Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the same. So it's

that makes total sense and very very understand

part of the family So, there's that. I'm trying to scroll with my computer to get this to go away. We're just waiting for Dave. All right, he's back. We're good.

I want to call to order the town of Rochester planning for meeting on March 2nd. We can stand on 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.

Stacy, would you uh call the role, please? Chair Jones, here. Member Nelson, here. Member Roberts here. Member Duda. She's uh she told me she was going to be on so excused absence. Member Veteran here. Member Farm here. Member Binsky. We have Dave Gordon. Dave Church is absent and myself and a little later for Verizon.

Okay. So the first project we have is metal lakes and um they wait approach. If everybody remembers Better Lakes back on July 14th of last year and subdivisions get a year to complete all the bits and pieces in the in the conditions. Um, and the time frames are first an 180day period and then two 90-day periods, two extensions. And what happened is round about January 14th, 15th when we should have heard that they were still having some problems getting this approved, the Department of Health. Um, so it slipped at 180 days expired and um, and I'll let you explain what happened, why that happened. So what what they've asked is just to institute the two 90-day options, but start it from the date it should have started had they gotten here in time. So we're not giving them extra time. So the start date would be January 14th and the new end date would be July 14th of this year. So everything has to be done by then or else I'm not sure what we do. We've never had that happen where it would take more than a year. So, Matt or Eric, do you want to explain what happened to the board?

I Yeah, sure. Um, yeah, 180 days came and went and, uh, I just forgot to, um, file for an extension. That's what happened. I love an honest man. I mean, I'm not gonna, you know, that's exactly what happened. And, you know, it's it it's taken the health department a while to review. It took him seven months just to look at plans the first time, but uh almost eight whatever it was. Um but you know that's no excuse. Should have remembered that. Didn't but here we are asking for forgiveness. Um but we did actually get some good news. Health department approval did come through on Friday. Great.

So I think everything is done now. So we're actually ready to print the maps and get them signed. As far as I know is all the easement stuff and HOA. Can you update us on the easement with the Rondout Sopus Land Conservatory? Yeah, so it's that that tech the document you saw is is fine with those guys said there would still be like, you know, maybe a word tweet here or there before it's finally executed, but he says it's substantially correct and and ready to go. So, just to be perfectly um in compliance with our code, when you have the completed one, if it's just spelling, I don't know that I care, but if there's any other changes, I need to give it to our attorney to take one final look at that document.

Yeah. I need um I don't need approval by the town board, but I need Dave's look at that. We already the HOA has been approved by by Dave. the escrow monies for the site plan that's been approved by the town board. The RMA was approved by the town board. So, three of the major items were already done and the last remaining one is to have Dave Gordon go through the uh the agreement with the conservancy and then we're done. So, we have the other the other the other conservation easement, the one that would take, you know, take effect right away. Yeah, that was approved already. That was already

right. So the other reason that um Eric is talking about is that there's two parcels that are not indeed included in the Ronda Sopus Conservancy. They're parcels up in the front. One of them covered that area in which they can't disturb anymore because of the thought there may be buried material. So there is another another for it's for the soil actually. I'm sorry. It's for the prime soils. Prime soils. Oh, okay. Uh but then thank you for that. Yeah, and that was okay. Also, Dave had gone through that and there was some changes that were made. So, um anybody from the board have questions? No, I think it's pretty straightforward.

I I also I mean the applicants have been really like master scholars in in dealing with us. So, I really would be in favor to extension. And just refresh my memory that two of you recused the length of voice, right, last time when we approved this. I think we did. Or did you just disclose it? No, I I don't want to disclose that. Yeah, I don't think we recuse that. We didn't mean there's no conflict of interest. Your recollection is you recused. Yeah. I rather that you just identified that you were members of the United States. Yeah. Because there is no Yeah, I don't think

there was no there's no monetary. No, there wasn't a com we we clearly we recused our ins for the decision it has Hans doing the motion sorry and seconding approving seven to zero I think we recused on the run soap side so it started with correct on this so we just recus they didn't participate on a sofa side on the didn't participate at that organization on the on the conservy side. Yeah. So, Zi Zi in we didn't review documents. Uh we didn't we didn't participate in in the findings. Anybody from this side have comments?

No. I'll entertain a motion to approve two 90-day extensions starting with January 14th. Um which brings us to July uh 14th. Jennifer makes the motion. Peter makes the second. All in favor? I. Chair votes I. Anybody against? Okay. Pass is seven to zero. I hope you're staying six here somewhere. Yeah, we are. We are. Wait a minute. Is there one more? Six to zero. Huh? Six to zero. Six to zero. Oh, to zero. Alina's not here. Sorry. Six to zero.

Okay. Don't let Don't let us be here. We have a good lunch. Bye. All right. The next item is Bill Acres. Um, a lot line adjustment for I guess Bill, you want to because you cannot pronounce. Sorry. because you cannot pronounce

that's why we have sorry your English is better than my Polish or whatever

um you want to explain what we're doing here I know what we're doing here but what we're what we're doing for this particular project and there's maps there for you by the Um, so this is a lot line improvement. This is this is really really an improvement because the existing lot line runs right through the middle of the building and the proposing to uh move the lot line over um to fit the existing conditions better. Um these are two existing undersized lots in the same ownership and because they are undersized lots they could not be approved by the planning board apparently. So they went to the ZBA got a variance for this which I believe you have in your records that um approved varants. So um that's what you're doing.

Yeah. I'm not going to debate. I think you went to the CVA Mike. I don't know that this book I don't know that I would recommend that we would send this to the CBA because they're both um grandfathered and um not compliant lots and all you're doing is moving a line. You're not making a compliant lot uncompliant. You're just moving it and they're still both non-compliant. So, but anyway, you got the ZBA approval. I didn't know many years ago. The applicant did it

many years ago. So, it's done. So, all they're asking to do is to move a line so that the dividing line doesn't go through a c a cabin on the property. Um, I don't see any other problems with this. Anybody else pick up on anything? I'm just curious why I was sitting for so long. Yeah. Say that again, sir. Why I was seeking for so long to What was the delay?

The applicant lives out in Washington or at California. Okay. And at first they wanted us to do it without them being here and just, you know, I said, "No, I need somebody to represent them." Bill did the maps. I said, "Just have them come in." And look, it took them four years to get here from the time they got the ZBA approval. So, I can't explain why it took him so long to come to us. I don't know. But, do we need to do escrow for this?

Um, thank you, Bill. Well, I need $150 worth of escrow so that Dave Church can do the u the hotline documentation. So, would you get that first? Stacy, will you note that? Yeah. Do you need to do a motion to request? I'll make a motion to $150 with Peter and Jennifer seconds. All in favor $150. I six to zero, one absent. So, I need to get that. I'll let Dave Church know to put together the document and uh he's out he's out sick. So I don't know if we can if we can we'll have it for next week's meeting the 9th.

Okay. So I'm not promising. If I can't the next meeting after that is the 30th but it's just a matter of reading the decision at that point in time. Do you know how it came that the cabin move right across the property? I don't remember how that got through like that. Probably no one know where was built that we did the survey about six years ago. I don't know the details of that. It's a mystery. Yeah.

Okay. Um so we're going to get escrow. We approved it and all we need to do uh is to have a decision and we'll approve the decision as well. But the board is fine with this. Bill, you're here now for MH NH properties. Yes. Oh, this really follows us.

Yeah. Um, and I was looking at that it's like like so colorful it's kind of hard to see. So did we load it up onto the vehicle lab the same map with the colors turned off. If so, so we can receive and if anybody's interested in seeing that throughout the do have copies of that if you want to hand those out here. So, Bill, you this was last time you were here was last year back in uh April or May and then the applicant withdrew the application.

Yes.

Uh June June 25th he withdrew the application. So now we spent Why don't you get your map out? You want to tell us what uh what's going on here? So, this property is on Highway. You may remember a couple of months ago we did a lot adjustment for the lands of Growler there in broad farms. This is right across the road of the map basically.

The grower property is up on the right hand side of the map. Yeah. Um on the the bottom side of the map if bottom side

lower side of Queens Highway looking at the map there and Petrochelli. Yep. So that's that's where that that is in context of where we are. So it's uh just before Sundale Road cuts off there. And well, we got uh an existing house and other thoughts, a lot of pool and such on the main part of portion of the property. And we've got proposed three lots up to this. So one with the main lot 18.3 acres they do existing house and there'll be some dial and everything going up to that. They want to cut out a small parcel of 2.29 acres down in the corner on highway and then the third lot round in the back with a shared driveway for a portion of that and then a driveway over the right of way over uh the center lot to get to the piece in the back there. So why did he uh withdraw it back in June?

