Planning Board - Regular Meeting

As a fire department spokesman always recording. Yep. Okay. Never mind. Hi everybody. We're live. Thanks, Peter. Live from New York. It's Monday. I'll wait for David. I'm sorry. All right. Morning. I have caffeinated.

But then had a little bit of red wine. So hopefully it gets 12. Is your uh bit of charging there? Yeah, I'm still trying to Yeah, I'm good. I need to get a better bigger strip. Oh, work on that. Okay.

Let him get it done. I want to get started. Thank you. No. to the board of the December 8th meeting of the town of Rochester Planning Board. I have the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Station, would you uh would you do the roll call, please? Yes. Um Chair Jones here. Member Nelson here. Member Roberts here.

Member Duda here. Member Fester here. Member Burwell here. Member Pens here. We have Jordan. We have Dave Charts. Uh Greg Folder. He's coming up at seven. Okay. All right. So, we're all here. Hale. Um, all right. I have um the schedule of meetings for next year um that long. Thank you. Thank you.

And for the public, yeah, this will be eventually as in a few days will be published to the uh to the website. Okay. So the board and our consultants would notice the important uh column uh is the last one which is when the PB meetings are going to take place. And if you note when we get to May we only have one. July August we only have one. And then as we did this year in November and December, we're only now making one. So there are five months, at least that's the plan, that we'll only have one meeting, the first um the first meeting of the month and not the second one. That's of course is subject to change if we get really really busy and need to have a workshop meeting. So the public can find that on the website as we speak or

we need to approve those dates in order for it to be on the January. We can offer a motion to approve the dates. Make a motion to approve the dates as laid out in the 2026 board calendar. I second. On second. So all in favor. I. Anybody opposed? Chair votes yes. Okay.

Um another item and this is primarily for the public. Um and I'll read it word for word. It's from the supervisor. Um, the planning board has received uh 86 written comments submitted by 3:30 p.m. for consideration as part of the public hearing. All comments timely submitted to the planning board have been forwarded to the planning board members and will be included in the official record of the hearing. So Stacy did send that out this afternoon. Fiveish, fourish. Send. What? When did you send out the 86 some oat or the 46?

Around 3:30 this afternoon.

Okay. So, you do have them. They're all there. Um, all comments were also copied to the town supervisor, the town cler, and the attorney for the town. Just for clarity, these officers do not have any authority or role in planning board proceedings and have no authority to open, close, or otherwise direct a public hearing. Copying these offices does not alter the planning board's process or obligations. So, in addition to getting all these letters, um, which I don't know that asking that they not be sent that it be sent directly to the planning board is going to change anything, but the one item that that I did see and I believe I voted to the board was a suggestion by a group that um, we had errored in the posting of the meeting, in the posting of the agenda, etc., etc., etc. And to the contrary, uh, we were early on everything and well within the time frame. So the letter went to the town supervisor, letter went to the town attorney. Anytime the town attorney has to open something, we get charged as a town. So if possible in the future, um, and the town board has nothing to do with our agenda. So Erin as a supervisor can't call me up and do any of the following. Can't tell me to vote on something, not to vote on something, to change my meeting, not to change the meeting, um to skip a meeting, but can't cannot do any of that by state law, uh state code, nor would she. Um she's got enough on her hands right now for sure. So, just just a a word to the public to uh um we took care of it. I think we took she took care of it. Actually, she responded over the weekend

to the complaint that things were not done in a timely fashion. Uh so, I'm glad that she was able to do that. If it had come to us, um probably would not have been able to get a note out until sometime today, just giving everybody's schedule. But uh anyway, um just just a heads up that things that go to other officers of the town, they're not allowed to in I call it interfere, but they're not allowed to advise up or down the planning board. Um period. What is it that appropriate time to mention that uh some of those letters several letters mention u bank facility which is misrepresentation of

I'm sorry I mentioned what banket facility that was considering oh banquet I'm sorry facility nothing there's nothing in application about facility people can say what they want okay That's that's always misleading the the community.

Yeah. So, we're here to correct it and if they read the record, they'll see they correct it. But I'm not going to tell people don't write that. People could write and pretty much say whatever they want except yell fire in a movie house supposedly. Um, okay. And, uh, so we did the calendar, we did the note from there. Let's get started. Unless anybody has any other [clears throat] comments. Sorry, I appreciate it. But

well, another one comments I I I wrote to you. I don't know what we can to do do but uh limit uh written comments time frame before the meeting so we don't get bombarded by 80 some comments written comments and expecting us to read them before the meeting. It's it's a waste of I think it's obvious to if I get 80. Yeah. Um, can I make one note and with what Zorian saying?

My hours here are only until noon and I had my entire time that was supposed to be helping Aaron with her things that I was working on these cuz it says 3:30 on our public hearing notice. If when we motion to open a public hearing, we can make it until noon the day of the meeting. I think that that might be helpful at least for me so that I can help her when it's time for her work. Just So I assume that the time frame for when they have to get comments in is up to us. What Stacy is saying that on the public hearing notice it says 3:30 at 3:30. They can be considered before we make a decision.

No. So that she can get them out before we come to the meeting and they can be read by us before the meeting. So whatever our our capabilities are. Well, I'll take that into consideration. But again, if you don't get them in order to read them, we don't read them. We do the best we can. Looking at the Pine Grove notice, it doesn't have a time. Okay. It actually says specifically what email is sent to do, but it doesn't have a time. There's no time. I've seen it on some. It might be on some of them. All right. Let's get started. Bill,

you have a couple in front of us today, right? You have Pinkeris, Mr. Pinker, and uh Mr. Lewis or Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. So, the board uh as the board remembers um I had asked I've been asking a few of you to hono a couple of the projects um because there's so much going on. Jen is doing the Pinkerist one. The only thing I will me so I'm going to let Jen uh lead the discussion. I do want to mention we got Oolster County Planning Board comments back on the Pinkeris project, but they were what I would call informal. And so I sent a note back to them saying, "I know you were either too busy or you didn't get to it. So you only sent me informal. I want you to reconsider and get me the official findings of the pling of the county planning board before I act on this uh application." So they're going to do it in January. That's the earliest they can do it.

My understanding for their response was they did not have a forum. Okay. And so they won't put that in writing. They'll just They didn't have a forum. That's a good reason for not. So, so the informal means it's what the planning department what the planning department drafted, but the but the um planning board never voted on it. That's my understanding. They never voted on it. Well, drew up claim it. So, with that, um, and I had hoped to set the public hearing tonight. I don't know for this project. I don't know if we will or not. There's a few things we still need from you in order to do that. But Jen, do you want to get started just to update the board?

Um, would you like to start by sharing what changes have been made? Um, with the resubmission or you want me to walk, you know what all has changed since the the last year? I have, you know what? I haven't I can walk through the changes. That's fine. So, for everyone, I have to apologize. When we sent feedback, the full board wasn't copied on the email back to the applicant. I just just forwarded you the email so that you have it now in your inboxes, but I do apologize. Um the majority of the comments were related to lighting and parking um septic, but I'll walk through since you didn't have the benefit of seeing that. I'll kind of briefly walk through our comments

and then we can talk about where we stand now if that sounds good to everyone. So

we asked for a revision of the narrative to better explain the use out of the population etc. I think you're still waiting on that though. I know you did receive it. Um we asked that the site plan be updated to reflect the septic and it was revised and resubmitted. So the map that you have in front of you reflects that. Um with regard to lighting, there were a few odds and ends. So, it's my understanding that all of the existing lighting is dark sky compliant as your email, right? Um, we also wanted to confirm whether there are any new exterior lights and you confirm there are no new lights as as existing already.

Okay. Um, another question that I think is still pending is whether all of the exterior lighting with the exception of safety lighting would be off during outside hours of operation. Can you confirm whether or not or get back to us? Not sure, but there's um on the front of the building there's like these just little call lights I guess, right? Yeah. um just a very low um intensity light just shining down on the ground on the front of the building. I'm not sure if those would be off. Everything else would be motion detector

because I believe the code requires all the lighting to be off outside. I don't think the code says well if I think the code says uh to be dimmed says what is it? 40-207. All exterior and sign lighting with the exception of safety related building mounted lighting shall be turned off outside hours of operation. Okay, there you go. That's pretty specific, Bill. Building mounted. Um yeah, I don't know. I'll have to ask Tom if those are on a timer or what they're on there, [clears throat] but everything else would be um

I mean we have done that with all the Now that I think of it, we've done it with the tried to do it with the gas stations. I don't know if they're complying, but most of them do. Yeah. Um except for those that have 24hour operations, but okay. So that needs to be um confirmed. Um on signage, this sort of overlaps with lighting a little bit. We asked you to confirm whether the building will have a sign posted to the exterior. Is there any plans on the building? No. Okay. So that confirms you.

Um we asked whether the existing roadside sign is pre-existing non-conforming and it's confirmed it is non-conforming pre-existing. So, it kind of is where it is. But, um, are you planning to illuminate that light or so? It's currently is is illuminated exterior. There's little lights that shine down over the top of it and there's little pair of lights that shine down on top. Okay. So, there is existing lights. That's um

the final issue which is parking. Uh, you know, as Rick said, we referred this to Wolster County Transit Planning Board. They didn't have a quorum, so we haven't gotten an official response. Um, we've asked them to review again in January. So, while we can't give you the official requirements from the planning board, they are asking about channelizing the flow. So, you can expect to get that comment back. Um, and if you I would direct members of the board. Um, you can see here there's an assumed highway bound that appears to encroach on the ADA spot. Um, so I think you know there are some issues with the parking.

Yeah. And so I would open it I would open this up. So, Bill, I think you're going to get an official statement that says you have to ch channelize it in some fashion and also a request that you meet with the DOT and determine what what kind of permits you need from the DEO DOT because it looks like you're infringing on the the easement that the DOT has. Sure. Um, always has, but yeah, but meeting with them might help uh well, resolve the situation if there's modification for Olster County. likely need coordination with EOT if you're working on there right away.

Yeah. So, does this I don't even think tonight we should comment on whether we do want channelization. Let's wait to see whether or not um what the county says. I think when it comes to safety, we're going to pretty much follow whatever it is they suggest. And does make good sense. So, some of these are going to have to change the angle of them, Bill. Um, so that's one issue. And then the other bigger issue, Bill, we talked about this is me, some members of the board, I assume they still want to do this, want to do a site visit and the purpose of it is just to walk around the building, get a feeling for it. Nothing more than that. Do we have a date? Uh, Mr. Pinker will be back in the country tomorrow. Okay.

Okay. So, get back to you then. And so, you haven't had any discussions with them about No. Not since since you gave me some feedback on Wayne for so in the effort to move this along we won't we won't get what is the first Wednesday of January so we have a calendary what date is that [clears throat] seventh the seventh

so the county meets on the 7th first Wednesday we meet on the 12th so we should have back from the county by our meeting of the 12th. Um I don't see any reason why we can't set up public hearing for the 12th and if there's all sorts of issues that come about. We just keep the public hearing open. So I'd like to in the effort to move it along, not to skip steps but to move it along is to entertain a motion to set the public hearing for the 12th bill. anticipate what I told you with the channelization and also we have to do a site plan. Well, let me ask the board who wants to go on a visit. I I will.

Okay, it looks like Zor, I know you want to go. I can go. Okay, so we need both of those bills. [clears throat] So, the public hearing uh will be set. Uh, we'll take a vote, but I'm only going to set it if he agrees to do a a visit before the public hearing, which would be the 12. Based on on what you told me you were looking for there, I didn't want him to do that.

What I told Bill, all we're looking for is to look at the building. We're not interested in whatever other business he has in the back. Landscaping business, asphalt business, it's not part of this application. It's just the building. So, I said that's all we're looking to do. Um, all right. So, I'll make a motion that we set the public hearing for the 12th, assuming that we have an agreed upon date before that time for the site visit. Second, Jen. Um, all in favor? Anybody opposed? Chair votes yes. Bill, anything else on this?

Um, no, not I just would like to just point out on the new plan there, we did indicate I have a distance of 20. There was some concern about whether they were willing to back out of the parking spaces, right? People were going to be backing out onto the highway. And so 25 feet is the standard width between two aisles of parking. You need to back out without backing into the cars behind us. So that's there's the 25 ft there as well off of the uh gra away. And I guess the issue is that they ask for a burm of some sort that could increase the the turning length or the backup length. Yeah. So it really depends on what the count's back asking. Yeah. Yeah. And then you may have to something like the size of the stable or you may have to angle the uh the backup space.

I have a couple of questions though. Sure. Going to have to get Yeah. Um one thing is it's listed as 1.6 is another 1.67 acres on parcel and the map says 1.37. I don't know what that discrepancy is. And and Peter says 1.5. Yeah. So there's a little discrepancy there. So that's pretty common. Okay. just making a note about that. Um, so what's correct? Your map. Yeah. They said that's based on the survey. Yeah. 13. Okay. Then the number of parking spaces in there that's marked as 11. Um, would this be considered, this is maybe David Church, but commercial or offices? The square footages. And where I'm going with this is that you might be able to eliminate a space or two.

Yeah. That would help for parking for help for turning around. We don't have that. So I think it was typed as an office as an office. Okay. So it's less you So you might be able to eliminate one space which might help with the uh um turnaround. I It's an orthodontist. It's an office. It's not Yeah, Dave. Yeah. I think that the set of uses it's had are have similar parking requirements, don't they? It's 1.75 this for commercial um and 200 square foot 150 commercial I thought 175

the list of uses don't match the permitted uses right you have to stick it in a larger category okay you following me no your code has dozens of uses that are permitted it only has five or six uses for parking for parking category right Right. The commercial and offices are are lumped. Right. And the office one has a lesser requirement larger I think. Yeah. I think it's true. They if I may what he stried recently is way more than is required. Right. It may help if the parking is tight. [clears throat] He's got notably more spaces than is required by code. Yeah.

I but at that time the work that function. She said, "So, Bill, the 11 parking spaces you did, would you use the commercial or the office?" That's just how many he has. That's what he has striped out there. Oh, so he did it without any instructions from you. Yeah. All right. So, I parked I did striping. I'm like, "Oh, okay. I already had come up with a proposed plan for the parking, so I better go and see what you have out there." Um, and what was your proposal? I determined it would be eight would be required. How much? Eight. And you use what office? Um I'm not sure what that was based on.

11. Yeah, that was one space for 175 square ft of floor area. That's commercial. Commercial. That's commercial. Well, anyway, it may helpfully help me out. So I think the board will be flexible to say if it's an orthodontist office um to be flexible say commercial is fine you get 175 instead of 200 you need eight instead of 11. He sort of shot himself in the foot by but there is similar to Peter's question there is an gravel parking area in back on the map please

there's parking in the back but the the slope is intense. I I just spoke to that would not be your it's not going to work. I get it. But this is another reason why I said physically be helpful because we can see the site help get around some. So why don't you suggest to your client that that he allows you to do the mapping and the using and all that and that eight would probably work and we'll see how that works. It's consistent or we can work with whatever the county comes up with. I have one more please. short

which is on the on the short EAF um it says that uh there's a question about shipo says no and no and yet on the mapper I think it says uh yes that there was a archaeological historical thing did we ever get that satisfied even from previous um applications or anything I'm not sure I think we talked about it but I wasn't sure about it I thought that since we were not serving brown just to change that's what I But but I don't It's a type two action. Type two. Okay. So never mind. Never mind. Well, that's the other thing. We did we talked it's a type two action. It is. So there's no we don't need to declare agency,

right? But we couldn't find in the minutes that we actually as a board declared it a type two or it's type two, but it's meets it directly meets a category in a type two. So it's the state rules. It's an pre-existing commercial building. It's not It's proposing a use that's allowed by zoning, even by special command. It's less than what 4,000 splits. No, it's there's another one,

Dave. I'm satisfied with that. Unless you're not as a title subsection 18, reuse of a residential or commercial structure or structure containing mixed use where the where the use is permitted under applicable zoning uh including permitted by special use permit. Okay. So the types of anything else. All right. So build and they're not adding the building. Right. Right. They're not increasing size of the Would you answer me? Yes. Okay. All right. Do you have to anything else from the board on this? All right. Let's move to Lewis.

No. All right. Bill talks. Just tell Stacy for the figurative agenda then figure the board doesn't have to do anything. Okay. Just is a word or anything. No. I mean it doesn't hurt to ask somebody knows to code.

Bill want to talk to us about that. Lois, last time you were here, we expressed some concern with the driveway proposed driveway. I think that was one of the remaining issues. Yes. And I think since the last asked for the slope mapping, right, color coding of the slope there. Does anyone have any comments?

We had talked about the uh driveway going through the buffer zone

and the issue is our code suggests that um you can't have a paved driveway going through a buffer zone. And the applicant has indicated it's not going to be paved. in the typical definition of pave which is concrete or asphalt that it's going to be gravel. Um and the code doesn't speak to that. It just says can't do pave. So, um I think gravel is a good alternative and think we would need a note on the map and in the decision that says that the driveway can never be paved aka asphalt or concrete and has to remain gravel to be consistent with the code when it comes to the buffer zone. What do you think?

Yeah, really. You know, the other alternative Quick question. Go ahead. Do we know what the area of disturbance is in the buffer for new driveway? Because there's the existing, right, that's already there. And then there's the proposed new gravel drive in the buffer. We know what that area disturbances. Oh, the new driveway. Yeah. No, it's not here. Well, no, I don't see it here. It's the standard driveway with 16 ft. Well, it's where it fix. So, where's the buffer zone on this? The buffer isn't great on this. Which line?

