Red Hook WatchIndependent Community Resource

AUTHORIZING THE COLOCATION OF ANTENNAE ON AN EXISTING WATER TOWER IN THE VILLAGE OF RED HOOK

↑Meetings/Resolutions/5-2019
Activeformal_resolutionongoingThe Village Board approves and exempts a T-Mobile antenna colocation project on the municipal water tower from zoning law requirements, based on the Monroe Balancing Test.
First seen
2019-01-14
Latest event
2019-01-14
adopted
Expires
—

Resolution text

RESOLVED

  1. that the Village Board of Trustees hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Matter of Cty. of Monroe v. City of Rochester: 1. The nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity: The Village is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of New York State. 2. The encroaching government's legislative grant of authority: The Village has the sole authority to adopt and amend zoning laws within its boundaries and to enter into leases with telecommunications providers for use of the water tower. 3. The kind of function or land use involved: The Village is proposing to authorize the colocation of telecommunications antennae on an existing tall structure, the Village water tower. The antennae would provide cellular service, including emergency 911 services, to persons within the service area. 4. The effect local land use regulation would have on the enterprise concerned: A telecommunications tower and antenna is not a permitted use in the R10,000 District and would therefore be prohibited. 5. Alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas: A telecommunications tower and antenna is not permitted in any of the Village's Zoning Districts and therefore no other alternative locations within the Village. 6. The impact upon legitimate local interests: The Village has an interest in providing cellular services to its residents and in maintaining the aesthetics of the Village. Collocation on an existing tall structure within the Village avoids the need for erection of a separate monopole, which can be unsightly. 7. Alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement: A new monopole could be constructed outside of the Village, but the service area within the Village would be impacted. Alternatively, the Village or the provider could seek a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. In Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82 NY 2d 364 (1993), the state's highest court established a "public necessity test" for public utilities in lieu of the traditional test for a use variance, but this would still require applying for a variance, paying an application fee, and a review process. 8. The extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements: Public safety will be enhanced by the provision of more reliable cellular service. The Village will also benefit monetarily from the lease with T-Mobile Northeast LLC. 9. Intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard: The Village Board has held a public hearing allowing members of the public and other municipal boards the opportunity to be heard.
  2. that, based on the foregoing, the Village Board determines that the benefit to the public in authorizing the colocation of antennae on an existing tall structure, the water tower, outweighs the benefit to the Village of compliance with the Zoning Law, and that it is in the public interest to exempt the Village from the application of the Zoning Law to the Project
Show preamble — 9 WHEREAS clauses
  • WHEREAS, the T-Mobile Northeast LLC has requested that the Village enter into a lease agreement to colocate antennae and related facilities on an existing municipally owned water tower (the "Project") located at 21 Tower Street, Red Hook, NY 12571 (the "Property")
  • WHEREAS, a Short Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") dated December 20, 2018, has been prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")
  • WHEREAS, on December 20, 2018, the Village Board of Trustees classified the action as an unlisted action and determined to conduct an uncoordinated review
  • WHEREAS, the Property is located within the R10,000 Zoning District
  • WHEREAS, a telecommunication antenna is not listed as a permitted use in the R10,000 Zoning District
  • WHEREAS, cellular phone towers have been declared by the Court of Appeals to be a public utility facility and municipalities must provide a reasonable opportunity for cellular companies to exist and serve the market
  • WHEREAS, in determining whether a municipal action is exempt from zoning regulations, the Village must consider the balancing of public interests approach set forth in Matter of County of Monroe v. City of Rochester, 72 NY2d 338 (1988), including, the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity; the encroaching government's legislative grant of authority; the kind of function or land use involved; the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned; alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas; the impact upon legitimate local interests; alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement; the extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements; and intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard (the "Monroe Balancing Test")
  • WHEREAS, in accordance with the case of Crown Communication New York, Inc. v. Department of Transportation of the State of New York, 4 NY3d 159 (2005), governmental immunity from zoning may be extended to private partners through contractual agreements for the installation of telecommunication equipment on municipal land
  • WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on January 14, 2019 during which the Village Board accepted comments on whether and to what extent the Village's Zoning Law should apply to the Project, taking into account the nine factors set forth in Matter of Cty. of Monroe v. City of Rochester