Believe that I'm the owner of this owner here and I think you I wasn't correct. I'm sorry. We were asked with an open building permit. So we told we couldn't by I think by the planning board that we couldn't have an application to planning board while we had an open building permit. Okay. So as soon as we closed the permit, we replied. Okay. Thanks. All right. Um, does the board have the um a letter from our temporary what was a temporary CEO from back on January 20th? It's in the file, Sean Marx. Yeah.

And he points out a couple of things. And so, Billy, do you have a copy of this bill? It was dated January 20th. I'm showing law. Yeah. Yeah. On town letterhead. Yeah. Yeah. So the first color couple of bullets just talks about the first four or five just states facts. Mhm. Then the sixth bullet 2 46 bullet down talks about there's a national wetland. Okay, we know that. Mhm.

And there's a wetland buffer that you have on the map. Um lot three, which is the one down on the That's lot two actually. Lot three is up in the back. Is up in the back. It's the one one cons. So he says lot three does not meet the required frontage for the R2 zoning district. It would need a waiver by it would need a waiver by the board.

Yeah, because it's landlocked quarter. Okay. Um the next bullet uh has to do with bill pulloffs. Depending upon the length of the um the driveways um whether or not if any of them are beyond 500 ft we need um pulloffs every Peter what is it 500 ft 500t 500t. So you need to take a look at all these driveways and determine if there's any pulloffs that are necessary. Um the area of disturbance according to Sean Mars exceeds one acre. So I don't know whether you evaluated that that we need a storm water uh a SWIP.

Mhm. A simple SWIP. We're going to need that down the road. We need a road maintenance agreement. Yeah. Okay. We know that. Um the next bullet talks about the W line improvement. We knew about that. And then there are open building permits. So I assume there's no open building permits at this point, right? No. Okay.

So, Bill, um, on the one that needs the request for the variance because it doesn't have road frontage, you need to get us a letter in that regard asking for that variance and the board will consider whether they're going to do it or not. Dave, can I have the color back? The one comment that I have and there might there certainly might be others is the driveway that's intended to serve lot three, the one that's landlock is going over an area on the color map that looks like it's over 25% slope. Tell them more.

Uh I don't see I don't see any kind. Oh, here's the legend. the legends over on the lefth hand side. 25 to 60. It's 25 to 60. So, I don't think this board is going to approve that driveway bill over that area since it's at least 25 up to 60. So, you're going to need to show the driveway coming off of the driveway that's servicing what is it block number one and and create it in such a way that it's just going over lands that are 15 to 25 ft and slower. No,

but I don't think it's reasonable to ex to and I don't think it's in accordance with No, I don't think it isn't is not in accordance with with the code that prohibits anything of any driveways and slopes over 25 ft unless you absolutely can't get a road a driveway in there. And you can, it'll probably be just as long. Um, but it'll have to be off of this other driveway that already exists. So you need to take a look at that. Talk to your applicant about that. Just eyeballing it. These look like they're actually more than 30 30% or so. Just by looking at the

Yeah, looking at that in the in the scale, right? So that gives you some sense of what it is. Um so right now other than that, I don't have any more comments. Um we are going to ask for escrow of 1,500. We'll get to that. And uh Stacy, we're going to ask Dave Church to do a a review. We haven't done a review on this either. So, Bill, any reaction to and the board? I would go ahead.

Also, there's so if you could move that into legend, that would be helpful. Also, it looks like maybe there's borings or something marked on here. If you can indicate that in the legend as well. I don't know what those are. Oh, those are um for health department septic uh permits in there. Put a new septic in. Okay. If you could if you want to leave it on here, put it on the leg. Yeah. Not really. Uh make the slope legend I think much bigger. Yeah. You know, surprised when I saw like what happened, especially on computer maps on the computer is so difficult and I didn't even I thought I looked everywhere to find

I still didn't see it until I'm seeing the paper copy. So, it's really helpful to be as explicit as possible because we get everything electronically. It's just the nature of it. Um, I took a look at like a Google map area when I was reviewing this and there's a building on the aerial that's not reflected on the map. It It appears to be a structure next to the house. The existing house ch. Yeah. Um, I don't know what it is because it's just the aerial, but um, if you could add that. Is it a structure or is it that It's not that patio. There's a patio there. It's It's detached from the house. Okay.

Not. And I looked back and forth. It looked like it's a separate structure. That's not If I'm wrong though, that's fine. Um, also the map notes that this is an existing driveway of TA 3, but looking at an aerial, it didn't appear to be any there didn't appear to be a driveway there. Um, well, this the aerial was from uh 2026. So, unless it went in in the past few weeks, there was nothing in the aerial um that showed county view on the on Google maps. It is. I just have it in front of me. It's from 2026.

Yeah, it's it's which I checked because you know how that stuff goes. But it's it's very recent satellite. So there is no driveway even though it's it doesn't appear that there is going up there. Want to go out there and look at the ground rather than trying to see it through the trees. I'm just saying I'm just letting you know obviously we haven't been there so I could be mistaken but this is based on my review. Um, and then the final comment is, do we do we require a buffer for the pond? Yes. Yeah. So, we need to get that on here. And I think the driveway is going to I I think it could affect your driveway. Put in the 100 foot buffer. The code requires anything of of a water nature, right? Stream, river. Yeah.

Um, pond, wetlands needs a 100 foot buffer. So, um, so we need to see the buffer because I double checked and this is just the the edge of water. So you'll need to put the buffer in there and then you take a look at the driveways and we've already talked about this seems to be pretty smooth. So I don't know it seems like the driveway back to that third lot can still work. Okay. So Stacy, as a result of what Jennifer mentioned, we need to do a site visit.

The ground is there's not as much snow out there, so we need to arrange with Bill for site visit. Anybody else have any comments from the board? I mean the I don't want to ride on the 2026 because it's clearly a picture thinking of the summer. Well, that's yeah it cannot be this year because we had snow from That's true. We did have snow this year. I just wondered about that driveway just because it's going to a part of the lot that's not developed. So, and there didn't seem to be where lot three is. There didn't seem to be anything back there. Yeah.

So, and there is some there are some trees, but not the whole thing. So, I don't know what you can see without trees. It doesn't look like there's any existing driveway. Yeah. Okay. That's awesome. Anybody else? I'm going to ask for $1,500 escal. Can I have a motion to that effect? I'll make a motion.

Second, Dave. And then Peter. All in favor? I I six to zero. Um, so Bill, on on this one, we got the escrow. Stacy's going to call you to set up a site visit and um, we're going to want to do a site visit for Don also, so we'll probably try to do them the same day. That's the next project on the agenda. Um, and then get us the $1,500. Bill, do you have any reaction to what you heard tonight? Um, I don't know if I want to press the issue about the we because I don't really know exactly what the the town code says about a driveway and suit section there. Um, but there is a driveway there. So, I can tell you.

So, you're saying there's a driveway that goes from county ground from Queens Highway all the way through that high slope area? Yes. All right. So tell me about Well, it says proposed. It says existing. It's proposed 50 right away. Go right away. Oh, well, if it's existing, it's existing. So, let's get out there now. Take a look. Right. Or you confirm if it's existing, it's existing. So, also for whatever it's worth, it goes diagonally. So, the slope of the driveway itself, it's not going to be the same as the slope of going straight up. It's a 30% slope like that.

Yeah. Maybe it's it's been engineered in such a way that it doesn't. So that might be one thing that Okay. If it's there, it's there. Um so hopefully we can get to see this during the uh second or third week of March. Okay. All right. Bill, you're doing make the secret determination on this. I usually wait till after Dave Church, okay, does his his thing, but you know what this is going to be? I'll propose that we make the secret determination of unlisted uncoordinated just to get that out of the way. So, I'll make that motion. Unlisted, uncoordinated. We want We don't need to wait for Dave's deal. Um

I guess if it's unlisted because Dave probably won't get this done until the end of the month. Okay. I just want to get it on the get it on the record. It doesn't fall into a one. I don't remember the categories. It's not it's not on. It's not type two. And I don't know why it would be type one. Usually those are pretty big. Yeah. Right. It's not near a park or anything which even then it would only that would only diminish the thresholds 75%. It wouldn't get rid of them. You still need to cross a threshold of some sort in terms of you know parking pavement or whatever. We could look at the list, but there's P these thresholds

and even if you knock it down 75%, I don't see what this would cross. Um, okay. And you know what? If you get it, it doesn't matter. If you get it wrong, you can always redo it. You call whatever you want. But if it's type one and you call it unlisted, it's type one. It it doesn't we do not procedure. It's not it's not a judgment call as to what type in some depending on the um on the criterion, but most of most in most cases it is what it is. Okay, I'm stepping out of the protocol we we've been trying to follow, but I don't know that Dave's going to get this done until the end of the month. So I thought so I made the motion second. Peter seconds. All in favor? I so six to zero unlisted on coordinate.