Light brown. I don't see a light brown. 100 foot wetland offset. There's 100 foot on the wetland border. All right. Right underneath where lot 4.2 24 acres. You see the 100 ft right way up there. Oh, okay. That's the 100 foot buffer there. Okay. It would be helpful to know how much what the square footage is in the buffer. And it should also be on the EAF. Maybe it's on there and I missed it. So depending what the number is, Chen, what would we do with that? I it's just helpful to have um we're not going to allow asphalt to concrete to understand the magnitude relative to the size of a do

just to understand just for general knowledge to know I don't know that it would make it this difference in our determination but typically that was that would be information that you would articulate environmental review to be more than I don't think it Sure, but you'd want to be able to quantify it for the environmental review to say we quantified it and it doesn't exceed whateverulations there are. Yeah, that's that my only question about that of the weapon buffer. Bill, can you get us that? How much of the of the Well, this is how much of the encroachment on the

new encroachment on the buffer. What's the amount of area that's being encroached on because there's already a portion of the driveway, Jen, that's right in the comfort zone. Yeah, correct. Yep. Okay. So, if we can do that, that would be great. Is everybody okay with the note on the map when we get there? No asphalt, no concrete. Yes. Yes. Makes sense for a site visit. Sorry. Would it make sense to make a site visit? Yes. Build site visit. Sure. Hey, did you come up with dates? We talked about this too.

My clients are really really ignoring me. These people also I don't know if they're out of the country or what, but I can't get in touch with them. So say I'll take responsibility of uh setting up the date for you. We'll take you out there. So you got to take the responsibility without talking to your client. Well, Either that or they gonna put it off until spring when they come back. But well, you know what? I'll try one more time. I'm not willing to go on anybody's property without the client saying it's okay. All right. I would tell them until you get back to me, your project is dead in the water until it's fall.

I'm okay with that. We got a lot of other projects. Oh, yeah. Me, too. I I think I have a couple of notes. I think um Bill the EAF uh there a couple of documents that need correction still reflect a three lot subdivisions that need to be corrected to okay to lot the EAF um I think the CEO determination I don't know if we need to amend that to the two lot I don't think so um they started with a three and through our discussion it's now two we don't need to go back and redo the determination in my opinion MUN collab needs to reflect two us

and Um, and then I think there's a question on EF. Um, we still got a really quick something needed to be skip that. Question one, does the proposed action involve only involve legislation adopting a plan? That should be J. That's a yes. Okay.

Shan, you had your hand up. Yeah. Uh I was in at the last meeting uh nature resources map showing streams as a property and uh on the back that's a core forest. So put it on. All right. Uh there's not a stream. It's just the weather in there. Well, I don't know. It's running stream. So, I don't know how they got that stream running down that hill, but um Right. Well, that's why we'll go there. We'll see. Maybe nothing. Yeah. Anybody have anything else?

Yeah. So I just noticed on the drawing it actually tells us that the area of disturbance is 43 of an acre and the proposed driveway in the buffer is.1 of an acre. Sure is there. Yeah. So it's undesigning. And also thanks [laughter] so I did it but I knew it was asked for before. I was like, "Oh, guess we didn't do that." All right. So, we 21 acre. Jen, there's the uh what you were asking for. Yeah, it's there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Anything else? So, Bill,

Rick, also following Dave's comments, he wrote about the farmland, you know, on that new property, how much farmland going to be left open? Is it three acres? So, more or less? Yeah, the prime farmland. Yeah. Prime family. Do we know how much left in open space have uh well between what's in the front and the back? Prime farmland is green. You have in the front which is wetland and then a section on the back. The uh

Dave, when you did your write up and you mentioned uh the prime farmland, it had just shy of three acres. There's the one code provision about whether it has three acres or more of connected farmland. Early on, we determined that it was just Okay, that's triggers the requirement for conservation subdivision, right? which might have been discussable at a three lot subdivision but less so at a two lot subdivision. So it misses the three acres according to the take the calculation we had earlier. Okay. It's not that's

doesn't quite trigger that. Okay. So Bill, we're not going to do any not going to move this forward until you get me the site visit. Okay. you get the applicant to and I'm not scheduling the public hearing either. I don't see any reason for until we do the uh the site visit and they know where to be found. So okay with that just wait.

So Bill, I think you're done for tonight, right? Or are you coming back for Oh, you're coming back for Dun Farms, right? Yeah. Unless I can get somebody else to uh put the over. [laughter] Oh, really? Want us to do it? No. No. Uh Caleb from our office is going to be here for that. He's going to be here for Spirit Circle. Spirit Circle. Whatever you want. All righty. All right. Thank you. Teamwork. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill. All right. So, um get to the public hearing portion of the meeting. So, we have two public hearings tonight. One is um Pine Grove, also referred to as MCRT, also referred to as uh RAV. And we moved quicker than I thought we would move on those other two projects. And the applicants aren't here yet. So, I'm going to switch gears or switch the agenda. We'll do Granite first. No B. We're gonna do Granite first. We're gonna You don't even know what I'm gonna ask you. You've got them also as the fifth place. I can't hear you. Sorry.

You have the same applicant twice on your agenda. You don't really have to do a lot to fix it. I have the public hearings first and the discussion about it later. That's why I have it there twice. And they are here with Is your whole team here, Mr. Hartman? Yes. Is everybody here? Do you want us to We have another public hearing I can do first and we'll do you second. Is that okay? Yeah, please.

Okay. So, we'll let you uh Scott, why don't you take the prime position at the table? not to be particularly hurt, but the reason we have it twice is to get through the public hearings, get through a couple of other short projects, and then to have a detailed discussion at the end. That's the way we've been doing it. So, but thank you. All right. So, the public hearing for Verizon is um is going to be opened. Stacy, could you get the uh the list back there? Yeah. Scott, are you waiting for anybody else? No, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

The um and for the public hearing the people from Verizon that are here usually for Verizon, you know that you kind of know the drill. Um we have two people that want to speak about Verizon and um be happy to give you seven minutes each. If you need a little bit more time, we can be flexible. Um, please address the board, not the applicant. And also, uh, if you have any information that would cause us to act differently, then what you think we might be doing, those are the kinds of comments we're looking for. Uh, of course, your opinions as well. the um last week we had a meeting a special meeting and I think everybody who's here from Verizon may have been here last week but we had a special meeting that was posted on Verizon and it was a talk about the needs assessment. So that's just a a general comment and uh those minutes will be available shortly. So the first name on the um the list is Lester Code. So Lester, do you want to uh you have some comments? Would you time this Stacy? Seven minutes. Go ahead.

Yeah, you're on. So So my concern about obvious people have mentioned all of the

Can you speak up a little louder, please? I mentioned all of the quality of life concerns surrounding this project, which I think are all valid and um 100% on board with. My other real concern is that we're going to be saddled with the technology that Ver on Verizon's phone website, it says that they're working to alleviate through satellite. They've partnered with another company called ASB for low orbit satellites that are going to be despite therapy. whatever anybody thinks about those they say Verizon says and I've read in other places EC magazine that that technology is meant to alleviate the holes in service similar to what T-Mobile does now with their partnership with SpaceX. So my big concern is that we're going to end up with this giant steel structure, ruining our views and our quality of life, and then they're going to move on to new technology, which is not in the future. Their big announcement is how that's going to come online in 2026, which is in a few weeks. So I would propose if you guys are going to let this thing happen or if you need to let it happen because of whatever the legal things are, which I am not up on, I think you should have some money in escrow provided by Verizon to take it down when it becomes obsolete. That's my statement.

That's a good comment. I one of the things I didn't mention um when I was introducing the public hearing is we don't usually comment. We don't answer questions. We're looking for statement opinions but more specifically specific facts. So I will comment on that specific fact because it's if that should come to fruition. There's a portion of the code that deals with the decommissioning of a tower of this sort and I won't swear to it but I believe there's uh a request there's a escrow required both for the building as well as some money set aside for the decommissioning and if not the check as we go forward if we do approve this we can certainly ask for escrow for decommissioning so I appreciate that's the first time that I've heard that so I appreciate I think it's first time the board has heard that comment. So, I do appreciate that comment. Thank you. Thank you. Um, but there's a whole section of the code that deals with the decommissioning.

But the satellite thing is real. It's not a pipe change. It's happened. You can go on Verizon websites. The applicant when we're finished with the public hearing, if the applicant wants to make some comments about some of the items, we'll let him very very short comments. But that that's a very interesting new comment. Thank you. Um, Larry Freriedman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, I'd like to speak for a few minutes about Verizon's need case. As you know, I was here for the December 3 meeting um at which Mr. Fisherman, the board's consultant, [clears throat] made his presentation. Um I I was very troubled and very disappointed by Mr. Fish's presentation to you um and his responses to your questions at last Wednesday's meeting. U propagation models and maps on which Verizon is relying for its need case remain completely unverified and unsubstantiated. And Mr. Fisherman did nothing to provide the board with any comfort that Verizon's model and maps are reliable, especially in the face of the FCC's national broadband map, which shows that Verizon does not suffer from a significant gap in [clears throat] coverage at all based on hard verified data that Verizon itself has provided to the FCC under oath. Mr. Fisherman openly admitted to you, I know you will remember this, Mr. Fishman openly admitted to you in response to your questions that he has not even seen the type of propagation model on which Verizon is relying for 10 years and that when he did see it 10 years ago, he saw it over the shoulder of a colleague and he conceded that he has never had complete access to the model so that he could fully understand its assumptions and how it functions. So on what basis is he uh um addressing the propagation model?

Most strikingly on page four of Mr. Fishman's November 15 report, he admits that he quote cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of Verizon's model. and instead he is making the assumption and if you go back to page four of his November 15 report he uses the word assumption. He makes the assumption that Verizon is using a propagation model that provides adequate accuracy so that Verizon is willing to make network spending decisions based on the results. So what's going on here is that Mr. fisherman is recommending to this board that if Verizon is willing to spend its money [clears throat] on this tower based on Verizon's unverified propagation model, then the board should defer to that decision and approve the tower. The board should defer to their decision to spend money on something, figuring if it's a foolish decision, it's their foolish decision, but it's not their foolish decision. The consequences for all the many reasons we've discussed over the last 11 months fall on us, the residents of the town of Rochester. And Mr. Fisherman's notion that if that he assumes the propagation model is accurate because Verizon has decided to spend money based on that model. Obviously, that's not how special use permitting and that's not how the waiver process works. If it were the way that it works, then this board would need to approve every application that it receives merely because the applicant is confident about the merits of its proposal. Here, the planning board, if it relied on Mr. Fisherman's assumption, which in turn relies on Verizon's decision to spend money on this tower. If the planning board did all that, the planning board would be [clears throat] breaching its obligation to enforce the zoning code and to protect this

community. Merely because Verizon considers its unverified uh model to be adequate to justify its own network spending decisions is no reason for this board to defer to that unverified model. So I suggest that the board cannot rely on Mr. Fisherman's assumption that the model is accurate. Instead, the board should determine for itself whether Verizon has proven with hard verifiable data that Verizon faces a significant gap in coverage for which the proposed tower would be the least intrusive remedy, which is what the zoning code and the case law under the TCA require. Now, you asked Mr. Olsen uh Verizon's council at the meeting on December 3rd to give that hard data. give for example uh the dropped call lots which they've never denied that they have they just don't want to give them uh to this board well if Verizon will not provide hard verifiable data to the planning board to support its propagation model the board has a simple solution at hand it should tell Verizon that if you will not provide us with that information the information that we need to determine whether your proposed tower is warranted by a significant gap in coverage, then we will have no choice but to deny your application for lack of evidentiary support. It's undisputed. They bear the burden of proving uh a significant gap in coverage. It's undisputed. They bear the burden of proving that the tower is the least intrusive means of uh of resolving that gap. It's up to them to provide this board with the information that will support those conclusions if they are supportable at all. I don't think they are due to the FCC national

broadband map indications and I'll close with a discussion of that in a second. But the board should not be begging them to give uh verifiable data. The board should not be uh deferring to them to decide whether they want to provide that permission. Mr. Mr. Olson said, "Well, I will check on it." I've heard that many, many times over the last 11 months. Mr. Olsson says, "Well, I'll check whether I can provide that information and then we never hear anything about it again." And if this does contain proprietary data, which I highly doubt, the board can enter into a non-disclosure agreement with Verizon. But it's just not satisfactory for the board to rely on Mr. fisherman's assumption which in turn is based on the notion that Verizon is willing to spend money on this so it really must be needed and to go without the hard data that you've asked Horizon to provide let them provide it otherwise their burden will not be satisfied and the board will have no choice but to deny the application for lack of evidence you're

Larry you're bumping up against your seven minutes in fact you're over it can I just touch on one last subject Sure. Thank you. Do you have that in writing, Larry? I do. And I will submit it tonight or tomorrow? I will do.

I just want to talk about the national broadband map. Verizon's been slinging a lot of mud at again. That map is is based on coverage data provided to the FCC by Verizon under oath under penalty of burg. So Verizon cannot be now heard to disclaim the accuracy of what the map showed. And contrary to what Verizon told you last week, it does not need to guess about the FCC's parameters and methodology underlined in that. Those are described fully by the FCC in the Code of Federal Regulations and in other publications. They come here and they say things to you that are just not true. They know the methodology. They know the parameters. I dare say this public corporation would not submit data under oath if they did not know precisely how it was being used. If Verizon believes those parameters and methodology are flawed, you should require that it explain to you why rather than claiming that the National Broadband Map is a black box when it's anything but. So in conclusion, I urge the board to find that Verizon has not proven its needs. And on that basis, among others, I urge the board to deny Verizon's application for a special use permit and a waiver of the zoning codes I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. And I will get this in tomorrow. All right. I deliver to Stacy. So, Stacy.

Okay. Um, there are no other people that have signed up to speak. So, for tonight, um, the hearing on Verizon is, uh, closed. Michelle, Michelle, you want to speak? Thank you. Is there somebody else who wants to speak? Anybody else other than Brandon? Yeah. And Michelle. Okay, go ahead.

I just wanted to kind of paint a picture here of all the towers that are right here. There's a giant tower in Moen. There's a mega tower on city hall road. There's a mega tower on in Kuransen. There's a mega tower at on airport road. There's there's a tower up at Mohawk. And I just wonder if Verizon wants to put a tower maybe a mile away from the one in Hansson, how many towers is Verizon going to want to put up once we open these gates? Are they going to put it put them on Valley Road and Lawrence Hill Road and Burm Road and everywhere? Because we have enough. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Hi, thank you for letting me speak again. My name is Franny Herz. I'm also My husband Ira is not here tonight. He's at work. Uh ask me if I is that his letter that you're reading because we have that. I have an excerpt he wanted me to read, but not the whole thing. That's okay. I prefer not read the whole thing. It's quite long, but we can grab it. Sure. I don't want to read the whole Oh, okay. Thank you. I didn't hear that.

And my my point is very brief. it may be a little bit different but also kind of bringing us back to the very beginning of this process. Um, in thinking about all this and the last meeting about who we need, I just wanted to point out that what we need is to preserve the character, the health, and the well-being of our community. That's what we need. What we need is for the planning boards who represent this community who have shown up meeting after meeting say we don't need additional self we don't need is the stress of this proposed mega tower I think it's affecting people's mental health I'm in the field and I see it all around me not just the people here um we don't need faster cells service we don't need more ugly as stated by one of the uh people who signed my petition. We don't need more ugly in our world and we specifically don't need any ugly in our youth column landscape. I just wanted to remind you guys about the petition. We submitted it a long time ago. There've been a lot. There's been hundreds of hundreds of documents since I think over 300 feet long.

328 328 people signed that document. That was with not much effort. We could get more signatures, but it was just a point to show. I don't see people I've come to a lot of meetings. I haven't been to every single one yet. I haven't I don't see people coming and begging for this cell. I see people coming and begging.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, so the petition over 300 people signed and it states, "We the undersigned residents of the town of Rochester and the Shawang bridge urge the planning board to reject the special use permit and area variance application of Verizon wireless to build 145 to 165 ft cell at 445 Granite Road in the midst of our neighbor." People signed that willingly. Only one person to me. I I talked to a couple hundred people. Only one person said, "I need more information." This is Iris's letter that he submitted to you guys. So, sorry to be redundant, but it's a little more technical than anything I could write. Um, the planning board is the sole decision maker upon the granting of this discretionary waiver and for creating conditions and a special use permit, not the town's consultants, not Verizon, not a future judge. It is up to the planning board to manage the laws of the town and the act of changing the law or standard 90 tower as of right now must be based on a justifiable reason. Verizon wants you to think in terms of what a judge would say on appeal, but your job is different right now as custodian of the town's people's laws. Use all the data and information you have heard to do good local planning. The amount of local knowledge that you have received is as important as any data collect. This is supported by scientific literature. People have said they don't need the added cell coverage, do not want a mega tower in their backyard for myriad reasons, don't want to look at a mega tower every day, and that they wouldn't have moved here if they knew a mega tower would be in the neighborhood. We have told you we will be significantly impacted by a mega tower. Unproven weed plus many impacts

equals no weight. In conclusion, um the zoning conditionally provides for a 90 foot tower. If that doesn't cut it for the applicant, then this is the wrong site for a mega tower for all concerned including the community. Thank you.

