is for the addition of an antenna and equipment cabinet to be located at an existing facility and that there will be no land disturbance.
Motion to grant this application a negative declaration by Mike Cassaro, second by Susan Brown Otto.
All in favor – 7 Opposed - 0 Agreed and carried
Daniel Gettel: Our code encourages companies to collocate their antennae on existing towers but as a board we must consider them Special Uses and must consider Section 345-30 the Special Use procedures. Section 345-30 of our code includes the Special Use procedures. Paragraphs I and J are the two that I typically read into the record as part of the review.
Paragraph I reads that “The Planning Board, in reviewing the site plan, shall consider its conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and the various other plans, laws and ordinances of the Town. Conservation features, aesthetics, landscaping and impact on surrounding development as well as on the entire Town shall be part of the Planning Board review. Traffic flow, circulation and parking shall be reviewed to ensure the safety of the public and of the users of the facility and to ensure that there is no unreasonable interference with traffic on surrounding streets. The Planning Board shall further consider the following:”
(1) Building design, lighting, location and signs insofar as suitability for the use intended and impact on and compatibility with the natural and man-made surroundings.
This proposal does not involve the alteration or expansion of the existing building, nor does it involve any additional lighting or signage.
(2) Storm drainage, flooding and erosion and sedimentation control.
There are no changes proposed to the site that would increase runoff.
(3) Adequacy of community services and utilities, including police protection, emergency services and the educational system.
This expansion of an existing use would not place a high demand on any of those services. In fact, some of these services may benefit by this proposal.
(4) Environmental impacts in any form.
This application has been subjected to an Environmental review and a Negative Declaration was granted.
(5) Impacts on housing availability.
There will be no impact on housing.
(6) The potential for nuisance impacts such as noise, odors, vibrations or glare.
There should not be any noticeable additional impacts from this expansion.
(7) The adequacy of the trees, shrubs and other landscaping to buffer or soften a use in terms of visual or other impacts on adjoining property owners, Town residents and those visitors on whom the local economy often depends.
This is an addition to an existing tower, lower than the existing antennae.