So we should also refer to the once once the driveway is determined to the highway defer. Yeah. Okay, Bill. Yeah. All right. Yes. Should they start preparing right away and driveway? Let's wait until we resolve, you know, joyfully enough. And that's pretty familiar. Bill, thank you for this map that has the u

the colors and then the one that has no colors. All right, that brings us to the next. Thank you, Mr. Marshek. Thank you. Okay.

Farms has been in front of us for a little bit, although they haven't been back recently. Um, what was holding it up a little bit was the many, many easements or what was perceived to be a lot of easements. And there there are easements on here. Peter, I'm going to let you address the easements. Yeah, I mean there was in the there was a proposed there's a was done as a big subdivision back in the '9s I believe

and then it was part of it was built out of phases drive lane and um it was unsubdivided large. Um, so I was concerned that there were some leftover easements because the original easements and uh, covenants that were on it were pretty restrictive. Um, and uh, so uh, Bill had provided us with a couple of maps that were referenced in a deed from 20 I think or no it was earlier than that. It was between Frank Don and Mary Collins. um separated out. There are a couple of maps I refer to in that that Bill provided with and there are no reference to any of these easements on the map. So, it's it was really hard to figure out if there is anything left over and I don't think that we're able to find anything. It might have been just drainage. Um what did you think about that? I know

and even those drainage ones were like between the the lots. Yeah. in those particular sections. Yeah. Which lots don't exist now. Yeah. So I I don't know how to u pursue it any further. So company said there's not no issues. Yeah. So Bill, to be clear, the official map that's on file in the county has no easements on it for this property,

right? It was this prop this property was shown as you know basically future subdivision highways. It was not part of the Los Angeles for the subdivision that's over on pro road on the other side there. Um and then when they did come back and do later mapping that divided these portions which were I think they're like section three and four or something and then did a later map in 1990 I think it was to sub to subdivide out the original barn and attractive land around that which known as lands of Bradley um tax math 2.121. So they did that in there. Um that didn't make any mention of any easements on that. That was the most recent mapping of this land.

All right. So what I'm getting at is I I need to hear either a yes or a no. Is the map that we're dealing with this map complies with what the county has on file and there's no incumbrances in the way of easements on that map. Right. Is that a yes? Yes. and we did the best possible job that we could to confirm that. It looks that that's the case.

Yeah, there's a the note on one of the maps from 1986 um says uh from the undersign certified that we are the owners of fe simple lands depicted all sites, streets, rights of way, easements for public utilities are hereby dedicated to the public and everybody certified each lot containing a suitable site with three or four bedroomedroom single homes. It was it was funny reading back on this in the earlier deeds that a lot of the restrictions were the type of homes that they did not want in this subdivision when they devised it, meaning they didn't want um trailers or even modulars initially. They didn't want double wines.

Yeah, they didn't. They're very restrictive uh kind of covenants, but I think a lot of that sort of a done deal that it went away uh because of the it was subdivided. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, I think I can report to the board that we got a clean map to the best of our ability to discern whether we do it or we don't. Um Dave Church did do uh back on January 1st, he delivered a um a write up for us, made a recommendation in terms of uh seeker type uh as unlisted, uncoordinated. So, I'll make a motion that that's we declare that to be the case. I'll second that.

All right. So I made the motion Peter unlisted uncoordinated. Um so let's just go around the table. Um does anybody from the board have any comments on this? Yeah, I have a question. Why on L40 not showing subjects and well um that's a good question. All right. So you need to show the septic the proposed septic septic and and the valve location.

Well location Yep. And also reading what they wrote, it's unclear for me where's that farm road because is that the now becomes a driveway or talking about some remaining farm roads that like um in the angle at the the property there in lot four there's kind of like a point coming up the lower section of the property. Yeah.

Yeah. So, it's going to remain is it going to be used? It's not used. I mean, it's currently being used by the farmer to get from the farm down in here up in here, but property owner said that there's no easement for that and there is no intention to have a special make sure that there is no conflict. But was recently one obligation to get used forever kind of the property and then you always said there is no no documentation you're going to do in you. Yeah. So, Bill, um, there needs to be a map note that indicates that the the farm road is being abandoned.

Okay. And it's just a trap, right? Okay. Just something in there that And we found nothing in the U deed that referred to any kind of an easement for No. Okay. So, we just need a map note that says that even though it's showing on the map that it's not in use, it's not viable. There's no easement for it.

Um, so where the the road, the proposed driveway, I'm just trying to I'm looking at it on Google Maps. Um it's a little hard to know where it comes in relative to that um to that farm road which is called Fisher Road initially. So the proposed driveway go right along the line of Raven.

Yeah. and the alignment of it. If you're looking at at Google Maps or the parcel viewer, that's as sometimes happened not quite accurate. Right. So, Peter, you're suggesting that south of lock three is where the farm roof comes in. Well, it's clear on the it's clear on the partial view, but it's

Yeah, it's clear on the parcel. Okay. And then, Bill, you have two emergency pull-ups on here. Yes. So, that represents two sections that are 500 ft long, right? Okay. So that whole driveway is what almost 1300 feet,400 feet. Yeah, probably something like that. Okay. Y do you do you know that I know that there was wetlands? Were they delineated? We haven't had the wetlands delineated. I think we only really The wetlands is that little pond up there

that's down in there. It's it's you know significant difference from any proposed improvements of driveways or houses or anything. Okay. 500 ft away. I don't see the point on what lot. Uh that's on four where up on Oh, there it is. Where is it though? It's on the right hand side of near the m

Oh, I see it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Right there. So, Bill, is there a buffer around that? What's wrong? I don't have anything shown on that. I can certainly We need a buffer around the pond there. And and Bill, what if there is no legend? What's green to power? What has green? What is it like a farm buffer? Was that a farm buffer? The farmer is not a rather a farm. Is that a pond that leads has a stream that leads to some other stream or is it just a

Yeah, there's a a drainage that comes kind of wanders along this uh adjacent property that CWC blue stripe there. It's a whole little drainage ditch that comes down through there, hits that bond where we're on. So that needs to be on the map, right? That's not an Yeah, this mean this is a sketch plant. We just actually just yesterday um finished doing the field rotation on stuff out here. So, okay. So, let's make the pond look like more like a pond with the buffer around it. And then the stream, let's show it on the map with the buffer around the stream, too. Yep.

Okay. Yeah, because it's a the DC letter uh stated as a very high class one wetland. So, is there a wetlands in addition to the pond? Yeah, that is the wetlands. That is the wetland. Yeah. So, so what's it green color? Oh, that's a little note in there right under where it says farmland of statewide importance is wooded area. That's wooded. All the rest of the property is completely wide open fields. Could you add a legend to the

Yeah, we're kind of surprised that we don't have one on here and it started over here lost track of where things are at. So, we need a legend. Yeah. Including the definition of what the green farmland Forest area is what else? Anybody else? Yeah, there's a historic house that do we did we need to go to ship up for that or is there I didn't see anything on the mapper.

Yeah, there's a Hornbeck house is identified in their in their um it's on the EF mapper. Yes. So, Bill, you have to go to Shipo for the uh house. You good with that, Bill? Yeah. Yeah. I just um looking to see what it says on EF and

last page. Last page of the EAF. I missed it, too, but I'm just trying to find it. It's remember it's called the Hornbeck House I think is what it Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Here it's um nothing on the side but adjacent would be. Okay. Yeah. So you need to get a letter from ship or what? We've been doing that anymore. We're just sending it in whether it calls for it or not. We're just send it in anyway. Okay.

What else? Um I think David had something in the um in the write up about farmland, right? So sorry to go back and find it farmland. Pine farmland. And uh and then farmland of statewide importance. Yeah, it was uh the So they need to ask for a variance in accordance with the new part of the code.