Okay. Um, there being nobody else for Verizon. Go ahead. I'll be No, no. Scott, I'm sorry. The waiting of you. Sorry. I'm going to hold you to about seven minutes. Listen. Hi everyone, Billy Walsh here. Um, I own a uh

I own a home in three three minutes away in Award and Landon Carson. Thanks again to members of planning board for due diligence on this matter. Uh, and I'm I'm making my comment today regarding several points made in the previous meeting. I want to begin by saying that I've worked as an advocate in New York State for over 20 years to ban fracking and protect our environment and public health. During this time, I've been largely unaware of cell tower buildout in our region and across our state. Since getting involved in this issue that will directly impact me and many of my friends who are here who will live within a mile of this proposed site, I'm quite frankly shocked at the lack of regulations or planning involved in the cell tower buildout and the need for this tower. Um it does not get and the need for this uh this cell tower. Sorry, I lost um last meeting uh Verizon's lawyer and 137. Okay. So, [clears throat] awesome place. Uh yeah. So, so basically, you know, it's been very shocking to see that the regulations involving the cell tower filled out uh are really not uniform across the board and that all this requires a great amount of technical expertise on you all that is outside of the regular developmental issues that you face. Still that said, the decision is still based on the simple fact as to whether or not this will negatively impact our community and region. And if so, uh, we were going to ask, we were asked to deny it. In the last meeting, uh, Verizon's lawyer and technical employee tried to make the case that there is a need to go beyond our existing code with a special use permit and height waiver. And in my opinion,

they failed. There were many things that were set, but the most important one that I heard from the Verizon's lawyer said was regarding whether or not they will give you the drop call data to demonstrate the need for the president. An [clears throat] hour and five minutes into the meeting, when the chair asked if this call draft data uh would be making Verizon's case for the tower stronger or not, the lawyer said, and I quote, "It may or it may not be." Uh meanwhile, Verizon is saying this is part of the internal information that is basis of their calculation that this information is propri proprietary and the lawyer kept stressing the fact that you basically need to trust him because why else would they be building a $500,000 hour. If there's anything I've learned in advocacy, it's not to just trust a lawyer that is getting is working for a multi-billion dollar corporation. It's common to have one of the only people in the room getting paid while the rest of us here are all volunteering on a time to make our community better. Tell him to trust tell us to trust him. It seems more likely they want this power to make a profit. They'll be able to lease it out amping up their capacity whether or not they really need it. Landowner is going to make make money. He doesn't live here. We all live here. uh what was said in that meeting by the consultant who you know I appreciate that you all got a consultant go over this technical material he made it clear is a data point when he was pressed was it the most important data point he said no um you know after the meeting I did want to say that I approached him and uh just asked him a couple questions about his expertise in this area and you know uh you've done this for 10 years obviously has all this expertise uh and I asked um out of all the towns you represented in 10 years, how many of the towns stopped it or tried to stop it? He said none.

But when he worked for AT&T before he was a consultant, one town did try to stop it and he worked as the lawyer to make sure that the town was overwritten. I'm just trying to make the case that I don't think that the consultant is completely impartial or really on the side of trying to make a stronger case as to why Verizon's information might not be correct. All this said, uh the lawyer did make the case that the town board would need to pass a law in order for me to get that call draft data. Uh and to which I as a taxpaying citizen, I'll be asking the town board to pass a law and like the planning board and community members to do the same. Uh you know, in conclusion, it's similar to what I've I've said before. Uh ultimately, you know, this decision is going to rest on the community character. It's going to rest on our town code. It does appear on very little bit that I know compared to what you all know uh that there is a basis to stop this. And there have been many towns in the area who have stopped these cell towers. The town of Marbletown, the town of Woodstock, the town of Gardener. So there is legal basis for stopping this. We also live in this critical highly sensitive uh shed which as I've said in previous meetings you know over 500 500,000 people come a year to come up to the bridge to participate in ecoourism. Uh it is going to be visible. Oh and the last point I did want to make was this this issue that keeps coming up about the height of the cell tower. Well, I understand you're this is being brought up in a way to kind of want to mitigate the harms to view shed 120 to 145 16 it's not it's not really that

significant given how big the tower will be and Verizon's own technical person said they don't want a smaller tower. uh you know once this is you know the last thing I will say is that you know the industry what I've seen working against fossil fuel industry is that uh once the industry like a camel gets its nose under the tent they'll just continue to build out if you were to allow this variance you know you lose jurisdiction over how much development is done on that one tower uh and I think that's something to consider I do think that this is just not the place for it for all the reasons that have been stated. Apologies for not being as articulate today as in previous times. But, you know, ultimately, I think there is a case to be made that there should be some concerns that Verizon isn't presenting all the information that they have internally when they're calling it proprietary. I think that we should do our due diligence as a community to get that information to pass along in the town. Uh, and if that takes extra time, then oh oh well, they're a multi-billion dollar company. They can wait. Uh, you know, your your your job is really just to protect us and to protect the community and not be bullied by any corporations. Uh, I think you have the legal ability to stop this and I ask that you do. Thanks so much.

Okay. Now, I'm going to close the uh public hearing for Verizon for tonight. Um Scott, I'm not going to take any comments from you until we get to the regular order of the of the meeting when we talk about in details. Sure. Okay. Thank you. No problems. All right. Um who's here from Ralph To? Jeff, you want to uh you want to approach the bench? Bench, have a seat. Good evening. This is uh everybody knows Jefflin. Uh yeah.

So um for the board and for the public uh we have a public hearing now on branch above continuation of public hearing and um when we're finished the public hearing we'll be talking about the project in detail towards the end of the night. We have two other small projects in between the public hearing and the discussion around rapid and um and separate discussion with Verizon. So the same same if you would suggestions to the uh public in terms of public comments uh like you to keep it factual. Uh what's really important is uh details that you may be aware of that we're not aware of regarding the project. Um and please address the board not the applicants like you to keep your comments to uh certainly under 10 minutes. If we can make it seven minutes that would be great. If you have um statements um typewritten statements, written statements, whatever you'd like to submit, love to get those as well. We have quite a few uh comments that we received yesterday and today 80 somewhat

40 40 some okay I exaggerated um so we do have quite a number of comments and those are just from today um okay so the first um Mike Ben you're first on the list go ahead

uh good evening board um first I wanted to say thank you guys for using Munic Lab for moving that direction. Um, I'm using it in the village of New Faults and I think it's made a big improvement for information to be seen. So, thank you for that. Um, like to talk about the size of the building again. I know it's been talked about considerably, but um I also saw that the uh applicant reduced it by 10,000 square feet. Uh, and even though it's a reduction, all it really did was took a small slice out of the second story, the footprint remains the same if, at least to my looking at the site plan. Um, it just took a piece of the second story off. And in in reality, it's going to make it look quite strange to have a piece of the building that's two stories and a piece that's one story. It's not, it may seem like a 20% reduction, but in my opinion, they barely didn't reduce. Um, something to consider for the board, and I don't know if it's been brought up yet, that the project site sits up quite higher from Cherry Town Road. So with the narrowness of Cherry Town Road, the uh the height of this will appear considerably larger than it really is from the ground level because of that significant slope up. Um I'd like to ask the board that you continue to hold this public hearing open until you've completed the part two of the seeker. I think there's a number of I I believe this has been classified as a type one and I think I agree with that. What I see is though that there's a number of questions that in my opinion

should be listed as um moderate to large impacts. And I think the public should have the ability to comment on that part two of seekers. So, I would ask you continue holding this open beyond tonight until that's completed. Unless it already has been completed, I I don't see that it has. Um, also want to speak again about the lighting. Um, my home is a significant distance away, but I it is straight uphill from this property. Every single night since the trees leaf is gone, I'm looking down onto the top of this property. Quite frankly, it looks like an airport right now without an addition of the building. Um, I really I I appreciate that the board is considering the existing lighting in the site plan, but I was here I think it was in May and made these comments. Nothing's changed. If anything, it's gotten worse. Um, the lights are left on more. Quite frankly, this project, I I have no problem with the existing resort, but this is too much for the site. If it was further back from the road, if it was on a different part of the property, maybe then it would work. But it's right on top of the road. It's It's just quite frankly too large for the site. Thank you.

Thanks, Michael. Dave.

Yes. I'm not going to stand up mostly because I fall ass. I live at 191 Samsonville Road directly downhill from all the drainage points on all the diagrams that we have on in front of you. If you look at this tri, um, there's nothing but the mikvah in the parking lot and it's all open ground for two acres and then down to my my house and it's like a swamp. It's never like that. The questions I have for this board, has anyone from this board gone in since the new the applicants have taken over to see the now configured bedrooms for people to sleep in and how many people are there per bedroom for the residents that stay over. Because mostly this application comments on the fact of the visiting people at a level of 570 to celebrate festivals and things like that. But what about the people that stay over? is at 570 plus the people who stay over and you don't know as a board how many people are per room now and that will significantly impact the water usage. It could put you over the thousandgalon limit per day for a single 30-day period of a commercial use. Because of the new dining facility, there are two kitchens now. More water for food prep, more septage going out. The new facility is proposing offices, classrooms of an unspecified number of occupants,

greater bathroom usage. Although it's supposed to host a single day festive facility for meals. How well 570 people that could be somewhere from 1,140 if you estimate it to 5,130 gallons depending on the venue, the meal served, the duration of the event. So Mr. board and it's my understanding that you said this board did not have to do a ideological survey. I find you to be an error even though you're a lawyer because the town law says that it does and that will be in the 140-5.1 they're definitely and the board can also request hydraological study at their discretion under law 140. -5.14. So unless you can tell me how many people are going to be per bedroom and how many people are actually going to be on that site at one time, it is my belief that you will be over the 1,000galon per day and the drainage downhill is going to kill me. If I could prove this or had had someone who was an arborist come, I would have loved to prove that the 60 foot 4 and 1/2t base tree that landed on my house landed there as a result of wet soil. But unfortunately, I do not have the

cash to pay an arborist nor a specialist to come in to say that the wet and the constant drainage from this facility caused that tree to go over. But that tree had been there for some 90ome years and it had never budged. And consequently, because of that one tree, I took down a second tree in fear for my house. So, what I am saying to you is you need to require how much water they're going to use and you need to figure out how much septage they're going to produce and where that's going to go. And did they complete the SWIP for the storm water? Those are three things involving water that this board does not seem to have address. and I've given you the laws of both and they need to be done or or have the option to be arbitrary and capriccious and deal with an outside group's article 78. It's very simple. Thank you.

The next person on the list is Michael Rubin. Yeah, Mr. Rubin.

Yeah. Uh, I want to thank everybody on the board for serving and it's very obvious their civic commitment and I I really appreciate that. I know this is a difficult thing. I'm going to start out just holding my computer. Got some illustrations of something as Mike Bait was saying. This says I live at 239 Samuel Road half a mile from Camp Rob. This is my night sky. Oh, as a result of the lights that have been there and been there and been there. And if in case anybody wants to know what it's like or the impact from the sky, here's a shot from the sky. Maybe what it's what Mike is looking down at in terms of describe it as an airport. I think of it as like Yankee Stadium. Wow.

Um, this is from their direct neighbor, the Collier Farm, their field.

Wow. light not pointed at anything in the in the compound but just arbit you know arbitrarily harassing this very very beautiful landscape. Um and then upon examination a lot of the lights you know security is not hard for anybody to understand but a lot of lights on this property seem to be uh confounding as to what their purpose is. So there are a number of structures here that have these lights that look like they're well lit window uh windows from inside. They're not. They're exterior lights that are made to be extremely bright and to appear from a distance as it's like they're illuminated from window, but they're not. And I don't know. And they seem actually similar to the um to the light spec on the part one seeker that is uh that's on the record in 12. Um and I'll just get this a little out of order what I have to say, but I'll just uh do it while I'm holding my computer so I can set my computer down. Um, in terms of, you know, the the town's character, this is just I want to present the board with an image of the things that we I think everybody here, you know, kind of holds his sort of rural idea. The the Kier House, the old Scumacher uh, Stonehouse, and these are all properties that are not far, they're almost literally adjacent if they're not actually bounding the um, the Robb site. And then this is what we just got a few days ago, the RobT plan uh compared to another community that is nothing like our community nearby. And so this is the concepts for a building like this, not our not our community. That's the point I wanted. Um

can you send us those? They are they're in I sent two letters today and all those images are are in the letter are in the letters. It's Michael Rubin.

Michael Rubin. Um I wanted to [clears throat] complain about the way this whole process is happening in seemingly [clears throat] peace meal instead of uh a whole plan being presented in a way that the community can make an informed response. And there's no better example I can think of than one was just provided to me a moment ago. And that Mike Baden, who I think everybody in this room will agree, is an extremely informed individual talking about a plan about the two-story plan with one-story lava bomb. But that's not the plan that's in front of the board or that appeared before the board just recently. What we have now is a completely redesigned building that as far as I can, not as far as I can tell. You look at it, it's three stories. It's two stories and then it's three stories. So, it appears to be even bigger. And if you go into the seeker, there's an area in the seeker where they talk about the space that should be heating and cooled. They talk about something like 39,000 square feet and then a potential other I forget the number of square feet, but the total is something like 51,000. So, what are we dealing with? If the community is going to come out and either and make reasonable comment and reasonable plans about the impact of what's going on here, I think the community I think everybody any simple-minded person could agree the community deserves one thing to respond to that they can sort of say yes, this is what's happening. This is what's what's going to happen. But this is evershifting, everchanging short notice. Tremendous number. I mean, not tremendous numbers. I'm not an expert, but like in just a quick review of things found uh either lies or untruths. For instance, there's an agricultural disclosure form that says the property is not adjacent within 500 ft to any other working farms. There are three working farms immediately adjacent. The court rights, the lightnings and good right you know immediately adjacent. Um so there's you know a tremendous amount

here that is like that is uh confusing that is that is boggled and one has to wonder like the lights that seem to have no purpose when the camp is occupied if the intention is not to confuse that the intention is not to make an informed and organized response of this community uh all the more difficult. Um so for that reason I really want to urge the board to uh and I'll echo what Mike said to keep the public comment section open. Um I want to further urge them to make a positive declaration on the part one of the seeker. There's oh and a really important point here. The whole seeker form is based on the applicant's contention that they are going to build this new I'm going to call it 51,000 foot facility because that's what's on their form. 51,000t facility um and not have any expanded use of the camp which is patently absurd. It is an expansion. They're not tearing down buildings. They're not they're they're expanding. And so I think it's this I think it's law and actually in the letters that I wrote they're much more citing zoning code and and precedent but the this board does not has to consider not just what the applicant is saying they're going to use it for but to likely future use. All right. I think everybody here knows this is a Trojan horse. This is not the end of anything. This is the beginning of something. This is a building, honestly, very expensive building that's designed to house a large population of people doing whatever it is that they want to do. So, I urge the board to consider that um that the reasonable future use of a building like this and what will happen to our community um as a result. Um uh I wanted to just say one more thing. At the at the last meeting I attended, you

mentioned how the special use plan will be up for yearly review. This town has like any small town has tremendous problems. We don't even have a code enforcement officer as far as I know anymore. There is virtually no way to enforce anything. You know, not the lights that are clearly out of zoning code. Not when we had the septic problems years ago, how long that took to solve, not the traffic problems that everybody's been complaining about. There is no means of enforcement. Does it suggest that the planning board could allow a special use permit which would allow the building of of a 51,000 foot building for what would have to be millions of dollars, have that building go into use and then after a year revoke uh a special use plan and expect it to be that to be adhered to is an absurdity. That's it's it's a meaningless thing. to at when I first heard it in the meeting, I was actually um uh you know warmed by that information and thought that okay well that might be something effective. The more I thought about it, it's it's toothless and in in a lot of ways if you rely on that I think dangerous to assume that that actually mean um uh I think I'm done. [laughter] Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your service. diffusion.

He sent it at 5:30, so I'll send it later. The U I share some of your pain about code enforcement. Um I can't make out the next. It looks like Keith is who signed as number four on the list. might be crossed out. Oh, it might be crossed out. Thank you. Does that look like Yeah, I think I started right now. Um, then number five, Ivan Goodman.

Planning board. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this project this evening. I just wanted to uh address some of the recent submissions from the applicant on uh November 25th. Uh the agricultural data statement to be specific uh states that there are no uh farm operations within 500 ft of this project. I'm sure it's something the board is going to address in the later part of the meeting. uh but just want to call the board's attention that there are in fact four uh farms in operation including the polyier farm which is being uh paid by Army who uh rents that property uh defining it as a farm operation in New York a markets law 25-a section 3011 um I would imagine the board is going to address that issue but just wanted to call it to attention um the potential for wastewater contamination of these four food producing farms be for animals or human consumption. Um all four farms are downhill from this project and uh we've yet to see a report from Wolster County Board of Health confirming that the project has adequate wastewater facilities um to ensure that this type of issue does not occur. All four of our businesses rely on obviously clean water and clean soil to operate and uh the nature of this application puts that in uh great peril as we see from the site plan that was recently submitted. There's a septic tank with an unknown uh quantity. There's no sign of backup leech fields on that plan which I believe is required of a uh wastewater site plan. Um the character of the town which relates to the ability to conduct

agro tourism is also in jeopardy with this type of project. uh just to um keep it to code and uh New York BC seeker 617.7c1 uh indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment section five the impairment of the character or quality of important historical archaeological architectural or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character is grounds for the town Rochester planning board as the agency to declare positive a a positive declaration for this project. I think it goes without saying that this uh project certainly has the potential to impact uh neighborhood character and neighborhood character being an agricultural community is part of how our farms do business with agro tourism. Um, further on community uh, character impairment, uh, town code, local law 6, section 14020, uh, general promotional industrial standards, uh, part C, section 7 says it very plainly. Our code that we all abide by that this board upholds. I'll read that part of the code for the public here. Buildings should relate in scale and design features to the surrounding buildings, showing respect for existing and neighborhood architecture. Buildings shall avoid long un uninterrupted walls or roof planes. Uh that clearly is not being uh accounted for in the applicant's uh renderings or design. uh further impairing the uh character of our community and these farms ability to uh conduct our businesses in a town that uh you know highly values agricultural uh business and uh clearly states it in

their code. think I've read enough code sections for everybody, but uh just wanted to show those grounding uh code sections that the code uh that the town planning board can refer to in making their decision. Uh thank you for considering our comment.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this project? Go ahead. Sure. you very speak up, please. Pardon? Speak up.

Oh, thank you very much for letting me speak. My name is Joel Yuing. I'm staying seated because my legs aren't too good either. Um, I'm I wanted to speak with you about the traffic. We live, my husband and I live at 161 Cherry Town Road between 30 Cherry Town and 350 Cherry Town. And during the months of July and August, there is a constant all day long stream of big trucks, buses, school buses, uh the regular transportation buses all day long, constantly living. It's like living by a throughway. And it also is not a safe situation. An incident happened last summer um in which our neighbor Alice across the way and Chelsea and Wilton and I were on our side of the road. Actually, a rattlesnake had gotten run over there. So, we were looking at it and then Chelsea started to escort Alice Gray across the road and she has a lot of difficulty walking. And when they got about halfway across the road, one of these excellent uh bus company buses came barreling towards them and and just barely stuck. What about 10 10 feet away?