Lifecycle (1 event)

2019-01-14adoptedvote: unanimous
Authorize the colocation of antennae on the existing water tower and exempt the Village from zoning law compliance.
moved by Blundell · seconded by Trapp
Show text snapshot for this event
Resolved
  1. that the Village Board of Trustees hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Matter of Cty. of Monroe v. City of Rochester: 1. The nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity: The Village is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of New York State. 2. The encroaching government's legislative grant of authority: The Village has the sole authority to adopt and amend zoning laws within its boundaries and to enter into leases with telecommunications providers for use of the water tower. 3. The kind of function or land use involved: The Village is proposing to authorize the colocation of telecommunications antennae on an existing tall structure, the Village water tower. The antennae would provide cellular service, including emergency 911 services, to persons within the service area. 4. The effect local land use regulation would have on the enterprise concerned: A telecommunications tower and antenna is not a permitted use in the R10,000 District and would therefore be prohibited. 5. Alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas: A telecommunications tower and antenna is not permitted in any of the Village's Zoning Districts and therefore no other alternative locations within the Village. 6. The impact upon legitimate local interests: The Village has an interest in providing cellular services to its residents and in maintaining the aesthetics of the Village. Collocation on an existing tall structure within the Village avoids the need for erection of a separate monopole, which can be unsightly. 7. Alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement: A new monopole could be constructed outside of the Village, but the service area within the Village would be impacted. Alternatively, the Village or the provider could seek a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. In Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82 NY 2d 364 (1993), the state's highest court established a "public necessity test" for public utilities in lieu of the traditional test for a use variance, but this would still require applying for a variance, paying an application fee, and a review process. 8. The extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements: Public safety will be enhanced by the provision of more reliable cellular service. The Village will also benefit monetarily from the lease with T-Mobile Northeast LLC. 9. Intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard: The Village Board has held a public hearing allowing members of the public and other municipal boards the opportunity to be heard.
  2. that, based on the foregoing, the Village Board determines that the benefit to the public in authorizing the colocation of antennae on an existing tall structure, the water tower, outweighs the benefit to the Village of compliance with the Zoning Law, and that it is in the public interest to exempt the Village from the application of the Zoning Law to the Project
Whereas
  • WHEREAS, the T-Mobile Northeast LLC has requested that the Village enter into a lease agreement to colocate antennae and related facilities on an existing municipally owned water tower (the "Project") located at 21 Tower Street, Red Hook, NY 12571 (the "Property")
  • WHEREAS, a Short Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") dated December 20, 2018, has been prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")
  • WHEREAS, on December 20, 2018, the Village Board of Trustees classified the action as an unlisted action and determined to conduct an uncoordinated review
  • WHEREAS, the Property is located within the R10,000 Zoning District
  • WHEREAS, a telecommunication antenna is not listed as a permitted use in the R10,000 Zoning District
  • WHEREAS, cellular phone towers have been declared by the Court of Appeals to be a public utility facility and municipalities must provide a reasonable opportunity for cellular companies to exist and serve the market
  • WHEREAS, in determining whether a municipal action is exempt from zoning regulations, the Village must consider the balancing of public interests approach set forth in Matter of County of Monroe v. City of Rochester, 72 NY2d 338 (1988), including, the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity; the encroaching government's legislative grant of authority; the kind of function or land use involved; the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned; alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas; the impact upon legitimate local interests; alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement; the extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements; and intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard (the "Monroe Balancing Test")
  • WHEREAS, in accordance with the case of Crown Communication New York, Inc. v. Department of Transportation of the State of New York, 4 NY3d 159 (2005), governmental immunity from zoning may be extended to private partners through contractual agreements for the installation of telecommunication equipment on municipal land
  • WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on January 14, 2019 during which the Village Board accepted comments on whether and to what extent the Village's Zoning Law should apply to the Project, taking into account the nine factors set forth in Matter of Cty. of Monroe v. City of Rochester
Subject key: tmobile_antenna_colocation_water_tower