Yeah, there there let me find it for one second. Sorry. Something caught my attention that call So in David's um write up um he said um airplane top seeker. Um okay is now aware of need to comply with the design criteria for subdivisions defined by town code 125-22. Um first as per town code 125-12A subject property has greater than 3 acres or more of connected prime farmland. Exceeding this threshold would require submission and review of conservation sub design subdivision design option should the planning board request application does have the right as per 125 to request in writing a waiver for such requirement is a new subdivision design requirement. Second, the presence of prime farmland soils obligates the planning board to consider non subdivision regulations in 2522A7 subdivisions on lands containing valuable lands. Prime soil soils of stabilized national importance shall be designed to leave the maximum amount of prime farmland undisturbed and contiguous. The vision requires a

discussion about sketch plan provided may need to carry over to final plan. Um third, the proposed lots are substantially covered by soils defined as prime farmland of statewide importance or prime farmland if drained. 125-12B restricts any new lot any lot area in a subdivision to be more than 40% farland soil. This is also a new subdivision design element of town code. applicant does have the right as per 1255 request and writing waiver from PL board after review of the sketch plan with the planning board. This waiver and then mentioned fifthful waiver may be reasonable in this case given the context of a minor subdivision that includes an existing dwelling with the assumption that any final subdivision layout leaves quote the maximal of prime farmland undisturbed and contiguous. Preliminary review suggests lot four achieves this but lot two and three that's proposed could shift development locations.

So So Bill, if you remember a couple of the projects you've come to us with, we identified that as a result of the change in the town code 125-12 A and B. We need to come back to us with requests for variances. One of those says, "If X then Y mean you have to give us an option for a conservation subdivision." That I don't think we need a conservation subdivision here. There's I don't think I don't I three lots. It's only three lots, right?

You can get one. So, and then there's another section of that slightly new part of the code bill that talks about um asking for other waiverss depending upon whether or not 40% or more of the land is soil of of is prime is farmland of prime importance. So go through that part of the code and come back with a letter asking for proposing for variances proposing to ask for variances and the reason why you're asking for them. And there are three sounds like there's three separate variances you need to ask for. Yeah, it's all in review.

It's in that review from from Dave Church. Well, and could we also get details on what percent of each lot is prime farmland? Because I can I can't tell. Yeah, I can't tell. So, we know really confused them because of the way these soil types are all over the place. Had a tough time even figuring out like which is this soil here because it connects all the way around. Yeah. Yeah. But it'd be helpful to know because it the our code stipulates what what is it? 40% is the limit. So we cuz it's hard looking at this like it looks like maybe a lot.

So Bill make a best effort to come up with what percentage of each of these lots causes you to need need to come to us to ask for a variance of those sections of the code the new sections of the code 125-12 A B and C I guess it is. All right. Okay. And then we want to do a site visit for this one also. So when we make the arrangements for Marshack, we should do it for Dun Farms also. You good with that, Bill? Yes.

And we already have escrow and we should do Dave did make a recommendation on um what kind of seeker type this was unlisted. Did coordinate. We did that already, right? Did that. Okay. Anybody else? Okay, Bill, I think the there's quite a bit of work that you need to do and we'll see. I think the earliest that this would come back to us is the end of March. Yeah. So, the next meeting uh the end of March meeting is March 30th.

All right. Great. Hello. Okay, perfect sign. Thank you, Bill. That was perfect.

Hi, Greg. Hello. All right, so now it's time to jump into Verizon. Why don't we take a five 10 minute 10-minute break? picks. Scott, do you want to come to the table?

Have a great break for 10 minutes. Do we need to do it?

I don't know how that works. I know. at 5:30. just general. General

you just sent me a letter. I don't Well, no. It's too small. The last two week. I don't

know between care. How have you been? But you don't have to which one I didn't know if you have to declare the all that was like a single I put it on

that needs to the law there's two lists right that's two list on the So I got to knock him out. Okay. The real reason is because it's not at least I think I mean we do a negative. So is this that I can figure out on the agenda? If you get um if I have guidance from whoever

I can talk to Dave and just put it on the agenda as it already and well unless coordination first coordinated planners got herself.

I know the whole thing. Yeah. But um the answer is listed whether or not what what whether it's type one type two or unlisted they can tell you and that's that the board should not be voting on it because there's no discretion in the listing we want just unnecessary in state but sometimes a lot well I knew what it was I just didn't know if you had to declare it because you always seem to get them out of

we need to do resolutions for for discretionary things not for slightly like declaring today's Monday you can you can if the vote fail well that's right if the vote fails then we can talk about what does it mean for the I don't know if that's Tuesday but it's like right evening if you guys get comments on the part two or part three they'll be posted to the inter we haven't gotten anybody correspondence from the public we will post them yeah sure okay so get me out of doing that perfect if you have anything else let me know please well I Yeah.

But you know if it's not just this is the way to be done

and before other towns do it too. It's just just the whole the the listing is phas and also the there's no reason for you to plan because the plan thank you for catching what should last year came in as like 11 everything is gone. So this year we are late. Okay. Thank you.

Two people just got up. This is like private school. Trying to hurt cats. A big pop up block on the wall so we can all see what's going on. I need an hourision hourglass with sand running through it. Putting that TV here.

We're like a two-minute warning. building. But I cannot load it with

that. We got

I'm sorry. Apologize. Just wait for as we wait for everybody else. Yeah. Since we wait since we're ready for you, we'll wait for That's right. I just contradict

I don't know exactly what it's telling me. Well, it wasn't just my first baby. They go to the building department.

Okay, let's let's roll. So, um we're going to go through um we're ready to go through Verizon um to pick it up. And if you remember the last time we met, we completed the part two. That was two weeks before the last session. There's another storm uh delay. And um so Dave Church put together a part two that this board participated in. Uh and actually put together a part three, a draft part three, which you all all should now. and we're going to go through that tonight to make sure that the board is okay with um what Dave had done based upon the input of the board and leading to a determination of significance which we're not going to do tonight. So just so the board knows and the public that's here knows the steps that are going to happen, proposed steps that going to happen over the next couple of weeks. Uh we're going to review the part three tonight um to see if there's any changes that are necessary. Um Dave Church then is going to prepare, assuming that we don't have a lot of changes, is going to prepare uh a resolution for a meeting from a week from now. Uh a resolution um regarding the determination of significance uh that we've been meeting up. Prior to taking that up, we're going to open up the public hearing, which has been open. We're going to open it up again and let the public comment on whatever happens tonight. All right. So, that document that we're looking at tonight, Stacy, is up on Collab, right? It was up as of Friday.

Yeah. She sent an email saying that.

Yeah. Okay. So, we will reopen the public hearing on March 9th and we'll continue to leave it open depending upon advice of Dave Church and Dave Gordon as we go through the remaining steps. At the meeting of the 9th, I would anticipate that we're going to make a determination of significance and we've been heading towards as a conditional negative deck. At that point that we we agree to that um it gets posted to the DEEC site. it's required under the seeker regulations and under seeker we have to have a 30-day commentary period. Um, so his comments can be either verbal or they can be uh in writing and um at least right now it's my intention to leave the public hearing open uh to the point in time when that 30 days has expired which would bring us to the first meeting in April which is April 13 and we'll again hear from the public at that meeting. I would anticipate at that meeting on the 13th. You've got the 30 days that's run. Any comments that have come in, we will have gotten them. We'll have the public hearing again open on the uh 13th. I would anticipate at that uh point we would close the public hearing um as well as that commentary period will be well beyond the 30-day period and then we be would be ready uh to do the do a decision at the end of that commentary period. I would anticipate that in the ensuing a little bit more than a month, Dave and I and some other Dave Gordon uh would be working on the final um decision. Remember the decision findings um and then conditions. It'll be quite long. If you think this one is long, it'll be quite long. So it would also potentially be at that meeting the 13th that we would have a public hearing,

close the public hearing and then to do the decision assuming that there's nothing that we've learned that we need to change. So that is the dating plan. Um, so what I'm going going to do tonight is to go through um part three that's dated draft 227 2026 seek a full EIF part 3 17 pages long. I'm not going to read the whole thing but I am going to course through the major sections of it. um first couple of pages of kind of full film or up to page four. But then we're going to get going to get into the actual nuts and bolts and that's where I'll pause, make comments, ask for suggestions or just pause and let all of you make any comments that you want changes, you don't like the way it's worded, you don't like the what's said. So, um it's 8:30. No, it's 7:30. So, I anticipate we'll be here for about two, maybe three hours, give or take, hopefully two, because at the end of this meeting, what I want to do is retire to a um meeting with our attorney, have an attorney, client meeting to talk about one of the other projects, Rav. Uh so, I think we need a good hour to talk about that. So if we plan on finishing this hopefully by 9:30 then we'll go into the meeting about Rav Tov. All right. So I'm going to start with page one. I'll page one is simply a uh listing of factoids about when the project came to us. uh things that have happened in terms of documentation um our declaration of um being lead agency after circulating um and a variety of different steps that