Very close.

Very very close. And so it's it's very hard for some of these vehicles to see their curves that that are on the road to see whether there's a pedestrian there. But people do live right on on the road as all these vehicles come by at a great speed. So, we're very concerned also because we see a lot of people walking back and forth between the two sites and we're concerned whether this building is going to be accommodating not only the people who are staying at 30 30 um Cherrytown Road, but also the ones who are going from 350 and staying there because they are walking by during the day. So that means that there will be more people, more traffic going back and forth between the two sites and um [clears throat] and what will be the impact on the building, the water and of course the safety. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Yes, in the back. Hi. Can I have your name, please? Have your name. Yeah, I'm Claudia Sedod. And what was her last name?

Sedote. Si. Um, I just wanted to um kind of piggyback on the traffic uh concern. I live about a mile and a half, not even from um Rothtop and uh I just wonder if along with the traffic if there's been a parking or traffic study done because I don't think that I've uh been made aware of that in any of the documents that I've reviewed so far. and also just driving there every day to go home um from from work and and other occasions have had several encounters that have been incredibly close and scary. Um, I drive grandchildren on that road almost every single day and I've just watched too many uh situations that have been really really scary and I just don't understand where from a parking perspective, you know, where would all of the cars for all of the guests, employees, um, and folks that work at at the resort, where would everyone park? because I I don't I don't understand that based on the plans that have been submitted so far. So, I also just urge the board and thank you again for your service to just, you know, keep this public hearing open until all this information has been submitted properly so that the community has an opportunity to respond because I think our safety and wellbeing is really at risk. That's your point. Anybody else?

Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to make I'd like to make one comment. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. I'm It's not 10 minutes, is it? No, it's about 30 seconds.

Patrick. Um, in in relation to the size of the building, I I did a comparison of of properties nearby and one of the closest properties in size I could come up with is the Topps grocery store in Allenville. And I want I I thought it was really striking that if that's about 45,000 square feet. So depending on which version of this project is being compared, it's either a little bigger or a little smaller. But it was really striking to me that if this board was asked to view a grocery store, now admittedly it's not the same volume of In-N-Out as a grocery store, but if this board was asked to put a grocery store on that site, I'm certain it would not go very far. So, I just wanted to in comparison to size though, that's what this building is.

Okay. Um, the public hearing is staying open. I I can I can tell you that. Um, and there's many things that I could comment on. Um, I won't say not misinformation, but things keep changing in this project. That's certainly true. Some of them changed by request of the board uh trying to make uh things different from um something from the a month before. So for example um you referenced the diagram that you were looking at that looked like a ziggurat with a a ceiling or a rooftop and then it goes down and then it goes across. That's changed as a picture of that. I think it'd be sufficient to say that we've had a lot of discussions with the applicant about the size of the property. So, what I invite you to do rather than have a back and forth here, what I invite everybody to do is to stay later till later at the meeting, we have two projects we're going to do now. Um, since the public hearing for tonight is closed, we have two projects, new projects that we're going to listen to the applicants and we had very little to do with it. They'll be back sometime in January for their project and then we're going to talk through the board is going to talk through a lot of items on route top. So that would be about an hour from now after we get maybe 45 minutes after we get through these other two projects. So I would invite as many people who can stay out. It's getting cold, but if you could stay um to listen to the board um no public hearings, public comment later on, but to listen to the board's discussion with the applicant um the ongoing discussion. So, um some of your questions will be answered um and we have lots of additional questions as well. So, um with that having been said,

public hearing is um closed for tonight. I'm going to take a small break of five to 10 minutes to give it those of you who want to leave chance to leave and we'll come back in about 10 minutes and we'll start with a new project that's going to make a presentation. Uh it's a project on Dun Farms Road. Um we'll start with that. So uh the applicant if you want to go out for coffee back in about an hour by otherwise make yourself comfortable. Thank you. 10 minute break. How are you? Doing okay. I have an updated night or not. Yeah. Sorry, but so many pieces of paper for this project.

There was an index map, there's a site map, there's architectural different.

So after tonight, it's all very tonight of everything. economy if someone is old for bill but that was my little bit of my frustration there when I put everything together we have making Thank you. I'm glad You don't want to get

There's nothing. Don't really The next thing I don't know Right. Yeah. time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Thankful. It's way clear. Start money. Yes.

Yeah. We have to figure out Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's a I wonder really good everyone And my experience question

everybody back the having been so multiple. They've got multiple water sources.

We can have water, please. I need to quiet in the room. Please, you need to discuss things. I know it's cold outside, but you'll have to go outside. We have two projects to discuss and then we'll come back to uh Rav followed by Verizon. Um so the first the next item um for the home board, I'm still missing one here. I'm curious. She's here. Okay. Uh let's get started.

So the next project I call uh Dun Dun Road, Dun Farms Road and um Caleb Carr, you're filling in for the Bill Acres, right? Oh, yeah. You have maps uh for this. The map is labeled the Puzzo and Kilder.

Everybody got it there? There you go. And uh what I've done on this one, I've asked Peter to bird do this project for me and he's been doing that for the last few months as we've gone through the the redo of the maps and the submission of of the details. But Caleb, why don't you uh tell us what we're looking at? Tell us what you're looking for, go through some of the changes you've made to the map. Um Elena,

it's proposed four lot subdivision. Uh they have uh it's the lot one would be the with an existing house. Uh that with a driveway off of Dun Farm Road. Uh originally I think they had the drive one one driveway for the flag lot coming off of Crumb Road and that's been revised for that flag lot to come off of Dun Farm Road as well as uh the other two driveways. So all four driveways be off. So um the livedin lot is lot one. Yeah.

Lot two is a new one. That driveway is coming off of Dunfall Road. Lot three and lot four that's coming off of Dun Farms Road also. Yes. Okay. They got two lots off of one road and then they got one wad off of the other road. They're all Oh, it's a total of just four houses. Just three new ones. One existing, three new ones. Yes. Okay. Talk to us about um either wetlands or slopes. Talk to us about what they

I mean there are I mean there are some moderate slopes on there. Uh I know they did some preliminary conductivity on sep uh you know they're all looking to either be shallow or raise systems partly due to the modeling on the site. There is defin some wet soil um throughout the site. Uh but it's not the best soil that way. I know there is farmland of statewide importance um within the thing as well as prime farmland. Um right now I think most of it just you know mainly open field is where most of the development is very little woods.

Uh the the long uh flag lot that has some we have to go through the woods a small section of woods there to get to the house side. There was um this was originally brought in as Miss Caleb included a four lot subdivision and lot line improvement, but since that uh access off of uh uh Crumb Road is not there anymore, it's no longer lot line improvement, right? Oh yeah. Yeah. No, that that' be

and then it's just as a result then it's just there zoning. Um so we just need to make the corrections to the narrative and um EAF and the egg statement on that. Um or and then I think there were you had a um a wetland determination by DEC um but I don't think it's been delineated so we probably need to have that delineated. It's just an acknowledgement there are wetlands over I think it's on the uh it would be on the eastern side of the property. and off of maybe on the the southern side. [clears throat] Um so those and then the big question I have uh for this is that this was part of a um a very big potential subdivision back in the day in the late 80s. Um and it was done in multiple sections and um there were some pretty substantial um pre-existing easements in as part of that subdivision and I think to me it's important to make sure that those have been satisfied. I think that some of the some of the subdivision was rescended and it was unsubdivided at some point, but it's kind of hard to understand uh because there are four sections in that original subdivision that went along dump farm road from road um for quite a bit and it was going to be done in phases. So, I just in some way we're going to need to figure out that that all of those um easements and restrictions because some of them concerned drainage um have been satisfied or which ones still exist. And so, I was going to ask if there was a recent title report or if we can get a certificate of title or something that would show that because some of those things would not necessarily show on the deed.

Yes. um from for you to sail. Um sure. And then there's another question I had was into lot four. It's not acknowledged on this map or on this site plan sketch plan um that the property to the sort of southwest the Raven property. It looks like there's a road continues straight through on this property farm road. It's a farm road. So that's that's going to basically where the trees are shown to be ending there. Yeah. That where that farm road kind of crosses the ditch. Okay. That's going to maintain be maintained as a farm road. Is there trees that green light green color?

The what? What the daylight? You said trees that green color. Yeah. The green color. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Well, um, according to this, that that that farm now is not on this property. We would have No, but I think it ends up in in lot four from what from what I look look like on on Google Maps and then also on parcel, you can see a road that goes off through another farm onto this property. I just want to point that was but I don't think it would be maint I mean it would I don't know if it would end up being maintained. Okay. Right. Um, so it starts on Ravine's Raven's um property and it goes in Yeah, it shows Google Maps basically from their driveway.

So he doesn't assume that he has easement on lot four, does he? Uh that would be I don't know that. So that's why one of the reasons why we want the certificate of title.

Yeah. The the the big thing for me is that we don't want another situation where we have them find out that we have an appeasement in our covenant particularly because someone deal with drainages between this and the other loose drive farm and on the east side and and Raven on the west side. Um, so and some of the in I saw some of the old um covenants on the old deeds and they're pretty restrictive about what can be built, what can't be built and uh and then particularly drainage I think is a big concern. So I just want to protect you know both this the time of this but also your clients. Yeah. Through that.

So um I know Peter did I looked at them as well and the building department looked at them. We looked at whatever billers had given us in terms of legal documents, deeds essentially, but it was very it was incomplete what he had access to. The subdivision that Peter's talking about was 20 or 30 homes. So, it was subdivided and then it was unsubdivided. But there are multiple of easements in that work that was done by the previous planning board. Peter, what was it? 25 years ago. Yeah,

there was multiple easements noted on the on those maps that we found. So, we need to find out if those easements have all been uned or not. So, the only way to do that is the certificate of title. Yeah. The only way to determine it, but I know with like, you know, there are conservation ements, they in typically they go in perpetuity. Yeah. So that's a something that we need to just figure out the status into the book. So don't know how to come come at it. Your client may need to get himself sounds like we need to get

a good title lawyer or something to figure all this out, but we need more than just a statement there. No reasons. We need to see some proof that there's no reason to prove your client might have an existing citate, you know, when they purchased it. I don't have that me but yeah. Okay. So whatever in Monica is not sufficient most of the different historical ownership the the covenants and stuff. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. They're in there. They indicate but the you know we were told that they were uh they were un it was the property the bank

was unsubdivided at some point and uh and but the restrictions were from the original subdivision. So it doesn't make sense, you know, I just want to make sure that we're that we're not missing any easements or covenants that were it was suggested to us that the property is unencumbered by easements. So get me something that shows that there are no easements and I think a certificate of title is the way to go or a title a title report or full title report. Um there are some steep slopes on here. So, we're going to need the heat the heat map. Yeah, the heat map. All right.

Um, Dave, I want you to do a full work up on this one like you would normally do. Suits to nuts. Lots of things important here, particularly the prime soils. Do we have do we need any waiverss? Do we What are we dealing with here? Um, how is this going to come out? Is it a type one? Is it unlisted? Um, escrow.

And we need escrow. So, I'm going to recommend that we uh get escrow of $5,000. And I think quite frankly, a lot of that, depending on where you are with the easements, is going to be sucked up by lawyers looking at all these documents you would. If there are none, fine. But there's quite a bit of work that needs to be done to be make sure that we're not dealing with easements over property that we find out at the last minute.

One one other note is that that this was up in front of the planning board in 2021 and then it was not pursued. It was just kind of the abandoned but there I think there's a different variation than the the current plan but it was something was never they came to one meeting Caleb uh before you went with the firm friendly with them they came to one meeting they were supposed to come to the next meeting they didn't turn up they disappeared this they're still living in the house that's uh that they're currently residing in and we simply told them that we considered the project to be um uh with withdrawn Sure. That was in 21, beginning of 22. Anybody else? Just general comments. Question.

Go ahead. What are the soils? Have you done any subsurface work yet? Yeah, they've done some investig initial investigation for the septic systems, but uh a lot of clay loans. Yeah. So, probably be a mound an above ground sector. Yes. One lot may be able to be shallow, but I think that's actually in a steep too steep of a slope location. probably all got low radius right now. They all have at least they all have more than a foot of the soil, but we need well we need 30 inches for a shallow and that I don't think that's going to happen on most people as a modeling. Okay. And you are going to

this map that I'm looking at doesn't have the there I see there's a positive jurisdiction here. Yes. Wetland on the wetland. uh a class one wetland. It was a letter that was Peter had mentioned this. So was basically this pond that's on site on the eastern side. Um but that has been part of the Okay. Yeah. On board. It's right towards the MA far. Okay. But that should that should be sketched out a little bit more with 100 foot buffer etc. It's uh [clears throat] even though you're not

I don't see a buffer around it. So we need No, there's no buffer. It's not been delineated. So yeah, I mean we can put an assume buffer on until then. Well, just get it delineated. And I mean I it's clear that you're not going to be affecting it. So I don't think you're going to need a a wetland v signed by the EC if that's Yeah. Since you're not affecting it, but don't know. But you should as this goes to the if review I see that as a relationship we need to play on. Okay.

One comment. Um the for the existing dwelling it shows the existing septic out by the road. Could you just confirm that that's where that is? That is what's been told to us. because it's reputed basically meaning I don't it's not uh as far as I know they haven't dug it up they would ensure that's where it is um because if you're placing the you haven't cited the well for lots yet so it'd be good to confirm that just seems very far

yeah well we haven't we haven't confirmed the septic locations for lots two three and four yet so that that would go along with sighting the well and if it's If this is not where the septic is, then you wouldn't I'd hate for you to put the well finally within 100 ft of the septic on the existing dwelling. Yeah. Because it's placed with I mean at the moment I would still hope that we bit with 5.4 acres out too. We'd still be able to fit the well with it 100% within the property balance itself. Okay. So So we just want we want confirmation. That's where the subject is. It's an odd place to put anything from the house. Yeah. So is the well. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. That's true. Yeah.

Well, there's, you know, this map shows two wells. I haven't been out there to confirm that, but Oh, yeah. two existing. And then I see in lot one there was another pond there as well. Yes. So, you got a lot of work to do here. Caleb or Bill has a lot of work to do. Um, all right. I don't know. I'm not going to promise that you'd be on the next agenda because there's so much work here to be done. So, I don't see this coming back to us until late January, early February with a new map having all the things on it that we asked for. Yeah. We need on escrow. Yes. I asked for escrow of 5,000. So, I need a motion.

I make a motion. Bonds second. Jennifer second. All in favor? Chair votes I. So, we need 5,000 in escro. Okay. All right. Thank you, Caleb. And you're now here for spirit. This is Mr. Gman. How are you?

So, who's doing the talking? who wants to introduce uh the project and you have a series of maps by the way in the pile. There's architectural there's a brochure, there's a sketch plan, and there's also something that you're calling u an index an index map. Index. What should we be looking at? What's the most uh complete map? the index map or the well the index map shows the entirety of the property where the sketch plan is of the uh

oh the sketch was what we sent uh initially end of October so much and then I'm not a larger set of plans. No, wait a minute. You know what this is? Is that the earlier one? Isn't the sketch the sketch plate I have here? I think is for the lot line change. Oh, gotcha. Yes, that's the lot line change um proposed for adding the one acre on the other side of field road to the depot. Okay, so there's two maps. The sketch the one you label sketch plants has to do with the lot life. Um

the property known as deep hole. They're going to attach some parking for the deep hole property. They're moving some property from the spirit circle property to what's called revised lot one. So we have a lot line change there. And then the index map. Yeah. That's for the specific uh spirit circle. Okay.

So, we're going to handle we're not going to handle them separately. We're going to handle them together. We had one project where we did them separately and I think that for some confusion. So, we're going to do both the lot line and the um site plan together. So, Mr. Gman or Caleb, why don't you just tell us what you're trying to accomplish here and make reference to which maps you want us to look at as you go through this because there are numerous maps including board you have some architectural two different architectural uh showing the actual architecture of the u spirit circle building looks something like this.

Yeah. the first architecturals or started the index. Just telling you what you have. We're going to start the index. Sure. Just to see

um overall this is uh when I bought it was 87 um in total and it included what is now the deep nature sanctuary. Um the planning board did a natural subdivision with respect to deep hole and the deepole nature sanctuary and that is now a nonprofit that's a separate parcel but I had built a parking lot on the um spirit circle lands originally as really the only place where parking could go on for for so that we could take what what prior to my having bought it was all the cars along Top Path Road and we in consultation um with the highway department Jeff and various people and Mike at that time too. Uh and we were trying to figure out how to bring water there. So, so we uh put in the parking lot um and that's now there functioning very well and the idea is to uh move that over to Deepole Nature Sanctuary so that they have all of what is necessary for that to operate independently. And for me the spirit circle piece though that's the remaining 70 acres on the other side of the uh tool path from default. Um, I'm I retired and uh just have been very passionate throughout my

life about the potential for dance and ritual and music to really cement community to bring people together to um I could talk about it for hours and I know it's not everybody's uh belief or awareness But for me it's a profound practice of bringing people together. [clears throat] Whatever kind of differences we have when we can look into each other's eyes, we can dance, we can sing together, we can be together, um we can make meaning together. Uh that's how a very deep community can happen. So that's my pageent. Uh, I've been for the last three years going to school in Canada because there was no school of Bodanza, which is my particular form. Um, I've worked to bring the head of that school to the US on a special visa. That's been a several year process and we have that now so she can direct a school here in the US. Um so that this what you see in the index is the location for building basically aroundwood dance floor. Um our goal is to be able to have about 75 be able to be in a circle together and to dance. And so in the I guess it's yellow on the index map if everybody has the same coloration or orange-ish. Um that's the building. Uh and you can see the central round uh uh leaf and open uh post and beam.

Our goal is to build a life of clay straw structure which is clay straw or hemp and sand mixed together. You basically have about 14 in of adobe co whatever light clay straw. So it's extremely well insulated. it's ex it's uh apparently beyond fire standards that it just will not burn. Uh and then within that structure uh a post can beam 12 posts holding the the the roof. And so a nice vated ceiling vaulted 14 high walls and then we vaulted ceiling. of my goal is to build an exquisite community center. So you also see the parking lot um that are amends we thought were needed for a 75 person occupancy. Um I number

the I've site plan shows parking. We're on the first page of the site plan, right? 204 204. Yeah. 33 there. We need to add the parking plan right now. One more time. We need to add the parking calculations to the plan. Yeah. So we um

I tried to I really pushed for the road to be here the entry way so to minimize any impact on neighbors houses hopefully any traffic that comes in via Route six primarily. I'm assuming that then that will the traffic will enter the properties before the neighbors. Um we're entirely buffered by woods on all sides. I I'm quite certain that we're not visible. The building will not be visible certainly from the road. It will not be visible from deep pole uh parking area or deepole. Uh I can see the catskills from a certain part of the land near where the building is just barely. So it's possible that somebody mountain will be able to see us. But I think otherwise be able as invisible and as nestled in um will minimize the disturbance of the woodlands. Um and it's basically in an open realm thicket that we're talking about putting this this building. Well, the where the parking is proposed and the building itself used to be, you know, part of an operating farm probably 30 years, 40 years ago, I don't know. So, that's just basically overgrown there. Um the trees driveway will have to come through existing trees um which is the big big extent of disturbance of the trees in this property. So, um, the board I think the board has

to share this packet, right? Three, uh, go three pages from the bad. Yeah, we're getting work from the back to take a look at what the building's going to look like. Okay. Before we go there, you were talking about the driveway. Uh, gravel. Yeah. How long is it? You know, I don't have my scale. It's a 1 to 50. So, It's not 6 700 800 ft. Yeah, I know. We're going to try to possibly work on trying to bring the parking in a little bit to

try closer to the tree line and then the parking spaces in the field, but I think there's about 75 ft that as it comes through the tree line on the current map that doesn't equal the if you can that all in. Were you saying you were going to move the parking to the east northeast towards the cedar stand? No, no. We're just gonna try to move it to the east just to the line. Okay. Where? Okay. Yeah. So, just get the map. The site plan doesn't do justice to the building. So, just take a look at the third page from the back of that package. Um,

you'll see a flying saucer type of arrangement. So it looks like a miniature goin museum perhaps. We do have we do have updated plans that we could give you that. I'm not sure you want to see just the the 3D rendering. I've been working with a firm in the Netherlands and they they had made a mistake about the roofs in understanding the architect's drawings. So the 3D rendering it's it's a it's a much smaller little roof with a clarister on top and then a single roof, not two roofs as you see it. Okay. Well, at some point we're going to need to see I can give you from all sides east.

We can give we can give you that now if you'd like. What's the square footage? Um the the interior Well, yeah, the interior is around 3500 total. the the uh the round interior the main is around 1800 square feet. So if you flip to the next page from the back third page from the back you'll see the interior for the dance space the central the dance says entryway for clothing bathrooms

400 35. So there's a picture looks like this. Shows you the interior. Shows you the you said 3500 square feet of the dance hall with all the other with all the other 1,800 for the dance and then all the other point northsoutheast west atriums are add up to the 2,800 around 35 or 3500. What about these dancing um so dancing decks? Those are shown as as three decks about six one step down. That's sort of a cascade of decks. Okay.

That comes down to the lawns and so that um yeah so that's I believe meanted to be an additional space for with handicapped etion of covering that that space those decks. Okay. So it's it's like an ultra thin space. A little bit of an outdoor dance space. Yeah. And as has been pointed out, we'll do a sound studies and make sure that there's snow and no impact on neighbors, you know, the code.

Yeah. We talked about when we when you came to us the first time, a smaller group of us talked about a sound study, talked about an archaeological study, talked about it's that it might need reference or referral to the historical society because of the Algavville overlay zone. Um, so there's quite a number of other things that need to be done. We've started on, as far as I know, we've started on all of those studies. Okay. Um the archaeological has been engaged. We've begun uh consulting with the uh auditor a whoever whatever the proper words.

So I have one question. Is there going to be amplified music outdoors? I'd like to be able to have you know small speakers there where we can dance on the on the north side basically west and north on those decks. Um, so yes, so whatever the parameters for doing that without disturbing anybody and I don't think it'll be that harbor and a long way away from any neighbors on either to the west and north or to the and certainly on the south the building is so you have

so Dan are you going to have are you going to have bands? No, what kind of music band is it? And if it would is it drum music, pop music? Drumming can carry and I would like to have the possibility if the noise study shows that it can be put somewhere on the site that we could have a drum circle without disturbing neighbors, then I would like to put that in because I think that's consonant with our intentions. I'm not a drummer. I've never been a part of drumming circles, but it it is consistent with that kind of gathering in the same way. So, whoever you have is doing the annoy study has to come up with all the options that you're looking at.

Yeah. And and the decision will be based upon there'll be conditions that you have to keep the music of a certain type. It you can't have presumably you're not going to have bands, but it has to be of a certain type. is to stay within certain decel levels. There's a whole code section of the code on that. Yeah. And I'm both aware of it. I believe in it profoundly for myself. I don't want you mentioned that there are 75 people coming. There's no overnight that no accommodations, right? No. So they come in the morning and they leave in the evening is

comes in the morning, leave in the evening, come for an hour and a half dance or twohour dance. Yeah. You don't expect us to come like 75 people. No camping. No camping. Okay. Okay. Any other plans for the other part of the property, the 70 acres beyond the uh beyond the dance center? No. Great. Um All right. So, hang on one second, Dave. We need um we didn't need to do We talked about this, but I don't think you've started. Yeah. Do a full write up on it with all the things that they've been talking about that we came up with. Yeah.

Sorry. Is the Aliverville district on our national register? I believe it is because it's the state source says it's proposed. I yeah I don't know whether it's has it been anyone know I don't know you know if you is it actually listed I don't know why don't we get why don't we um reach why don't you reach out to the historical society see if they can help a book at the friends museum on Algardville historic sites that has a map it should show the maps and the limits of that that's what

has it been added to the national or just the It's um it's um it's historic. I mean it's at the National Register. It is on the National Register. Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. Sir, you had a question. Yeah. Are we approving LIi or Say that again. Are we approving lot adjustment in adjustment or not? We're going to do the whole thing. Li, we're going to do everything together, not separately.

Right. So what about the parking is that approved by uh by the department access to that space and other thing after we approve will be shared right away on on a on a on a large property looking at the plan. So I think what you're asking me is are you asking me that arrangement with the property was it danc you're seeing there. Yeah. Right. But it should be some kind of agreement. It's a shared driveway. Yeah.

Yeah. So there's a question I had was on the site the index there was a the cutout for the parking lot. Looks like the driveway goes into the parking lot outside of that. We will leave, you know, that would be, you know, a maintenance secondary access from that side. Then that's how they actually access a lot of the other side right now, but they mow and stuff like that on site isn't coming through there. because there's no real you know the proposed driveway that is that now but ement is I'm sorry work but would be simpler give it away or

yeah I think to have access to that side of the property as well I'd like to be able to continue to do that ah okay you yourself does that [clears throat] Sir, you have anything else? Uh, site visit, huh? Oh, a site visit. We're not there yet. I think it's a good idea. Oh, absolutely. Maybe we'll get a thought. Yeah. Not Not when it's not. How about we wait till late for the holidays in January? All right. Yeah. Yeah. I don't mean

Yeah, but definitely you siph it. What's Let what's [clears throat] I mean to go ahead. Um Dave, can you give me a review? Can you double check the code for the types of outdoor events that were prohibited under the new code? I remember that there was some change that prohibited certain outdoor events or something, but I and I was skimming through and I was trying to find it while we're here. I can't find it. uh commercial the use was removed from the list of permitted uses outdoor outdoor events outdoor events unless it's un it's attached to a resort I think were eliminated. So this

it's no longer a permitted use. So this per this use would comply the outdoor I don't know dance that's what I would check to confirm permitted. Are you asking if the outdoor dance would comply with the code? Yes. Okay. [clears throat] And I guess you could say that the outdoor dance on the deck is part of the building. So that's not inconsistent with the code if that's what the code says. Have to admit it. Um but anything else outside of the four walls or outside of the deck, question mark, is that still permitted given the new code? have to take a look and I I just don't and I

off the top of my head I don't I was looking for commercial and commercial events facilities were removed too but that's that's not what they're proposing right so wedding wedding venues birthday all that kind of stuff was removed I think the CEO determination said education right correct right well it's it's a school [clears throat]

and my last comment would just be as refining, perking, driveways, etc. Anything to minimize tree removal, minimize impact is is always foundational. So maybe just putting those things there. Maybe when we have our sitewalk, we can maybe you can lay out where the driveway is so that we can maybe perhaps keep the mature I'm going to trees. This is in the in the field. We we actually I had them mark the trees. Okay.

That um so that and we sighted this to save the the trees. There are some uh dead ash and get rid of those. What's that? Get rid of the dead ash. Yeah. that but it's it's and there's a ring of cedar trees which you see on the site plan there that really holds the building in a beautiful way and all of that stays. Yeah, I kind of sense that the importance of it because it was on the network driveway had this flagged out for archaeological Oh, okay. So I mean but so then when we go out it just yeah you can't

you know how far you were. It's not very I would probably say most people should be able to walk that it's very still left Russia there but from the other side you'll be able to walk it down through the woods probably. Okay. The flagging there's a piece of ribbon on the on the road. Is that that's the entrance? Yeah. Okay. There's a the pond in the back. Are you going to utilize the pond? I'd love to be able to swim and Yeah. I can. So, are you going to have some sort of pathways going down there? Yes. Well, it's already there's already about Yeah, there's a Oh, you're just going to bushwack down there? Yeah, it's kind of a It's a It's walkable at this. So, you have no intentions of doing anything formal down there? No Koopas down there, rowboats,

no docks. They votes will be um I Yeah. Yeah. I I I haven't investigated that. I don't know. Can a can a can a deck platform is that a that sits on there? Is that a planning board issue or is that or is that I think it's you could have a Yeah, I would get somebody if you don't regulated by DEC or I don't know. IC we haven't uh if you're going to do it if you're determination there is no

if you're going to do it put it on the map it may involve the DEC I don't believe it is regulation I don't know anything else remember this is just preliminary just a question about the uh sort of lot line aspect of it is the the parking lot that's there did that was that ever run through the department at all

I called Jerry area at the time. I called the office and I said, "Do I need any kind of permit for that?" And they said, "No." So, I checked and that's what I was told. I mean, it was been less than a year of disturbance, but that, you know, there was not sure if that was a threshold he was looking at or not, but for the parking lot. Yeah. The parking lot. I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. It just seems like you have to get a permit to the driveway. Yeah. Did the highway department just for the cut, isn't it? The driveway permit is just for the cut. Just asking. Yeah.

Did the highway department look at where the the driveway? with Jeff quite a bit about I mean we were talking about the roadway on Topath and about taking you know taking the parking off and I thought with the town supervisor and we we made sure to to that you know that there was some signage of no parking along the road. We dealt with the fire department access to um you know to make sure that we weren't having parking because it was a problem of people parking fire department access and we created a a handicapped accessible parking spot there and secured fire department access. So it was known discuss kind of around all of these issues but I can't say there was any formal um there wasn't any formal review that I knew Jeff looked at it a bunch told us what initially didn't like the the idea of us putting the the big rocks along the road to block parking and said we'd have to move them back and we say That's fine. And then he and he said, "You know what? It's good here." And we check in with him period.

So, it's already in operation. You already have it. It's been used. All you want to do is move that parcel. Yeah. All right. So, we'll just leave it at that. Okay. Um, we're going to need escrow bon 5,000. I think I mentioned that to you already. So, uh, entertain a vote, a motion rather, for the 5,000. Dave Roberts motion. Second. Helina second all in favor I I chair votes sorry I the other thing Helina um you you agreed and this isn't an yes this isn't you volunteer that's in the army you already agreed that I already agreed you know

Molina will be the uh the detailed person on this project thank you Helina for volunteering any other questions comments Okay. Um, good. Thank you, Ken. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, Caleb, stay in touch. Maybe if I don't think everything's going to be that we've asked for, we'll be ready for the January meeting. I'm not sure. So, maybe the first week of January or the second week, second meeting of January. I'm not sure. We have to submit some stuff. We're going to update the site magaz contract. and then somebody

Thank you all.

All right, Caleb. Good seeing you, Dan. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh before we go on to um Tom to get uh into the details of the project, uh Jen and and Peter usually and we haven't done this recently for a variety of reasons, we usually do a post meeting letter to the applicant. So could the two of you do a post meeting letter to Mr. Pinkeris and to Bill Agres and send the you know

uh I sent um yes I can put you back off of the email I sent them. Okay. And when they go out you can send it to the applicant and then send it to the whole board and to all of our consultants as well. I I can't promise that I keep the same schedule. Have it done tonight in the [laughter] Okay. So if we could do that that would be really helpful. and Helena, pay attention. Um, yes, sir. Could you do a post meeting letter on this project, what we agreed to tonight? My best. I'll run it by you. You don't have to. I trust you. If you forget something, I'll let you know. But I'm sure you won't.

And it goes to the applicant, the applicant's representatives, and the whole Yep. planning board and all consultants. What'd you forget? Well, Mike Moral wasn't with us tonight. And it will be divitted the paper about lead agency for circulation. I don't know if you want to at all. Uh no, wait until we get the What we do is we wait till we get the letter from our um planner which outlines all the things that need to be done hopefully everything. And he also makes a recommendation on um the typing and lead agency. I know that Mike went ahead and did it, but Well, that's I just wanted to

I'm sure Mike's a really good lawyer. I'm sure we'll agree with him, but maybe we won't. I don't know. Okay, but we'll take care of that. Thank you again. All right. Thank you.

All righty. Um Jeff You know, Jeff or Moshi or other gentlemen, any one of the other gentlemen, if any of you want to make any comments to begin, I have lots of comments. We're going to be here for a while talking. Do you want to make any comments first?

Sure. You wouldn't mind that. Appreciate that. So, um I want to make sure that uh the board understands uh what this project is and what it isn't. First of all, um it is of a great religious significance to have a dining room in which all of the campers on site can pray and eat together. It's a very important process. Um, I heard comments about how we're doubling the population. There are no new people coming on site as a result of this. All we're doing is building [clears throat] a state-of-the-art kitchen and a dining area that will house the entire population of the camp. Uh, I heard a comparison from Mike to Tops and the bottom line is this. We're we've somehow got into this that this is a 50,000 square foot building. Building to start with and we're going to discuss with you pairing it down is 25,000 footprint. Most of the space in that building, the second floor, which is the basement, is going to be uh nonused space. Uh it's just going to be a basement. It's really just the first floor that all the activities are going to really be taking place on. So to start [clears throat] with, we're really talking about a 25,000 square foot uh use in a building, not 50, not 56. And as I said to you, I think that we are willing to work with this board as much as possible to reduce it from that. So to compare it to tops in which uh you got a 46,000 square foot in which all of it is usable space to one that has a first floor in a basement

really is an unfair comparison in terms of the uh lighting. Um, one of our commitments to this board from the beginning was we will make all the lighting dark sky and it's not now it will be as a condition of any approval that this board gives. So, we are going to take care of that. When you say all, do you mean all including existing lighting or just new?

No, we're going to go to the existing lighting because the the new lighting is going to be minimal. So, it's clean up the whole facility, right? The whole facility. Um so again I think one of the keys is not only is there no uh increase in population but because we will have a state-of-the-art kitchen uh water saving devices there'll be significantly less use of water uh than there is in in the old old kitchen that we're using now. So there's going to be no new water uh and no new septic required. Uh again a much more efficient system and equipment will be installed here.