we taken leading up to the part two. On page three is a summary of our um findings for the part two and Dave summarized it here for us. number one through leave team. So if you had a chance to go through it, if nobody says anything, I'll just assume that's this is what everybody remembered in terms of what our determination was on each of these items. When we did the part two, there's no or small impact and then there's the moderate to large impact. If it says no or small, um then that category would be checked off as a no. If there was even one moderate to large then that category would be checked off as a yes. So if you remember the first six items were checked off as no. The first yes was impact on plants and animal and that was because four of the items were indicated to be moderate to large. Number eight was a no. Number nine aesthetic resources was a yes because of a number of items that were indicated to be moderate to large. Turning the page, page four. Number 10, 11, 12, and 13, and 14 were determined to be nos. Number 15, noise, odor, and light. We determined that no odor and light were nos, but that noise were yes. The possibility for noise to emanate from the site because of the degenerative. Number 16 and 17 were nos, and number 18 was a yes. 18 is very similar to number nine, aesthetic resources, but 18 is specifically consistency with community character and we have said that that was a yes. Uh and that number E and F were

the items that caused us to make that a yes. So now what we're going to do is go through those items that were determined the summary uh category to be yeses. And the first one was plants and animals. So, I'm literally going to I'm going to read u the four items that turned out to be moderate to large and then I'm going to kind of jump around um in the ensuing four three or four pages and talk about um the things that we talked about or that Dave is noting and then the conditions or the the mitigation that would be taken in order to satisfy um this particular category haven't been checked Yes. So the four that would check moderate to large is A, B, and C. A is proposed action may cause a reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species as listed by New York State or federal government. Uh number B, the proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare threatened or endangered species. C proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any species of special concern in conservation need. And G the proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting, breeding, foraging or overwintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. And what Dave did was to to summarize um the groups that we talked to, the groups that we either wrote to or the groups that the applicant um applied to and that we received uh commentary from them. Those included US Fish and Wildlife, New York State DEEC Natural Heritage Program, U Palisad's Interst

Interstate Paw Commission, um better known as Pippus. Pipsy.

Pipsy. Thank you. and then Shipo um who are responsible for um a variety of of named um of named Pox and um have responsibility for a variety of different species. And in addition to the applicant, the board writing to these groups, the applicant also put together an informal biological assessment, an IVA, um, which was reviewed by, um, US Fish and Wildlife. And the documents that were submitted, documents that were received back as a result of the IVA indicated that there were three major species that were considered to be critically important by New York State. Northern longeared bat, the Indiana bat, and purple wild Bergamant, which is a plant listed by New York State as critically impaired. And then Dave went on and the document went on to also note that there was a lot of input about the concerns about radio frequency emission and their impacts on plants and animals and impacts on migratory birds from the same but also from the site conditions mainly the presence of the tower and the possibility of collisions with the tower. So what was addressed first was the radio frequency issue with respect to um plants and wildlife and I'm on page six now top of page six and I think um what we did here was and the salient conclusion in our part three was that the federal law federal statute prohibits us from doing anything more than noting

um any concerns from the public, but does not allow us to uh take that into consideration in our determination that in fact um birds or rather uh plants and wildlife fall in the same category as do human beings that we can't take into consideration any radio frequency impacts on those entities. So total of Newman's plants and wildlife were exempt. And in fact, if you go to the third paragraph starts with the planning board's attorney has advised PL I'm going to read that the planning board's attorney has advised in a series of memos and we didn't fill out the memo dates, but there were two memos. We'll get those dates in. That's section 332 C7B I 4 Roman numeral 4 of the TCA the telecommunications act effectively preempts the planning board from considering potential RF related impacts on plants or animals and then the conclusion on the part of the planning board is the planning board concurs with this advice. So when we accept this document, we are in effect accepting that statement that the planning board concurs with our attorney's um conclusion. Then we go into in this section nonrf related impacts uh namely um disturbing the environment in some way that would impact the bats two species of bats as well as potentially uh any other threatened or endangered species. If the paragraphs that follow here speak to the bats and yes there could be in fact on the vats although the area that's being disturbed

is at best scrub land but it's they're in a fourth forest land at best and it's already been disturbed. So the um applicant will have to as a condition agree not to disturb um even though it's or forest land not to disturb u any of that area um between the months of November to March November 1st to March 31st which is part of what New York State requires. I think it's the opposite. Yeah. You you have to do the uh you you can't do the Say that again, Peter. Yeah,

the removal has to be done. The inactive time or habitation time. You're right. The inactive time is November through March 31st. I had backwards. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. I saw Jennifer looking the other way around. Thank you.

Um and then on the issue of um monarch butterflies, which were mentioned as a potential um there was nothing found with regards to monarch butterflies in in that particular area. Um the I want to note that the combination of their application to the Fish and Wildlife as well as their IVA um study with the Fish and Wildlife folks quote unquote on page seven, third paragraph, the Fish and Wildlife folks wrote, "If we do not notify you within 15-day time frame, you may proceed with the action. with respect to how they were going to approach the issue of the bats as well as the monarch butterflies. The monarch butterflies are easy in a sense because there's nothing that would indicate that they're present. There's no listing of them being in that particular area. And I'm going to read in paragraph three the last sentence. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service did not notify the applicant that it disagreed with its conclusion that the proposed action will not likely affect endangered species or migratory birds. This is deemed a concurrence by fish and wildlife of no adverse impact. So again at the point when we agreed to this part three, we are in effect agreeing to that statement. Um then there was one we had written to the New York State Natural Heritage Program about two months ago um to make sure that we weren't missing anything and the only thing that they came back was that a plant called Purple Wild Bergamment um was potentially um in the area. Um and so one of the conditions probably

the uh decision when we get there would be that if it's found in that compound area or any of the areas to be disturbed it would have to be uh replanted u off of the site. My own experience with this plant is that there's a lot of it around. So not quite sure how New York State still has it as an impaired species. It's not endangered, critically endangered in any way. It's just noted as being impaired in the New York State TEC listing. Um, so just want to note that the next the last paragraph on page seven. After considering all relevant information, the planning board finds that the project will not result in any significant adverse impacts on plants or animals, including migratory birds or endangered or threatened species. provided that the following mitigation conditions are followed and this is what's important. Um and there are some things in here about migratory birth to avoid any kind of impact u situations. So on page eight specific conditions will be imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse and violent acts of impulse will result. These conditions are part of the secret final determination and will be made part of any final written decision on this action. These conditions uh for this seeker category will include one, no external light shall be placed on the proposed tower or antenna or antenna A to avoid attracting animals including birds and specifically migratory birds and we've known since the beginning that there were going to be no lights on this on this site on this uh town. There will be anti- nesting design measures taken to discourage potential bird nesting on the proposed facility. The applicant will specify during the commentary period

post determination of significance the specific measures intend to take. So Scott during this commentary period there are some things that we're looking for you to tell us what you're going to do. S I think we recommended that um rubber or make believe um birds of prey be placed upon the tower. that that seems to be an effective measure or whatever other measure the applicant intends to take. So, we're going to need to see that.

Okay. The third point, all ground work, including tree cutting, will follow New York State DEC protocols for construction activities within potential habitats of northern law bat and Indiana bat. Next one. Four. Land disturbance will be minimized to the smallest area necessary to complete the equipment compound and to erect the proposed tower. This area shall be mapped and field delineated in advance in advance as the maximum area of disturbance. So Scott, that was put in there because some of the other items during the site plan review suggested that we might have to move the 50 by 50 because it doesn't meet exactly the setbacks. So we need to have a discussion at some point about whether breakpoint technology can be used to avoid that or not in which case you have to move the compound. But we're not there yet.

Okay. Number five, construction activity will be monitored in the field by a qualified professional or by a staff person chosen by the town in cooperation with the town code enforcement officer or clerk of the works. So, I will be talking with the ne with the C new CEO to decide whether or not he wants to be the one to monitor or if we hire a flip of the works, which would be CPL, which the applicant would pay for to monitor whatever construction goes on there. And I'm going to defer to the CEO, um, let him decide as as the new guy on the block whether he believes he can handle it at this point in time. So, just so you know that. Mhm.

All right. And the last item here, number six, any plantings with uh landscaping will use native species chosen in advance and approved by the town planning board. So, um when we get on further for uh to the how to how to shield u what's in the compound from the public's view, uh we talk about having landscaping around the perimeter of that 50x50 compound as well. All right. Then section nine. So, we're finished with this section. Does anybody have any comments on um the impacts on plants or animals? Think that there was a little typo in there. There are a couple of typos.