Uh again I also wanted to mention to you that um the use before this was a dude ranch. As a result of that you had horses. You had a lot more water uses for animals. A lot of uh adults. people would go horseback riding and take showers during the day, sometimes twice, depending on how much they were on the on the uh doing the do ranch things. So, I think that you're going to find again uh not only from our past few years and which have not been an issue with water and sewer, you're going to find even less going forward. So um again I think most of the comments dealt with the size of the building lighting traffic which would be no more. Uh just one last thing, the new one of the reasons where the building is caught where it is is because we don't want trucks going through the facility uh where the children are going to be playing and the driveways in from this new facility are going to be much more efficient so that the trucks that had been backing up to get up to the the hill will no longer have to do that. So, I believe this is going to be a much better use of the of the property. Uh in terms of the scenic view of this building, uh not only are we now going to change the color and make it much more rural um friendly, so to speak, but in in addition to that, uh we are going to uh retain the existing screening and now it's and add a significant amount of screening to it uh to uh uh minimize the amount of impact on traffic going bus. Um yeah design um as far as uh the project changing multiple times. I heard a couple of people that could constantly changes um

as the board knows uh we were trying to the first design was uh mostly a nonroll design. It was a city type of design and we're working on the [clears throat] design that is gonna more fit in within the period. Um the first design as uh you probably all saw was a lot of vertical. It had a continuous wall without any brakes. So, we were working on first of all breaking up the building, doing a little bit of ins and outs, doing instead of the flat roof, we did a uh uh sloped roof, a slanted roof, which is more common this area and gives it a not a city type build look. Additionally, we did uh we changed it so it kind of looks like two separate buildings with the glass in the middle. We did all those decorative um decorative elements in order to bring in more rural design. Most important we changed the colors for air tone type of color rather than those stuckco brick or city type of building. Um, additionally we did show um all the previous 3D renderings had the the doming as it is, but in reality um we also showed a picture u how it's going to look with the existing trees. It's actually there's a lot of trees. They're all going to stay um not moving any of those trees. So there's actually going to be screens dramatically as you drive by um from the street and as you always said ready to put um additional screening and uh screening that remains during the winter um any kind of tweaks in order to even screen it even more. Um

that's basically from an architecture perspective. Um how we changing it trying to fit in more in the area. Again um as said that this is we're not adding any additional sleeping rooms. Um occupants are basic sleeping rooms. This is just a building. Now they're eating in three separate facilities, smaller facilities. Um cramped. This is just a building that's not going to add additional occupants. It's just yeah taking existing occupants and putting them into one big large room where they can all enjoy um being together rather than be cramped and be diffic um I know that one of the meetings that we had sometime in the last month month and a half we were looking at the new diagrams. You have new diagrams in front of you as long as uh new pages to the site plan. We had u somebody had made the comment uh or asked the question how long of the building the new building that you're proposing um was. And I think Mr. Hartman, you told us it was 220 ft. And somebody else at that meeting said, "Well, that's too long." And I think it was Hesshy who asked Mr. Heshi. He said, "Well, how long do you want it?" And I remember saying, "10 ft. We want it half the size of what you have right now." Somewhat tongue and cheek, but somewhat, you know, we've been asking for a smaller footprint building. And so, I just want to go through some of the facts that we've been dealing with over the last eight months, I guess it is. The um so we have asked for a much much smaller building. Um

this was still comes at one point in time we had also talked about having a building and getting rid of the offices on a second floor. That's what created the building that had the ziggurat type of floor to it. Um building top dropped down in another building. This building it came back that that second or third floor whatever you want to call it. So we went from 42,000 square ft. we went back up to the 15,000 square feet. And I know that the footprint is is key to this whole thing. Not necessarily the square footage. The square footage is determined by the the uh uh the foot. So, it was disappointing when we met him a month and a half ago that the building went back up to something I thought we had gotten it down considerably in terms of square footage. The length of it is is still massive. So, I think it's safe to say that the board and polling the board over the last few weeks after we uh we got this uh the board is of the opinion that it's it's still too big. But but let's so what's big enough to service your needs? One of the frustrations that I have in terms of the size has always been you have 550. You indicated to us that there were going to be 550 people, children essentially and their counselors that at any point in time would be using this building. In fact, it was my impression I thought it was the board that the 550 was the total occupancy of the camp at any point in time. That was like the the maximum give or take, you know, 10, 15, 20, whatever. That was my uh impression. It appears as though that was an mistaken impression and we'll get there when we start talking about water because now the number is up to 770. And just hold that thought because it

plays into the discussion about sewer and water and septic. But the 550 was the number um that needed to be serviced in this building from a dining room point of view or from a religious um worship point of view, a prayer point of view. So I believe we had suggested take a look at what your needs are and you have double kitchens because it's kosher. Take a look at what your needs are and determine what the typical square footage is for a dining room to service one person. And I believe the number is 15 square uh square feet per person. Okay.

15 time 550 comes out to I don't know 8250 something like that. Surian, you're the you got a quicker mind than I do, but it comes out to let's say 8,500. Is that right, Helina? 15 by what? 15 times 550. Yeah, I was saying

8250. Um, so you need 8250 to serve as the children and whoever else are going to eat there all at once as opposed to having three separate uh sittings. When I looked at the architecturals, which we don't have in front of us, but uh we did receive a while ago, the room for the dining uh hall or the space for the dining hall was equivalent to the space for the kitchen. So, another 8050. I would question how much space do you really need in the kitchen? But let's assume you need the same amount of space in the kitchen that you need in the dining room. So, that's 8250 plus 8250. That's uh 16500 as a footprint. And then there were some additional offices which you don't necessarily need on the first floor. Of course, there's restrooms that you do need. And then there was an atrium. I don't remember that what that space was. If I take 8250 plus the 8250 and by the way, the kitchen included storage area. That's what did I say? Uh 16500. 16500 plus other room at best 20,000 square foot um needed and then you can start from there to get it down to a smaller number. The dimensions of the building here is 220 by 90 if I recall. Is that correct?

Uh in front of me I think that side didn't change. Okay. So it's 220 by 90 which is a little bit less than 22,000 square ft something.

So the numbers that I come up with without skinning up on um the kitchen for example is 165. Meanwhile you have 225 here. So at some point and I I could tell you I only I did say in the meeting make the 220 110. That would probably be a start at making the board a little bit more receptive to what we have here. But I shouldn't have to and the board shouldn't have to say, "Look, this number works better than that number." It's the impression is it's too big. What are the uses that you have here and how can you get the uses down in terms of the square footage that you need for those uses in order to make this less bulky, if you would? So basically if I could respond to that um I did do the analysis first of all the 570 that means you can't have one counselor by code you cannot have um more than every 15 square feet you can have just one person okay so if you have the all the kids in you can't have one counselor you can have one additional counselor so you have to count for staff correct um

well that's part of your occupancy what if you have staff that's part of your occupancy that's part 550. So 570 um 570 initial narratives was 570 correct? Nothing else. Um it was included including the stuff orig again I wasn't I wasn't sure about that but again as of now I believe this the the school [clears throat] the um hemp is registered as 570 students. Okay. So

570 fine times a little bit that doing all those analysis scaling down the kitchen everything we can get it down to just shy below 20,000 square ft if we scram cramp things in use a little bit of storage on the bottom floor maybe do some elevator again it's not going to be as practical because as you know the basement is um underneath the kitchen is completely underground so which means on the side where the service or supplies comes in that basement is completely in the ground. It's only there's exactly 4 ft just for a truck to back in and deliver the supplies on the first floor. The basement is completely underground. So again, it's very hard because all the supplies come in on the first floor. But even though we can we can get it down,

you're going to have an elevator

legally in order to have all all the students in the room plus having the kitchen staff and everything. We can scale it down to below 20,000. But again, doing 110 by 90, that means um if my math is correct, just about less than 10,000 square feet. That leaves us for the dining room and and nothing else. Correct. Um so we can work on that but again we didn't do it until now because again doing it 110 basically um misses the whole point of this building because we still don't have a very small D. You're not going to be able to put in more than 300 people doing it only 10,000 ft. Let's say 110 by 90. Correct. So what is that

going back to 15 15 square ft per person multiply by actually we I'm sorry we're starting from from a back number of people 570 what is your capacity for your septic system using calculation coming from we not get into the water of the septic right now. But let's let's name the image factor. Willis, we we heard your commitment to get under 20,000 square feet and you will [clears throat] get under 20 19,999. What what's the number?

Uh I believe we plan to get around 195. It's important to say that when we did the analysis um for the ballroom since we have the SFSP program there's two types how we can serve the kids there's tray line and there is also to to put the meals on the table

so the way how we operate since we have the the the the high school um girls we are operating as trail land that land to serve 570 girls per kid takes up a huge amount of the place of the bur. There is no other way how we can surf um instead of a trailer line. So this is also amount of square footage that we count in the 10,000 square ft of our ballroom. You're right with the 15 per square ft but common area and also there's also the exits where to leave. We have a few exits echo and it can not be blocked with tables. So we took everything in mind when we did the analysis and the number is that what we need and we are not building every single day. We want to have a broom that fits our we don't want to come back um um a year from now. Hey we miscalculate. We we must expand a little bit. No we need something what fits for our facility and that's it.

That's the question. So, um, how long does it take to serve 550 or 570? Approximately 20 minutes. By by law, by the SFSB program, it must be under 20 minutes. So, all 570 people can receive their food in 20 minutes. It must be that way. Yes. But they coming for inspections. It must be under 20 minutes. If not, you fail. That's bor. It's not border. It's SFSP. It's a launch program. What is it? What is it? Can you I don't know the okay but it's SFP but is an industry standard for 15 square ft accounts for space around the tables as well? What is the question?

Yes. Yeah, 15 15 square f feet per person does account for additional extra space. It's not you're just sitting here 15 square feet. It's including passages at least hallway. It's it's it's an average number.

So basically if I can explain that the building code specifies the maximum let's say this room is about um is 450 square feet. The maximum you need to put in a city on the minimum. Okay, which means you can't put in one person more. But typically a a room is going to be designed for the function that it is. So for example, like he explained, if you have to have more space, you'll use 20 square ft per person. Correct. But 15 is the maximum for fire safety and for any other is that 15 is another minimum which means it counts. Yes. For the space show, I'm sorry, I'm correct. There are numbers showing 12. There are numbers showing a little bit bigger but it depends of what what kind of dining facility we have in 15 15 square feet is kind of average fast serving dining facility and the kitchen the standard showing like from 25 to 40% extra granting you need so 50% So it doesn't have to be 100% or for the kitchen even portion of kitchen and radio. So those numbers really uh exaggerated. But again we need to go back and see capacity of your septic system. Does it looking at this calculation in uh ranch before it's about 450 people would be there based on this calculation approved by by uh department of health and renewed by the organization in 2022 for another 10 years. So, whatever we come up with in terms of the number of people, we'll have to determine what the septic system is going to look like.

Yeah. Right. We're not there yet. And the same as for water. We got to deal with the water. Yeah. But we're talking about people system cannot cannot accept. Well, they're not going to have to build. If that's the case by code, then the system's going to have to be made bigger. We're not there yet. Yeah.

So I think the discussion about the s you know us trying to not determine you know or size of the facility is actually misplaced. here. I think that what we're hearing from the applicant is that they want a building of a certain size and so if they want to adhere to that then the discussion is more about uh whether this is the appropriate location on the site and how whether it's uh appropriate in terms of the code. you know, that's what we represent here is is we're trying to determine um you know, as some of the members of the public said, you know, whether this is in character with the area, whether it's in scale with the with our area and these questions. So, if if the applicant is here saying, look, you know, this is what we want to do. We want to feed 570 kids in one sitting and that requires a building of 20,000 square feet. Then it's a different discussion. You know, we you know, it's it's not a discussion about us saying, well, make it 18,000. It's the B, you know, is should we be placing that big building on this road or in this location? That's the discussion. Um,

do you have an answer to your question? Well, I I think the questions are, you know, is it in in uh scale with the surrounding area? Is it in is it does it uh relate to the scale of the surrounding buildings? Does it relate to the scale of the vernacular that we're all familiar with? So, let's start answering some of those questions as a board. Does it relate to the scale of the area? Not at all. I mean I want to point out I know the way it looks

I want to point out that the biggest building in the town of Rochester is inis which has 10,000 square foot. So that that's just to give a dimension. Is that is that a single build? Is that the skate? Time might be you. Skate time is time bigger than building is 10,000. I looked it up now. You know, keep in keep in mind I have no dog in this fight or whatever the saying is. Dave, they do need two kitchens. We do have a code and I think that's what Dave is pointing. Okay. So what is the code? Which part of the code are you referring to?

Uh, I'm not in it at the moment, but as far as it fitting and being uh fitting with the community character, um, is it what 140 20? Do I have to 140? It's not I don't have it open here, but I think that's what I'm hearing and I know that's I think what everyone is saying is it should fit. We don't want to set prescribe how many square feet but we should whatever they come up with to meet their needs has to meet the what we have in our code. I want to recognize that

and if you would like to read it if you have the code open but you know I I want to recognize that what we see in front of us is is [clears throat] the applicant's response to our desire to see as you said you know a pitched roof that relates more you know a a breaking up of the massing not having a single plane along the the wall plane along the uh the road there but I think in essence the question here is is this building of this area? Is this is it of this region? And I I think that for many of us in this room, we look at this and we'll say no, it's not. You know, this doesn't reflect what we see when we're driving around. And I think what's important too is the the aspects that we enjoy that our community enjoys, but also what people come here. The very reason why people come here is for a certain built landscape and a certain um natural landscape as well. And um you know as it as it stands this building doesn't you know look like uh you know the barns the farms the and you know we've had a discussion about massing and forms that we are very used to. I just want to uh mention that you know look there's federal law on the whole issue of religious use of property rela we have an obligation to try to accommodate what our needs are with the community and the community has the same obligation to us and I believe that when you take into [clears throat] account that we're going to make this rusted that we're going to reduce it as much as we can while still meeting our religious needs while we are going to do significant screening in addition to

what's there already. I think that we are willing to meet our burden to this community. Uh in terms of uh you know it seems like uh the way you're describing it, it's a building you're driving by and you're going to look right at it. That's one of the reasons why we're going to have significant screening. That's one of the reason why we're using ground and rustic colors so that it doesn't really look like uh something stuck out uh in the middle of nowhere. And I think that we will be able to accommodate exactly what the needs are of the community while meeting our needs as well.

I I found this section that he uh asked me to reference and it's 140-20 C building design and location. Um, building design and location shall be suitable for the use intended and compatible with natural and manufactured surroundings. Examples of preferred commercial and industrial building designs are detailed in the town of Rochester historic resource report and reconnaissance survey, town of Rochester comp plan and county community design manual. Number two says, "Building color, materials, and design should be adapted to surroundings as opposed to adaption of the site to the building or the building to a national franchise concept. The planning board may request alternatives to building color, materials, and design, including changes which may be contrary to a natural national franchise aesthetic. Um if existing surrounding buildings are disused, poorly maintained or abandoned, building design shall reflect the design standards as detailed herewith or within the comprehensive plan and not reflect the surrounding structures. That's if they're disused. So all you know and I was I'm just reading into what Dave Roberts was saying is that the we can't tell you what size you need for your business for for your dining hall but whatever you provide us it has to meet what the standards we have here

you just said that we don't disagree with that's why but I'm just you know I just wanted he had asked me to to cite that and I did not have it open on my computer. We hear that we're sensitive to it and that's one of the reasons why we've changed the color. We've changed the the uh lines of the building uh and we've put in significantly more screen all of which to meet those requirements.

I I think uh I'll just jump in. I think part of part of the analysis that I I would expect as a designer um is would be to say this is a really large building and we've also looked at other parts of the site or we have other strategies within you know like we've been talk dancing around placing this building between the existing facility and road but what else is being explored here what else what other strategies have been explored in order to minimize ize the impact on the immediate community or the immediate neighborhood especially knowing that you know we have historic farms and agricultural areas immediately adjacent. So what are the other things that have been looked at yet in order to minimize the impact?

That's what we're talking about impact visual impact on the surrounding area.

And just to give you um just to expand to that the reason why the building is where it's placed is basically the dining goal requires a lot of service um supplies coming in. Um, placing that inside is basically means every drop, every delivery has to drive in deep into the site which is going to affect there's a lot of kids playing. There's a lot. So, there's a lot of kids playing around that it's a summer camp. Um, having all those trucks and deliveries and waste coming going out of it is basically a danger for the kids. So, that is the initial thought why this makes sense to put to place the building where it is. Um again um as Jeff said there's the trucks is going to be designed properly so it doesn't park on the road the way it is um right now there's a the left side of the building is designed for supplies coming in and out right side is designed for the kids or for the activities going to use it um that is the reason why it's placed the way it is just didn't decide to just put it there and and and and not explore other other um areas where to put Um but from but from a practical reason for this kind of facility where there's a lot of small children you can't control every child where to come where to go you corner off that space where all the liberties come in and out and that makes the most sense and that is typically how is any resort they would have the facilities would require a lot of deliveries they would place closer to the road than the sleeping facilities and and uh playing fields and all of Mr. Fman, when we uh when we talked months ago, I don't think you were here, but we had gotten portion of that top floor uh knocked off. The portion that was remaining on the

top floor was because floor to ceiling, I think there were 20 foot uh ceilings or 24 foot ceilings. In other words, it was an atrium dining room. It wasn't a 10ft ceiling dining room. It went up to 20 24 ft giving it a lot of height. What happened to the idea of getting rid of the office space up on that top floor and why couldn't we extend that to bring the height of the building down much further?

So basically again at one of the meetings we said 4 is only a number. We should again just um cutting off that area doesn't do anything. We should rather play around and breaking it up. That is the reason why um [clears throat] we then discussed that let's let's work rather on the design and breaking it up rather than square 43 because just removing a portion of it is not going to doesn't do anything. Again, if we with the new design, if we have to remove that, if that's that's a compromise, we'll remove it. The size of the of the

and again, as I said, the footprint doing the analysis with the 15 square ft um about 8,500 and you need about 10,000 for the for the for the dining room. We can get it down to below 20,000. Okay. Um so taking off that and we can reduce the overfit as well but more than that is basically again it's not going to fit it's not going to it's not going to basically um fit all the lids in one place which mean basically this whole purpose of the building is um to have the religious um this all together is not going to work. So again as we [clears throat] can work on all those other things screening changing removing the cap um portion of it. Um again we lowered the height of the building as well. Used when it used to be have two stories the it was 12 ft and 12 ft um the ATM the big um ballroom was 24 ft lot of thickness of the floor.

What is it now? Now I believe it's about it's 20 ft I would say. So, if you were to get it down to 18, you'd actually knock off a a significant amount of the the height of this building. Again, 18 ft for a 10,000 foot ballroom starts to look a little bit low. The bigger the room is, it requires a little bit of a higher ceiling. Um, we could get it down from 24,000. Purpose is to service 570 people for for three dinners a day. And it's a legit. when you needed all that extra space up top.

Um, again, brought it up from 24 to 20. You didn't even realize it. Correct. So, it's 2 ft. Another two feet from the inside is going to make a huge difference from the outside. I literally um shortened the building with four feet. I don't know if anybody even realized. I don't believe the two feet. If I make it two feet from the outside, it's you're not even going to realize it. And from the inside, it makes a huge difference. Um, but again, if that's the one thing, that last thing, we can also do that. I mean, we can

Well, look, you know, we can we can spin our wheels. And we also talked about utilizing some of the old building, which probably just isn't worth it to try to refurbish that. It'd be better off just taking the whole that whole thing down. I don't know whether that was ever thought of, taking down the old building and building on the footprint of the old building um somehow. um [clears throat] so that you don't have the combination of the old building and the new building, but I think what you're hearing here is [clears throat] and I've said this a couple of times um to any one or all of you. If I took a vote right now as to whether this thing would would be approved or not, and we're nowhere near that, I think the answer would be no. Now, I don't know whether it would be four to three or seven to zero or six. I have no idea. But the board is still reflecting on the size of this, the bulk of this relative to the rest of the neighborhood.

Well, all I can say is that we've had our conversations. You've mentioned the numbers 15 to 20. This was a 26,000 square footprint. It's now under 20. Uh you mentioned the height of the building which is still significantly less than the maximum height that you can have in the zoning district. We're now down to 20. I mean there's been significant compromise on the part of the applicant to get into the range that you're looking for. So, I mean, if you're asking for any less, then you're really significantly compromising the religious attempts to use this building for

But the religious, Jeff, and I I respect I know what does the religious needs of this building include a 20 what is it? 20 foot ceiling. It'll be just as religious if it was 18 ft or 16 feet. The property I said again that

the property is is high as a particular position in this particular spot where the old building is is probably about 8 ft lower than the land where you're putting the new building. So right away you've got a new building that's going to outstrip the old building by I'm guessing now six seven maybe eight feet in bulk and so it's going to stand out. So my question is I respect the fact the religious aspects of this um and I agree it's important to do uh to do something like that together as a community. I have a question.

But what's that got to do with the height of the building? You know, will it be just as religious at 20 feet as it would be at 16 feet or 18 feet?

I frankly I don't see if if the architectural look is better at 20. The difference between 20 and 18 coming down from 24 to 20 I think is our compliment. Again, as I said, if we're set with the size, we're okay with the size and we're we're only left with that to ft. We can work we can we can lower it. Again, it's not I don't think it's going to make it if it's going to make a difference. A building that is uh 60 or 80 ft in in a site it's 18 ft or 20 ft. I don't think it's a make or break in. But if that is if we're set at the size and that needs to be um even lower than we compromised, we made it 20. We have to do it 18, we can do it 18. But again, we're going back to we're going back. If the size we're going then we remove it to 18, then we're going back to the size again. So that's kind of we removing the we remove that portion, then we're going back to the size again. If we're set with the size and and people are okay with the size then yes we start discussing that two feet is going to make a difference and if it is we can lower it we can work with it but then we whatever we do always get back to the size again um so again so we're ready to do anything in order to in order to uh to get this approved but if the actual size is still the problem then it's we're still yeah we do screening we do anything with the problem with the size is it's the big dining room with the kitchen next to it and obviously you need stairs. You need some circulation and and a place where to come in a a atrium with stairs to get into it and that is basically what we needed 20,000 ft. We could remove the offices. We can remove anything that's that kind of that we can remove. Um, so we can get it down to 20,000, but once if we're set with

that, we can work on those little things, another two feet, moving the moving the the top section. We can work with that, but we always get back to the size. Can I just ask you, you were talking about, let's talk long term, right? And sometimes decisions make this is an easy way to put your, you know, put the dining hall in the middle. I'm looking at the aerial and it seems to me that most of the property for the kids is deep into the property where the the pool is, the courts are. You have a pond over here. There's already a road. Did you ever think about maybe putting the building further in, you know, as as Dave Roberts had mentioned, further into the property, closer to that pond? It's by that road. It looks like the kids don't use that. um because it's wooded. Um and and that might be a better location. It's further off the road. It would alleviate impacts. It may be a little bit more difficult, but let's talk about long-term. You might want to put in another building sometime next to the dining hall. So, for future expansions, you might that might be a better location. Just just throwing it out there. You know, a lot of times you it's easier and cheaper to find the easiest location. And I understand why you chose that, right? But now after hearing everybody, maybe if you make it move over to the pond over there, it's off the road. It's in its own way. It's not going to the the the deliveries. It's not much longer for the deliveries. It doesn't seem like the kids play over there because most of um what I'm seeing is is deep into the property. Maybe you might want to take a look at that.

Elena, are you saying north of the pond? No, I'm saying south of the pond. South of the pond. The cemetery location. That's a cemetery down there. The Historic Preservation Committee has directly requested that you call for the historic cemetery. Okay. I thought you were referring to north of the It didn't come up on the Olter County parcel viewer. So, to me, I was thinking that's a good little a good little place. You know, it's a little deeper. Yeah. Okay. Usually also county parcel viewer has has it uh marked. So I thought you were referring to north of the uh the pond.

I was trying to think about your long term because this is the easiest. I get it, you know, but then you're going to be blocked in there. So maybe think about your long-term needs because you're going to be here for a while. I believe I believe they did explore the again did explore multiple options. It's obviously not the first choice to put the buildings right um in the front. Again, there is some environmental. There's no trees over there. We're not going to remove trees versus um they moved in the whole wooded area things like that. Yeah, that's cemetery or any other place.

Um but uh I do believe we did explore um um [clears throat] did explore multiple options. Okay. and and I believe that was the only option. Okay. Um, go ahead, Ch.

So, I want to clarify that we're talking about two different things. We're talking there's the footprint of the building, right? And that affects how it's viewed from the road. There's also the square footage of the site, which is what you need to serve students. Um, have you considered like we're talking a lot here about the viewshed, about impact from the road, about the community character. What would prevent you from using let's say a ramp to and there was that huge basement space and it was sort of recreation or unused area wasn't really clear what that was going to be used for. What would preclude you from minimizing the square footage of the footprint by using let's say a ramp to serve the students on the first floor? I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but like serve the students on the first floor and then they could walk down to the basement to eat and that would reduce the overall square footage footprint, but you would still have the square foot of the superior to serve your students.

The the the foot the footprint is the basic because you have to have the kitchen and you're serving so much so many students. You have to have the kitchen and the um dining room on the same floor. And that's basically is up 17,000 square feet of the and what would prevent you from using let's say just for the students to eat on the face of God bringing the food up down every time and again you would receive you said you're using a line grab breakfast down I want students walking up to get the food and walking down I don't think I mean because she obviously said there's a 20 minute um

on that and 30 people per minute. So I mean can you imagine three 400 people students walking up to get their food and walking down how many plates I mean it's not I don't do that carrying plates with food on that that I don't see okay Peter I haven't heard from you the best for last and you know what that that'll be the last I think Peter will be the last comment

for the night then we have to come to some not agreement as to what we're going to do next in in terms of what's the size going to be, but we haven't even gotten to water and septic and the fact that we went from 570 people to 770 people, but Peter, go ahead.

Yeah, I mean, I'm a little frustrated with this process and the way it's been going on and I appreciate the fact that you've been making changes to the to the building that um Mr. Kaplan, you said that they're downstairs. It's not going to be used, but there are specified uses for that in the future that the applicant put out there for yoga and massage rooms or other things, game rooms and stuff like that. So, I think that to say that it's not going to be used is is not exactly um accurate. Um the I'm hearing a lot of different things from a lot of people in the community that I respect very much about the total impact of this property. And so it's not just the size of the building, it's not just the character of the building, it's the impact on traffic, it's the impact on the noise, it's the impact on on visual, it's uh it's the impact on quality of life um for people that live around this facility. And I don't see this project improving any of that. And um I I am sympathetic to the farmers that you know make a living farming near this. And uh I think that the you know to not acknowledge that it was a farm area within 500 ft of four working farms is is really kind of egregious in a lot of ways. Um and not doing the homework to understand that you drive by you can see that. So there there are a lot of things that are bothering me about this and I share the frustration with some of the members of the public about the shifting uh shifting parameters of it with the the number of people when we found out at a meeting on the 17th it just went up 200 people uh for use. And that's a that's a big deal. That's a significant um increase. And we only found it

because it was buried in the uh documentation on water usage that we had had asked for. and that so I just feel like things were not been presented um upfront and square with us as a war and narrative doesn't say any word about religious activity none the what about narrative the narrative yes talking about the dining Peter has the floor seven one10 of the town sorry Pet has the floor

okay some of I some of the other things that are um I think need to be mentioned about this property is the incremental changes that have been made since it was the Pine Grove dude ranch. You don't have to do that with the uh addition of different buildings that have been added on different usage more people. I think the the Pine Grove I think was what 236 126 rooms maybe 330 to 350

right and staff of 25 26 to 3. So it's gone up a lot and I think that we really need to step back and look at all the um changes that have been made need to be accounted for in terms of water and septic um and use of the space. Um, and I I appreciate the fact that, you know, you want to make a place for uh for religious use uh for all the kids eating together, and I totally respect that. I just I have a lot of problem with the way this is has been rolling out. And we put a lot of time and a lot of effort on our end to try and keep up with all these changes. And quite frankly, it's pretty hard to do. Um it's it's really uh very frustrating to me um to um to be reading through a document and just notice that there's an extra 200 people that are that were unaccounted for that should be accounted for in terms of occupancy. And so there I think that we we really need to step back and look at all these changes. look at where u the number of people that are allowed the number of people that are permitted I should say uh according to water and septic and I I don't see any way around not doing a hydrogeeological study for this and I also think we ought to consider a traffic study for this because the impact of the the the videos and images that I saw the traffic there is really disturbing to to how much impact this has on um on the people in this neighborhood that live up and down on that road and and go by this and have to be delayed um by I mean I saw video of numerous motor coaches going by in the middle of the day from somebody's Porsche and it's just they turning around in in driveways um you know never mind a helicopter which is a whole other thing. Um uh but you know so I'm I I just I'm exhibiting my frustration with uh with this uh

there's a couple things though with that. You know when when you take a a camp um a a child's camp versus a resort hotel clearly there's a significant reduction in traffic than what was there for years because you had people coming in and out of that hotel all day. New guest checking in checking out. You don't have that. I mean, basically, you have a camp in which they come in at the beginning of the season and they leave at the end. It's really two days of traffic to speak of, which is far less than it was there before. Terms of noise, again, just looking at we're putting a building in uh a a brand new building, uh there shouldn't be. In fact, I think there would be less noise there as a result of a new structure meeting the new new codes than there are in the older buildings in which the kids have been eating at now. So, a couple of those things I just question I mean why why for a building in which you're not increasing the population are we talking about traffic studies?

But you are increasing the population. No, the 770 people are here now. They've been there for four years. There's no new people coming in. It's just How was that never mentioned in the early narrative? I the number that we were dealing with was initially it was 550 or 570. Then when we met and we got the report from Sterling Engineering when they were talking about water and septic the number went up from 550 or 570 up to 770. But we are approved for that. What? We never knew about 770.

Yes. Because we have only 550 campers. We don't have any more. We specifically asked the number that we were given was let's say 570. We specifically asked if there would be more than 570 people on site and we were told over and over and over again that that number would not change. And to sit down and begin review on this and find that that number had in fact changed was very frustrating um on many levels. And you know, we all come here, I think, in good faith, and we've worked with you over the months, the past few months,

and to hear some of the things from the public, it's I guess the position that I'm in is we want to take you at your word. We want to believe what you're telling us, but then we're hearing the opposite from the public. And it's it's hard to know how to make a determination when we're told one thing, but it's actually something else. And I don't I often don't know what to do with some of the documents because I don't know if it might change in the future.

Jeeoff, you said that it's always been it's not always been 770. What we've been told from the get-go up until the 18th of November of Yes. 18th of November when we had that meeting. Um, when we got the report from Sterling Engineering, we saw the number 770 and never heard anybody hear 770. Yeah. Well, look, all I can tell you is since I've been in, I was told there are between 550 and 570 campers. 570 is fine. 770 is 200 away from

But but as I said, I I always heard the word campers. I did not hear staff. I don't know if there was a change, you know, way the diet was, but whatever the case may be, you got to feed them, right? When you when are you feeding the seven the other 200 people? You're feeding 570 breakfast, lunch, and dinner. When you when and where are you feeding the other 200? Why wouldn't we know that? So um I think Hel was not able to compreh I don't want to I don't want to make this adversarial right

you are members of the community you've been members of the community for two and a half almost three years I guess since you bought the property as compared to some other folks that we've dealt with. I enjoy dealing with you, but when the number goes from 570 to 770, you know, I got to check my hearing aids and make sure I have them on. I know what I hear. I know what I see. So, you're a member of the community. We want you to be members of the community that and to appreciate your neighbors and for your neighbors to appreciate you. At this point, we've got so many different, not so many, we have a few different stories about numbers, um, that I think the best thing to do, and it's getting late and we still have to talk to Verizon, is to step away from this, meet again either in a special meeting or in a meeting or in January, January 12th. Leave it to that. See if we can resolve some of these things between now and then. both in terms of the size and in terms of the numbers. We haven't even even though I know my good friend Zorian, my my colleague Zorian wants to get into the sewer and the septic and the water and everything else, we haven't even gotten there yet. Uh, and the whole issue of the hydraological study and whether we do or we don't need it, we did say we don't need to do it because you're not increasing the number of people and you're telling us and we haven't heard any problems about water from any of the residents. We have heard problems with potentially septic overflow. You heard a little bit of that today. Um so we were fine with it. I don't think this board is fine now with not doing a hydrogeeological study to see if what we've got from Sterling, well logs from Sterling, the three wells which show

59,000 gallons of water from 24 years ago or from 20 years ago. I don't know whether that's still valid or not. So again, we've got lots of different numbers. So I think we need to step away from it tonight. We're not we're not getting anywhere. I just want to mention what again go ahead from the day I got in here and I'm going to repeat it again. There is no increase in the population whether there was a misunderstanding or a mis comment that there were 570 people versus 570 campers. They they are not increasing not one new bed not no one new bedroom what's been needed for the

so what's the number of people maximum number of what's the number I will have to I will have Hershey next for the meeting and he did the numbers he did also the deal I'm not doing the I'm just the owner's representative on the site the do pyramid and the numbers and he also dealt with the sterling we'll have him at the next meeting and clarify the old water incapacity Make sense? So, you know, you can't tell me what the number of people being serviced at the camp is at this point. Correct. You're not comfortable doing it. Okay, that's fair enough. Jeeoff, you have a proposal as to next steps. Sounds like we got a lot of talking to do between now.

Um, we will pow whether it it it pays to have another special meeting versus just coming back with those numbers. But, uh, we will have some submitts to you. uh including again with the population and what extend that will be the same. Look, this board has shown its desire to meet with you to get things resolved. We'll do another special meeting, but it'll have to be a public public meeting, right? Not have it should be a public meeting where we only talk about this project. I I'd like to see, but we're in the holiday season, so you know, we're going to have to come up with something real soon. We need to see a comprehensive lighting turn. I'm sorry, Dave. A comprehensive lighting plan.

Um, do we have that? Do Craig, do we have that? See, the problem that I have with all those note um that's been confusing a lot about clarifying things. So, for example, and I know you mentioned that there is clearly a a um use for the basement. So for example at the two meetings before you asked us for give us scenarios what do you that you can possibly put in the basement. Okay. So we provided correct that was back scenarios. That was back in May.

May correct. So then I hear oh look you're planning to do that. So we a lot of things we respond to but then it gets then it gets um then all of a sudden it's confusing. Correct. Because so for example the lighting flat again we can provide that not a problem but now if I'm not set for the size and all of a sudden do a lighting based on this size and then it has it's reduced then the lighting plan is is is invalid. Correct. It's much like the swip we ask you for a swip

and then update the swip. Now now if we reduce the building down to below 20 we have to redo the swip again. Correct. So again, we we we can commit that we're going to have a lighting plan that is going to be um dark sky. We can commit to it once we're okay with the size. Obviously, we're not going to get approvals until we submit those plans. Correct. But if we submit if we design it based on it and then it gets changed because the board wants wants to be changed, then you can't then you can hold us accountable that you keep on changing. Correct. Well, this this is the problem is that you know I I can say a profession I'm used to with the first meeting or the application you have everything and part of the problem here is that we get a little bit of information and then you're it's everything's moving because we don't have a full application right from the start. I agree with you and and that is one of the most challenging parts of this application. You know, I've been involved.

I agree with I hear what you're saying, Dave. Everything at the at the beginning, a comprehensive answer to a designed problem. Dave, I hear what you're saying. I think we're all frustrated. I think the applicant's frustrated. I I'll take responsibility for the for the hemming and the whoring. We thought we had some agreements here and there and it didn't work. It didn't work at the size that you came back to us with. So, um it has been frustrating, however, to get a clear understanding of the numbers. I mean, just 570 and 770. You're even confused. Um and

hang on, let me just So, I think the best thing to do is to step away from this. You guys talk. I'd like to hear from you sometime this week. When can we meet again in a special meeting with the public here? No public comments, right? But we can work work on it. We're at your disposal if you have suggestions. But I understand your frustration. Mike Khalis did a SWIP. We spent weeks convincing him he needed to do a SWIP and then it turns out, well, we still don't have the right size of the building. might not we might even we might still not have it because we're going to reduce it again.

So so again we I believe we have to kind of get the main parameters done again. I still don't have the as far as footage going because again once everything is set people kind of then update everything accordingly but let's say we reduced it and made it smaller then update everything according and then do everything again. talk about. Yeah, I know. It's a waste of time and also a waste of money. So again, that's why I need kind of guidance as far as size, which we still did not get on this. Well, you've heard a lot of comments. But again, we all have.

So, let's deal with this size issue, this bulk issue, whatever. Let's deal with that first and we can go from there. Sorian, I I I shut you down a couple of times. Um, but I know you have a lot to say, but sometimes Okay. you have a May I add something? Yeah, but let's make it quick because we still got an hour to go with Verizon.

Again, we still discussing by person of the personal opinion. If this building going to fit heights of this build going, it's not going to start on a hill. It's one time, second coming. This is way exaggerated in reality only half of them. So speaking about shielding only half of those three island I have a picture here from street another about the water in septic you would expedite the process if you produce for us your capacity septic system you submitted one document which is talking about only outfall number four which is by previous owners of the previous engineer for previous owners was counting only for kitchen consump What about other three? You should have the documentation sale or contact this forum that that engineering firm. They're still in town. Ask them for documentation going back to 2012.