And by the way, if you find typos, mention it. Uh but better than that would be to send it to Dave. Yeah.

And copy myself and Stacy. We'll just take care of it. There are a number of typos. Just just so the board knows, um I'm going to work with Dave uh to consider how much we want to be saying in the in the part three that uh basically tipping our hand is to a declaration of significance. This is really a compendium of the facts and mitigation etc. But the declaration of significance will actually come by a separate resolution to accept this. And so I um so I I I just want to figure out with Dave what the proper procedure is, the best procedure and um those those on those people on the board that have worked with Seeker before, I know Jen has and also Helina and we probably talk to them as well. My own instinct is to keep this as clean as possible in terms of a statement of the facts and the findings really and then the declaration of significance will be be the final evaluation as to whether any is necessary. So um it's just a language thing mostly. I know what Dave is trying to do and there's nothing wrong with that and clearly this is going to lead in a particular direction but the finding the actual finding is there's a mechanism that that's actually separate and uh I just want to figure out what's what's best in terms of disclosure in this document because when we accept this uh this will be accepted as a statement of the underlying facts of the project what we're finding is fact and so I just want to be I just want to think through very carefully how to how to verbalize the the process of of declaring IC significance and whether we want to be doing so with this document or a separate resolution.

Yeah, just a reminder and it's okay if it slips. Um we would hope I would hope you and David would be able to get that done between now and next Monday. Absolutely. And better yet Friday so that we can repost it all onto I've got my comments and I can talk to him as early as tomorrow, but he's been under the weather. He sounded better, but he felt he needed another a night home to get to bed earlier again.

I have no desire to run the EAF test next week. Look, we'll get that one way or another. I mean, and and to the extent that he's comment, I don't think I don't think it's a big I don't think it's a huge deal. I just want to improve as much as possible. So, if he's mentioned that, you know, that essentially this is going to lead in a particular direction and then we ultimately do that. I don't think it's a big deal. Okay. Any other comments from the board?

Okay. Section nine, impact on aesthetic resources. There were two items that we determined were either moderate or large. Item C, the proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points seasonally. Um, for example, screened by summer foliage but visible during other seasons or two year round. And D, the situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work. Um, so what he does at the bottom of page eight and the top of page nine is go through how we uh acquired or brought on board Matt Allen from Saratoga Associates uh to be our expert to give us advice in terms of visual impacts. Um, and that brings us to the second paragraph on page nine. And I'm going to read um a portion of this. The planning board, and this goes back all the way to March, April of last year. Um, the planning board required the applicant to complete report an extensive visual analysis to study the potential visual impacts associated with proposed talent and to a lesser extent, the equipment compound proposed. The comprehensive visual analysis prepared over the course of eight months includes one several visual impact assessments vas or visual resource evaluations VRES prepared in accordance with accepted professional methodologies. Two, identification and mapping of visually sensitive resources within the divine defined study area including publicly accessible viewpoints at Midawasa State Park. Two, viewshed

analyses based on topographical data, GIS modeling, and wide art data. Four, line of sight crosssections. Five, balloon tests conducted over the course of two days in accordance with the town of Rochester zoning code to establish visibility of the proposed tower height under real world conditions. Six, photographic simulations from representative viewpoints. Seven photo simulations of alternative tower designs that is u the mon pine versus the mon pole and different paint colors. Uh I'm skipping now down to on page nine the next to last paragraph. So it's so long ago we may not remember but um the first visual assessment that was done by tectonic was delivered to us late February early March and um it was essentially and it's mentioned further on but it was essentially not accepted by us. They had to go back and redo it and details of that is documented elsewhere. So, I'll wait till I get there. But, um, as a result of the first take on the visual assessment, um, we deployed or we employed a balloon test. So, on page 10, we go into, um, the balloon test, the dates that it took place, uh, some of the difficulty that we had with respect to the wind. If you remember, we we could not conduct it adequately because of the wind. And so it was decided that uh they would hire or rent a very large boom to uh get it to a level, attach the balloons to the

boom, and try that as a as a way of being able to get over this issue with the the wind blowing severely blowing uh and literally uh detaching the balloons from the tether. And um the balloon tests were taken were done. Public participated in that as well as um Peter who's a professional photographer and the chair who is not a professional photographer and some other members of the board taking pictures. The public there were principally four individuals who took pictures and delivered them to the board. And we'll get into that uh in a second. We'll go through u those pictures. Um, third paragraph on the bottom of page 10. Mr. Allen's review informed the planning board that the May 2025 VRE was lacking in certain details and information that was not ready for further fuller review. So as a result of what was done in February, part of which February, March, and April was the balloon test, Matt Allen determined from the results of the balloon test as well as some of the documentation provided, technical documentation provided by did not meet with his approval. And if you recall, we had an extensive discussion about that. And Matt Allen being our consultant, not Tectonic, um we told the applicant in Mayish, that what had been done by Tectonic in terms of the evaluation, the evaluation of the balloon test was not adequate and they had to redo the whole they had to redo it. That was not delivered to us until August. The reason I wanted to make sure that this was in there, so there was an April good two months almost three months time

lost. There was a um a comment made by the public that and I'll be real blunt about it that Matt Allen was shilling for Verizon and there was a conflict of interest on the part of Matt Allen because of work that he had done u for Verizon. Matt Allen provided me with a detail um details of his work not for Verizon but for third party hired by Verizon. So I wanted to put in here there were two instances when Matt Allen caused Verizon what I would call significant delays in their application by saying your work is not adequate. This was the first one and to be a bit of a wag um it hardly suggests that Ben Allen was shilling for Verizon if he called caused them these two delays which involve both time and time equals money. The other delay was is not in here and I would have asked Dave Church to put it in here. The other delay had to do with some further technical studies that were done by Tectaric in terms of simulating um what the tower would look like at different heights and what the tower would look like from different vantage points as opposed to a balloon test. So simulations using the technology available and that also was not acceptable to Matt or to members of the board. And there was a almost two-hour conference call not of all the members of this board but a couple of members of the board as well as the two Daves and Matt Allen where again we accepted some of the findings but rejected others and told them that they had to go back and redo it. They didn't feel that they whatever they would come up with in redoing it would be any different in terms of the technology that they were

familiar with. So Matt Allen said, "I can do it." So he did at Verizon's cost and that caused another delay of about almost a month. So I want to include those details in here just to be complete completely complete again suggesting or unsuggesting that Matt Allen in any way was u leaning towards Verizon. uh and there was a considerable cost to that um at Matt Allen's uh rates. Um and so on page 10, third paragraph from the bottom, the first delay of almost 3 months is mentioned. Second paragraph from the bottom is a summary of the results of that new uh study done by Verizon under the obstructions of Matt Allen and I'm going to read that par. The August 2025 DRE confirmed that a portion of the proposed tower is expected to be partially visible from approximately nine of the 19 visually sensitive areas identified. If you remember, Peter and Helina identified areas that are visually sensitive and I think other members of the board contributed to that. But Peter being very familiar with Minowaska as a hiker and a photographer and Molina know the same thing and we reached out to Minowasa Pipsy uh to get sites um visually sensitive areas. So uh nine of the 19 were identified as u potentially partially visible. However, because the tower will not be sky lit and will be in a valley, the overall visibility of the tower structure from social locations, as confirmed by Mr. Allen and the planning board, will be limited, intermittent,

and primarily filtered by existing vegetation and topography. In many instances, views would occur in distances and other conditions where the facility would appear as a minor vertical element within an already developed or forested horizon. As a result, the proposed tower is not expected to result in significant adverse visual impacts to the identified visually sensitive resources in the in the surrounding area. So again, in terms of if we accept this statement, we are in effect making a statement as the planning board. Remember, we're not necessarily agreeing with Matt Allen. Matt Allen did write us an extensive extensive letter to that effect, but it's our responsibility not just to rubber stamp his determination. We're making this determination based upon the available information from Metallen and Verizon as stated here in this document. So I just want to point that out. It goes on to further say for compar comparison. The applicant also prepared viewshed maps using current LAR data for each of the three existing towers currently located in the town. Those maps demonstrate that the overall visibility of the proposed tower is similar to the visibility of an of the existing three towers in the town. Um the next page I just want to jump in and point out again we've made a statement of essentially a negative declaration in the text of the part three and I'm going to work with Dave to examine whether that's the best place for that. um if we do a neck deck it will be in the text of a separate resolution and so I want I want to get just the facts here one of the things I am concerned about is that um uh as part of if we're considering condition negative declaration and the condition is a lower height that lower height is is essentially mitigation for

impacts of of height and um I want to be very careful about presenting the board with a range of options as to our findings uh as to what the impact of the tower is going to And so I'm going to work with Dave to come up with language that maybe a little bit different um depending on where the board wants to go uh next week. Something I would mention is that I believe I'll double check, but I believe in the past when I've issued negative declarations. I've never done a conditional NEG deck, but with traditional NEG decks, I would also, you know, that that large um document that was pulled together that include the visual analysis, it had all the details and it was like 500 pages. That would also be attached to the NA. Everything's going to be touched. Everything would be there. But

and then we would say what we're going to say. This is this is really a encapsulation of all the findings that we're doing. Yes.