All right, let's go. We got we got to end this. We got No. Okay. So, about your letter because we've been going about talking about occupancy numbers. our your first letter sent to Mosh on f May 2nd 2025 you stated please review the application materials submitted to be sure all occupancy numbers are consistent and accurate so it is something that has been right and it's been a common theme and that's so I'm just bolstering what you thank you all right I'm going to I'm going to we're done for tonight We'll talk hopefully we'll some

Okay. Does the board need a break to Verizon?

Okay, Scott, you've mentioned that to you about spirits. It's appropriate within 500 of his National elsewhere that I mean you may love It's called that southwestern theater with the clay and they fall out of it. I was discussing

that's I I wish it's pretty straightforward and I think it will cover and I can also share some things that I've been on the I guess you

feel like I'm in the House of Representatives. Okay. Would the public please u indulge us? We need to get to the next.

Thank you. Thank you everybody. Yeah.

Okay. Scott, you ready? Ready. Haven't thought about it that way. See, do you know how to look at the right and put it up to 68? There you go. I should do it. Not enough.

That's what's keeping us awake though. Makes it too warm. We're going to fall.

It says it's 63 right now. Okay. Scott, I can't only give you a couple chances to comment on the um the public comments. I have lots of questions and things to say. Do you have any comments you want to make? Uh just a few. You know, the last thing that the last woman commented was saying that you have an obligation to protect them and obviously you know your job better than I

Your obligation is not to protect anyone in the public. It's just unbiasedly apply the law that exists to the act. Um I think that goes without saying for the most part. Um we will be providing some RF materials just to address the drop call data just for the board's application. Verizon doesn't use drop call data to determine whether or not a new site is needed. And this really all stems from millions letter and people are assuming that we actually use that information because it's relevant. it's not relevant for them. They'll they'll hopefully explain that. Um, and they most likely are not going to provide drop call data. And going to Mr. Friedman's comments saying, well, if we don't provide the drop call data, you should just deny the application. I would suggest you look at some of the case law that I provided. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but as I mentioned last time, local boards can ask for material for certain methods of need determinations that are not in your code. We don't use it because we don't there are so many better metrics and the industry doesn't rely upon that information. Um the law is very clear. The information that we have provided has been upheld numerous times, but we'll provide that information. Um

yeah, Scott, do that because The information we can request goes beyond the code. Um we also have secret responsibilities as well, right? So that I mean there's three sets of laws that there's the seeker and of course there's the implications on federal law. But under seeker as you know the board has a fairly wide authority to require supplemental analyses and studies and things like that. We have the public obviously asking for it. So there's got to be a pretty tight reason why we can ask for it if the public is making a reasonable request for it. I think fact that federal case law says you're not entitled to

when if it's there. Yeah. But it's not a generalized thing that we're stuck with our code when when Seeker obviously is a pretty wide grant of authority for us to you know look into environmental data and in this case I would argue that the um for better for worse the the need for the project is is an is a is a solid aspect of environmental data. So if you got it, make it clear to us. Yeah. Um otherwise it's a rec. Now the other the other point I want to make is the public's asking to dig in pretty deep on your um on the models you're using is it without bumping up against proprietary information which you public suggested they could ask. Are there any sort of generalized protocols or or you know um let them be called scientifically you know the the you know the generalized descriptions of what of what the model does that would not getting into the differential equations but that would take a first step toward explaining what it is

they're going that's going to be provided in the letter basically the model it's it's I think even Mr. Chamberlain recognized that he uses the model and that's a good model. So he's not challenging the use of the model. Um and that's how everything is has been done in the industry for decades. Uh the model is done by a third party company that licensed it to other uh carriers. So they are responsible for the actual modeling algorithms and then the lency Verizon or AT&T whatever they will insert the you know specific geospecific material like um you know uh topography that sort of thing vegetation based on lighter. So they put that into it and it's not based on like a large region. They basically look at this region and say okay we know what the topography is. We know what the LAR shows us that gets incorporated

but I suggest that um that we get right at this late hour a writing might be better than an old presentation so that anybody take a look at it and take it and we can move but so obviously the more we can more we can look at it a little bit more than we've done it might make public give the public more to go on and more to understand. And the other thing I want to mention about the FCC broadband maps um I really can't say what I personally think um can't because the company wouldn't be happy with me. Um having said that it's somewhat hypocritical for Mr. Chamberlain to say you really need to rely upon these maps even though there's no criteria parameter parameters that are discussed and then criticize us for using you know tools that are accepted but not providing for so it just seems hypocritical without getting that too much into that word again a response in writing is going to be sweeping

exactly so Scott talking about um thank you V talking about u things in writing there We had a meeting u where we discussed a number of items that were that came up in the site plan uh section of the code and we had requested uh that we get some of that information and you gave us some of the we got the soil information. We received the technical specs on the certification of the stability of the uh of the pole. Uh I think we received something on um

well that was that was it so far. you were going to get us the information on the real estate analysis. That's going to take a few weeks just because it's they're actually providing you know data and it takes a while to complete and there was a number of other things Dave Church had listed um a host of other things I can provide you with that list again I have a list

all right so we just we need a response from you either give us that information or say hey we don't need it for example if you were to say to me I don't need a storm water plan I would agree with you because I don't know that I'm worried about storm water on that property I don't our engineers worried about it. So there are some things you could skip, but there were probably about 20 items ranging from just legal stuff, neper um neper HHPA compliance, some NI level certification information. Yes.

So either get it to us or say we don't think we have to for the following reasons and then we'll evaluate that. and some of the things we've actually provided and we'll explain where they are like the the near analysis probably we have 220 files from you and probably about grass um so well like a storm a storm water plan from an engineer we're talking about a little tiny pod here right well I think we just said we don't need a storm water

on the map to explain what you're doing about storm water. Exactly. Sedimentation and erosion control. It's on the plan, but we'll explain that. We don't need a swift, all that stuff, right? Okay. So, we need that to move forward. Um, anybody else comments at this late time? I was wondering if we ever determined the height the trees. Do we I did get out there for because of a Yeah. personal medical issue this Yeah. last week. But uh you want to do that? Yes, Greg. They wanna the the code

we want to determine the height of the trees. The reality is for there's a variety. Yeah, the white pines are notably taller than everything else. I they came up with our code says tree height plus 50 40 45 or 50 you come up with 95. So the CEO decided that the height of the trees over there was 45 ft. He added 50 and came up with 95. So we just want to know what is the height of the trees. Make sure we've got a base plan. So uh well the CEO decided it. That's it. Yeah.

And he ain't going to defend it. Doesn't have to. Nobody Nobody took it to the ZBA. Doesn't seem doesn't seem like it's unreasonable. Is anybody complaining about that? The point point of information for us is my And full disclosure, my guess is those white pines are way taller than 45 ft. The applicant didn't um didn't uh I just I'm all right. So Dave I know as a field observer that those pipe binds are taller than 45 ft. So let's find out what they well what are you recommending to us legally if they turn out to be 70

but the majority of trees are probably in the at this stage given the fact that the CEO has given us a number to start looking at the the height of the different species of trees seems counterproductive okay so the applicant had chose had the applicant chosen the applicant could have taken the CEO's determination to the ZBA the applicant wanted to look at the white pines in more detail that didn't happened. The the statute of limitations on that is over and let's just so 95 it's late. I don't know that the CEO did that. I think the number came from us personally, but I'll look into it. Well, then the applicant would have difficulty appealing to some number.

I think we just [laughter] again didn't somebody mention that uh what is the device flying? What drone? Drones those guys were doing drone. Correct. And I think I that's what I talked to my client internally about is we have drone footage. So, we're going to try to Yeah. pull it off of there. Yeah. I had mentioned Yeah. back to them. They said yes. Scott, in addition to um the lack of an appeal of CEO determination, when you applied to the ZBA for your variance, what did you specify you were applying for a variance from? Most likely was we agreed with 90. We went with 95 ft. So, if they're at 95,

leave it. I don't see any reason to re to start looking at the at the tree heights. All right, skip it. Yeah. Um, but there's many other items. You have a list that we need answers to. All right. Did you I do remember me asking for the call data. You did. And you said you were going to get me something. Well, I said I had asked the higherups what they would do. I've asked the higherups and I said, "We're going to get you some information, but it's not going to fall in." It's like, okay, I don't rely upon it. I don't know what I'm going to do with it when I get it.

That was one of my points I was trying to make is that drop call data, there are no real standards out there. So, if you see drop call data and it comes in a percentage, if it's 50%, do you think that's relevant? If it's 25%, is that relevant? I could tell you the few cases I found, they'll say something as low as 2% drop call data shows a need. Now, you may not personally agree with that, but that's what the court said. There's not a lot of ca there are not a lot of cases on. All right. So, get me the data and we'll have Can't get you the data. They're not going to allow me to. I haven't seen the data. I don't I don't know that. So, what are you going to get me? You agree to a letter a letter that explains the process of using the ATL information and what parameters are generally used. Um, okay,

that's what we're going to get.

All right. I do remember Fischer saying that of all the data that's used to evaluate need, drop calls was the least important in his opinion. And while I've heard a lot and gotten a lot of letters since that meeting from the public that they don't think Mr. Fishman should be we should be using Mr. Fishman um because they don't agree that he has the competency to do whatever it is that we're asking to do. The fact of the matter is that we hired him. He hasn't said anything or done anything or I'm aware of anything that would cause me to question his competency. Um, and talk about being hypocritical. Um, I won't go there. Um, so we'll ask Fishman when you give us the letter to to pass on that.

Anything else? Yeah. So, it really was my intention tonight uh was actually to start going through the part two of secret, not to do the significance determination. So, we're not going to get to that tonight. Understood. They don't have to wait till January, but it would be great in the meantime that all the other things that I have on my list that I I get them one way or the other or you tell me where to find them. Yeah, exactly. No, that's my goal. Well, explain what got sent around. Say that again. explain the draft part two that got sent around. Why did you do that, Dave?

So, uh, I worked with a small group, um, and started a part seeker works. [clears throat] You do part one, which is the applicant submitted the barbell assessment form. There's part two, which is a series of questions you've gone through before about impact. Is there, yes, no, is it, is there none, small, moderate, large? Um, and then part three is based on what you decide. It's written up. It's your findings. Um, so at Rick's request, I took a shot at a part two, sent have sent it around. It's just how I would fill it out. It's just a teaser for you to think about. I'll just highlight um based on what I know now. Uh, I would check impact on land. Yes. Impact on aesthetic resources. Yes. This means yes being there's a possible

to be looked at potential adverse impact but looked at to be looked at in part three right and question and item 18 consistency with community character would be checked yes I would check no counselor under the assumption of seven and 16 impact on plants and animals and impact on human health with the assumption that it's preempted by federal rule, right? Okay. So, let's not and and and then there's an impact on noise, odor, and light. I would check no because the there's going to be a predetermination of some kind of buffering of noise.

So, let's concentrate on next steps. So, you sent this out. If everybody could look at it when we come back on January 12th, what we need to do is to go through it as a board, agree to what Dave took a crack at, change it, whatever, and then we can begin to talk about, do we have a naked deck, do we have a pause deck? Um, what do we have here? And just to point out to the public, this went up on the web today, so you have a few weeks to take a look at it. It's under the seeker section. It's

I ap I apologize upfront. The New York State DEC fillable PDF is difficult to work with and I believe that in translation from me saving it to emailing it to getting posted the note some of the notes are lost checking so I'm your wrote that I wrote note they have a tool now to put the email system has been lost what's the difference the emails are gone kafuy is There is options there where you can look at notes and without notes.

Zoran, you could spend a day trying to do use that note uh tool and getting it to save properly and then try to re email it to somebody and it comes back saved properly. If you if you can work on it, go for it. Anything else? [clears throat] I will I I will work to fix this. If I have to, I'll I'll fill it out and scan it and send it around. I can help. All right. So, that's what we're doing on the 12th. We'll be doing a part two. Okay. All right. All right. Anything else? Yes, sir. It better be good.

Uh about the draft calls because the goal was draft calls to see it together with the modeling, not separate. And the hope was that you guys going to sue it. But another portion was it basically give us more confidence in validity of the model. That was the essence of the request. Validity of the model, right? All I can tell you is the model is No, but you got it. Sorry. No, no, I understand. Don't like if you don't like the model that might be just too bad. We're going to give you some information. Give me the dumb model. Let me

about structural analysis. I looked briefly uh it's 140 ft but for some reason it doesn't account for additional antennas there for collocation one coming and another thing that the note there says tower design is estimated based on industry standard. However, this shall be reviewed and re-evaluated once the final tower foundation design is completed. This preliminary design is not to be used for construction. So the comment is before construction should you submit kind of ritual analysis to the town. So it's so something like that.

We've given you that's correct. We haven't the the design is not done because in order to do a design of the tower and therefore the foundation you have to actually purchase the tower. We don't purchase the tower unless until we get our zoning approval. uh because we can't we can't go to them and say here's our receipt take it back please. Anyway, but we did give you a structural analysis very recently on a pretty standard tower that we would basically be using factor safety was there like a three and a half roughly which is said what

factor safety was because loading was like a two.3 something that's above my pay grade. Yeah, I'm not the engineer, but all I can tell you is But the point I'm trying to make when you do a new tower, you must submit documentation. We do additional information. If we get to the point where we provide a courtesy building permit application because building permits are not required for standing towers, but we do it anyway to towns, but we do additional geo tech information to make sure that we confirm the soils that are reported from the Olster County website, etc. So, there's a soil test out there now. is a detailed um yeah I understand it was just desktop that was

it was yes yeah it was yeah but you will provide the boring state of we will do a g yeah absolutely absolutely because again no one wants the design and construction to be solid more than us okay period we don't build towers what No, by the way, they might want it more. Okay, that's it. Yep. Did you want to talk about this? What's What is it? Oh, the movement moving of the the moving because then that impacts where they put the boring. You can't ask for a boring until you know where you're going to put it.

Well, we got to approve it. But yeah, all right. Greg, do you want to I got 11 topics. I don't have enough for everyone.

Well, now lot [laughter] you all right here. How you feel? That's so good. Thank you very much. Great.

Well, north is north. North is top page. So, what I did what I did is I zoomed in on the plan sheet that they provided as part of their submitt where they showed the location of the tower and they showed the setback from the tower to the property lines. Um presumably I just took and you know whatever the final height of the tower is I took the assumption of 135 ft plus 10% is basically 150 ft setback and so what I did is that red box represents 150 ft from the apartment building 150 ft from the west property line 150 ft from the north property line in 150 ft from the south preference. So that red box is basically the limit to which that tower could be moved around within within the property. Then what I kind of took and look at is you've got the gravel road coming in there. You've got trees to the west of the gravel road. You the the site is pretty well treed. And so then the green box is what I'm kind of recommending is the most I would say that I would recommend moving that tower if you wanted to move it further away from the apartment building would be about 30 ft which would put it 200 ft from the apartment building and it puts it about 250 ft from the single family residence. to the west. So,

I had asked Greg to do this when we had a discussion about can we move the tower somewhere uh and is there any wiggle room with the um

with the lines with the property lines. Um and also there was a question about uh that Scott had his engineers as to what our code said in terms of the setback from the property line slash the apartment building. The apartment building is on the same parcel propert. So the question was, is it the compound that needs to be distanced from the apartment or is it the tower itself that needs to be a distance and then you add 110% and make 110% of that? Correct. Correct me if I'm wrong there. But it's it's the setback is from the tower, not from the compound.

That's what I believe. Yes. From the tower. I think that that's right because the way the setback is structured, it's basically a fall zone. Right. Right. the height of the tower plus 10%. Yeah, hopefully not. But what falls is the tower, not the not the compound. Well, the compound's only 10 feet tall. So it right to the tower. If it falls over, it's not That's why I So that was the genesis of this. And then do we have any wiggle room to get this further away from and there and there's not a lot of wiggle room moving the tower north or south. Um there's not a lot of room that you could move it north or south. and moving it north or south is not going to change the distance that it is from the apartment building. Um,

so okay. So, and then, you know, I also tried to stay within not having to clear more trees to the west of the the gravel road there. And um I don't know if there's something I'm missing, but basically it compacts the length of the driveway leading up to the compound. So it would seem to me to not really have an impact on having to clear or do more disturbance. Um and then that also comes to um I think the other issue of trying to mitigate the noise from the u the tower. The second

generators. Yeah. From the generators. And then the second one is just that same pinpoint location. I didn't show the movement of the whole compound, but the pinpoint location of where that tower would be in the center. is the 250 ft from the single family resident to the west, 200 feet from the apartment buildings, and then roughly 160 ft from the property in the north to the south. Why do you have a second red green box? That second green box is the parking area that's outside the compound. Okay. So, it goes with the goes with the two of them go together. The two of them go together, right? And then

there was nothing we could do in here because that's great. Correct. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. I don't know if that's something that we that the planning board wants to direct the applicants so they know that that needs to be moved over. I think we both have it. Now you had a question about the setback. You thought you had to go to the ZBA to get a variance, a setback variance. I don't know if that helps. said anything. I'll take look at it when I'm a little I think the way I blurry eyes Rick the way I read the code is the tower setback the setback for the 110% is from the tower location right but all the other setbacks are from the enclosure right

so you could right 10% is a fall zone right correct just the tower the other zoning district setbacks have to measure from the enclosure the enclosure so this also helps None of those would be of of well if you were to move away. Yeah. So it also helps us if we decide that on whatever whether we do a towel, what size we do it at, how much wiggle room we have. Um so that's done. That was there was a request made to do that. So Scott, unless you have something different, I think we're done. Yeah. No, the our attorney has been I'm trying to time whispering to me that he wants to do a client attorney 15 minutes

10 minutes before we go. So, I'm going to clear the room with the exception of um of the board. Stacy, you're going to have to leave also. That's fine. And the public will have to leave as well. Come back. I know, right? Dave, I think you know

this is this actually

I was curious about that. So I've been advised by our attorney that we need to end the meeting first. HRC. I'll second. All in favor? I All right. And we need to be with our attorney. Thank you, Stacey. Good night.