Not necessarily evaluation of an environmental impact statement. And so that's why I want to be really careful. A good example here is um obviously lowering the tower mitigate is going to be a condition and it's going to maybe the most important condition in terms of mitigation. It's mitigating largely the visual impacts. Now, it's not only the visual impacts in this section. In the separate section, we're going to look at the visual impact on the neighborhood and then you're going to get a much more obviously substantial um impact there. But I'm just pointing out again, I'm going to give the board a range of language for you to consider and adopt next week. It'll be essentially in form of red line from this. Dave can get me a u a word version. We'll have red line so you guys can pick and choose the way you want it to be. And ultimately, there'll be a separate resolution when you evaluate it under the law. So, it's in this section where I'm going to stick the information that Matt Allen provided me with. Re you he reminded me of the extensive discussions that we had with the applicant and didn't accept

right some of the results. Yeah, you were on that call. It was

it was excruciating. Um and Matt Allen redid it redid everything literally in order to provide us with his assurance with information that would ensure that we were satisfied with the results. So I'm going to have that uh stuck in here as well. So that is missing but it will be here on page 11 and the document goes on now further. So we're beyond the balloon test and the analysis of the balloon test. Now we're into specifically the evaluation of impacts on middleas state park route 4455 and other scenic re resources. Now if you remember we we've had here the the opening sentence key to any analysis is the potential impacts on inventory aesthetic resources. So you have inventory res aesthetic resources that is a term that's used described uh uh or methodology for determining whether that's true that there's an impact on an inventory resource. It's part of the New York State DEEC playbook I guess is the best way to put it. And that visual guide, that playbook from the uh DEEC is in the middle of page 11. Uh quote word by word. Um so I'm going to pick up and read that statement just to refresh our memories. According to the New York State DEC visual guide, aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on perceived beauty of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource u inventoried as in Minawaska Park uh in scenic byway or one that impairs the character or quality of such place. While private individuals or land owners

are member of the public, aesthetic impacts to a nonpublic public publicly accessible scenic or aesthetic resource do not usually give rise to the level of significance contemplated in this policy. In as much as a criterion of significance involves evaluating the number of people evalu affected by the action and I guess to take it down from the legal ease into people ease that means that while you may see it from your backyard when it comes to evaluating the impact on inventory resources it's not appropriate to say well I can see it from my backyard. Your backyard is not an inventory resource. It has to be what's the impact or what's the view shed from that inventory resource. The planning board requested Mr. Allen to provide his opinion as to whether the proposed tower would result in any significant adverse impacts to inventory aesthetic resources. He did that in a letter of October 31st, 2025. And those conclusions um we'll get to that in a little bit. We also um asked input from Pipsy working with both Matt Shook from Pipsy as well as um Mr. Leairard, whose first name escapes her right now, but

Joshua

Joshua Leair, thank you. And we had a series, if you remember, back and forths there. At first, they claimed that there was significant impact. There were pictures that they took. We went through it. Oh, we had numerous discussions with them and we determined that they agreed that those pictures were not adequately portrayed. They were telephoto pictures. They were crap pictures. And so on November 6th, Joshua Leair, executive on page 12, executive director of Pipsy wrote to me one page later letter letter stating, "After reviewing the materials provided by the planning board, Pipsy does not believe that the tower will create significant negative visual impacts at the visitors center along the ADA path, or at Stony Kill Falls. all key FE features at Minman and Wasca analyzing this assessment. This letter went on to note concerns with visibility nearby along road look lookouts off of route 4455 and we did agree to do additional studies regarding that the okay with respect specifically to the state plot preserve and other identified aesthetic resources identified as in the term inventory resource. resources. The planning board finds one, the proposed facility will not intrude upon a um foreground or focal view from principal scenic overlook looks. Two, any visibility from distant or partially screen vantage points would be limited in scale and duration. Three, the facility would not materially facility being the tower would not materially alter the character defining features of the park's scenic resources including ridge lines, water features or

expansive natural vistas. And four, the tower would appear as a slender vertical element in the broader landscape. It would not dominate the view or obstruct significant scenic features. So again this series of statements if we agree to adopt this we are effect agreeing with those statements and then there's a section because I referenced this consideration of the public submissions and photographs. So um that had to do with Pipsy the planning board encouraged the public to participate by taking pictures. And then um this document on page 12 goes on to say that unfortunately the planning board finds that most of these photographs are of limited value for several reasons. And then we go on to enumerate those reasons and there are three um specific reasons. one. Um, and if you remember when we continued to publish this stuff on the town's website in anticipation of the balloon test, we published all of the rules of the road, you might say. And so the pictures with the exception of some of Peter's pictures were ruled to be insufficient and of limited value because there was an absence of ver verifiable metadata which is the information having to do with where did you take it from and uh the focal length and a series of other technical details. Second, the use of excessive zoom or telephoto um lenses and um enough said. Third, lack of any um technical analysis, no expert report, professional visual assessment, which would have pointed out some of the missing items like the metadata or the

fact that the photos were either cropped or were taken with excessive zoom on total telephoto lenses. So for all those reasons, the most of the public pictures taken primarily by four different members of the public um were ruled not um out of bounds I guess the best way to put it. Um so then we go on to talk about on page 13 the mitigate mitigation conditions in order to mitigate impact on aesthetic resources. Specific conditions will be imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environment and mental impacts will result. These conditions are part of the seeker final determination and will be made as part of any final written decision on this action. One required use of a stealth design monopine to camouflage the tower. This monopine must have breakaway technology in its construction to alleviate sight plant setback issues. And Scott, we would invite during this 30-day waiting period or commentary period, a discussion of this setback technology that you've mentioned to us to be employed. And if it can't be deployed with the monop, we have to move um in order to make the setback. So, we'll have to move the uh

I'm asking the ZBA for a variance from that just so this board's aware of that. I because I didn't know where you were going, but I a variance from the setback. Yeah. So, so regardless of how it's interpreted, I just whether they do it or not, I don't know. I was going to suggest that there's verbiage, which we can talk about with our attorney, but there's verbiage in the code that actually allows us to give the variance. I I agree with you and I just didn't know if this board was going to end up there. I think you've had discussions on it.

We have since we had to get before the ZVA, I just said, well, you know, I'll throw it in there. Now, if this board decides to grant that waiver, if that's what we call it, then that can just eliminate that ZVA's consideration. So, when we get to the final uh determination and the final site plan material, there is verbage. It doesn't actually say you can wave it, but it says you can take breakpoint technology quote unquote into consideration. Well, if you're going to take it into consideration, that sounds to me will be a a waiver. Is they confirmed? Sorry. If they confirm they can they can make

if they can confirm that they can do it with a monop then we can grant the okay in terms of um not being within the requirements of the specific setbacks the needs and bounds. Are we waiting to find out whether that will work? Yeah, I I'll send a message to the engineer the structural engineer tomorrow and get his input. Okay. Right away. All right. So, so just to clarify though at 120 feet the setback would be 132 feet.

Well, that's another issue that at 120 foot well the tower in my view has to be 125 ft to steal the 120 foot reference really is an antenna centerline reference that's in the reports and I I understand why it's confusing and I let I think Dave Church know about that. The other thing you have to consider is if the tower is going to be 125 ft tall, it's actually the structure is going to be taller than that because you want to have a conical shape and that's usually 7 to 10 feet above that. So just just so you know.

So what you're saying, let's back up. So what you're saying is at 120 ft, the the antenna itself would rise up to 125 ft. And then above that you'd have the kind the part where where the cone gets tipped off where the tree gets is higher than that still. So I think yes. So and that's a good point since you have the conicle part maybe the tower can be 120 ft steel. I'd have to ask the construction people about that but so because that 120 foot means that that's where the center line of the antenna is. So you're going to have, like you said, the top portion of the antenna will be above the top of the steel. Yeah. But there'll be

Well, I thought but it doesn't quite work out that way because to get five you we you've been mentioning 125 ft now consistently and I thought that extra five feet was for the was for the cone. Now you're telling me it's also for the in problem is for five feet for the antenna that's a 10 foot high antenna. Is that No, I think could I let me I think I know what Scott's referring to. It's a little bit different. what you mentioned. Okay.

You're suggesting that in order to do a mono pine, you need to make the tower higher. That 120 doesn't work. What we're saying is you're going to make a conical monopine that tops out at 120. On top of that, we know that there has to be a slender 5-ft antenna that goes up another 5T. So, you can call it 125 ft in total, but the top of the cone is at 120. That's That's not what he's saying. No. Well, he's saying you're right. You're saying he wanted at 130. We're saying no. That 120 is the top of the cone whether it's a monopole or a monop.

See, I don't think that's even justified in the record because that 12 and I'm just trying to explain that 120 number is not anyone's fault. It's very confusing. The RF engineer uses an ACL number. No, that's where the 120 comes from. What's ACL? Antenna center line number. So it just means that like you said Dave that yeah at 120 that would be where the center line of the antenna is. So that by the same token 145 which was the application really meant 149 because these these antennas are roughly 8 ft high right so you're looking at four feet a 4 foot delta from the midpoint to the to the

they there are a few of the antennas are larger but most of them actually are five feetish or but I've got to note it though uh the 8-footers we do use them but I have to confirm from the RF the 145 5 was top of steel, but then there was a 4 foot lightning rod on top of that. Everything has to have a lightning rod, so has to be grounded. Um, so I think to avoid the confusion. So it's a top of the city center of the antenna. I'm confused because right now you're saying 145 the top of the ski. Yes.

And then so 145 the antenna going to be below 145. It will not above the top of the antenna will not extend above 145 ft under that scenario. So what I have to do is go back to my 145. So now you're saying it's not center of the antenna. You're saying it's the top of the antenna. What I'm saying is the RF report always provided two numbers. They provided 140 which is the antenna center line. Okay.

They also looked at maximum height analysis. So they're considered lower heights to show you what the lower height at 120 ACL would be. That's where I think the 120 foot is coming into play here. Even with 120 foot tower or ACL, that always means that the tower would be 100. So comparing apples to apples, this is 140 ft in your proposal down to 120 ft in where we might be going. So you're saying kind of center line, right? But what I've got to do is sounds like you're looking to get top of structure at 120 ft. Why don't you provide us with a drawing? I got to I have to find out. Very clear in our findings what it is.

We'd be what I always thought was it was 120 plus the the lightning rod whatever of another four or five ft. No, you got it. It wasn't. It was the original proposal was always 145 ft to the top of steel then the 4ft lightning rod. I know that. And then when we considered the lower height for the maximum or the minimum height necessary, we considered center of the antenna. Yes. And that's all right. And I need to correct that with the engineer. That's how he looks at it. But you also need lighting road. That is correct. So,

well, all that I remember from Doug Fisherman's report was that at 120, which I took to be the top of the poll, forget about the lightning rod, at 120, there was sufficient capacity or sufficient height to get the transmission capabilities you wanted. So, in my mind, the top of the pole, whether it's a monopole or monopine, is 120 plus a lightning rod. But I don't I think you have to go back to Mr. Fishman's review to see exactly what he stated. I don't have it committed to memory, but I'm assuming that he relied upon our RF engineered analysis, which I did commit to memory and I looked at it today for confirmation. And he says in the minimum height justification, it's 120 foot ACL. What he doesn't say is though that means it's 125 ft tower. And that's where the confusion's coming in. And I understand why it's confusing and I wish it was more consistent when you get to classes think universally you know so I will go back get you a drawing and I I'll ask our people the structurally how can you do this to keep the height to the minimum obviously lower than the 145 is okay

RF engineers typically communicate in terms of the center point of the um of of the antenna yes because that's basically the center point of the pattern of the uh signal. So that's how they that's that's how they typically do it. If you if the board would just bear with me, I had a copy of Mr. Fisherman's report.

But maybe if we take a break in in a while, I'll be able to find it. But okay, Scott, we in my mind it's the 120. it with the 4 foot or 5 foot and uh lightning rod, but you know, we have to talk more about that, right? I I'll get a drawing to you so we can at least

and I am going to find I know I have Doug Fisherman. So, we'll need a break probably in 15 or 20 minutes and I will find that report. We can So, on page 13, let me go back to point number one. On page 13, we required use of stealth design monopoint to camouflage the tower. This modifier must have breakaway technology in its construction to alleviate site plan setback issues. And we had that discussion about whether you're going to go to the ZBA or we can take care of it ourselves. No exterior lighting except as required to meet FAA requirements. There's no there's no FAA requirement. No. So we don't even need that in there. It's just mean no exterior lighting. Okay.

Use of tow and equipment colors to blend into the background. Um so we need to talk about that. Is it going to be uh silver? There were a couple different options. There were there were there's it could be painted. Well, if we do monopine, you got to make a We're probably less concerned about the color of the pole because you're going to have all the uh Yeah, but the pine trees don't come down all the way to the ground. You're right. So So that you you know I I've seen the bottom painted. I've seen it uh left galvanized. That's that's your I think we had not I think we had arrived at galvanized being the most appropriate way of doing this.

There was definitely discussion about that at one of the recent

that was one of the items that Matt Allen gave us reduction of maximum height of tower to 120 with a 5-ft antenna. The maximum needed this is the maximum needed to meet telecommunications user demand. This height is based on independent advice from the town's telecommunications technical expert and his report dated and I will find that report tonight. And the last item here screening of equipment compound from granite road from nearby apartment complex and from all nearby residential structures using native vegetation as well as burning and fessent. Okay. So that would complete section nine. Um and those would be the conditions that would be required in order to mitigate uh what we're calling uh impact to aesthetic resources. And then section 15.

This is one thing I just want to make a note that there there is a a type and I'm only mentioning it because it it's the wrong name which is in the for page 10 versus Stanley Kill Paul then it should be that should be starter kill. So it's just a little bit more than a type book. If there's no Stanley kills that I know of. Okay. It's the same thing on page 10. There's it's talk talks about wildfield road which doesn't exist. It's called vitfield. which that's a pretty significant mistakes. One second. It's on page 10. Yeah, it's correct on page 12.

And Stony Kills, not Stanley Kill. That's on page 10 also. But it's correct on page 12. So sorry. Yeah, in terms of the paint, I think the visual analysis is showing that sand gray is less is less what's the right word? Impactful. Yeah. I mean, less visual basically blends in. And what was the thunder grave? Thunder grave. Yeah. Thunder grade. Thunder grave.

All right. might go back have Dave go back to Matt Allen's work. I thought it was galvanized. He gave options that as well, but Okay. And you found that in Matt Allen's picture renditions. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you, Florian. Okay. Okay. On page 14, um section 15, which was um the next section that had moderate to launch impacts noted. The impact that was noted is the proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. And I'm going to summarize this one and go right to the mitigation conditions. So this took a while to to get settled as well. The first study that we had from Tectonic um failed to measure the ambient noise. Um so then we had them go back and measure the ambient noise. And the long and the short of it, if you quickly go through a couple of these paragraphs, is that the decibel level was well within town code. And in fact, it's pointed out that um it's significantly less or it's less than the which was here if humans were talking at the site and certainly a lot less if you were to run a mower a lawn mower over the area. In fact, 300% less using somebody's favorite use of of percentages to make it sound like it's a huge percentage, but I won't go there. example.

Um, so 107 dB with a lawn mower and only 40 48 dB the noise from a generator. Okay. So, um, thanks. Something there that we talked about um that we may want to add as a condition is um time of day for when the generators will run because it has to exercise weekly and I think they told us that it's like weekdays. bi-weekly in the bi. Maybe it's bi-weekly, but just indicate that like they shouldn't be exercised on weekends or evenings, which I don't think it matters because I don't think they do it anyway, but just so that we have it in there.

Every two weeks is what they um and then it should be. Is that ignition? Did we include that? I don't see it on the list. No, it's not there. We have to add that. Every two weeks, it says the facility will include a diesel generator. Emergency generator will only run continuously for routine maintenance approximately 20 to 30 minutes bi-weekly. Okay. During time of the extended outage. This is necessary to provide continuous wireless service blah blah blah blah blah. Then what's time of day?

It says the only other time that the generator will run is for a test cycle every other week for approximately 30 minutes. The test cycle is generally set for Tuesday mornings after 9:00 a.m. but can be adjusted as necessary. So, I wouldn't want to stipulate it has to be Tuesdays, but just to say it would occur Monday through Friday during business hours or something so that it's not 11 o'clock at night. Not that they would, but you know, Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. or Oh, 7. Some people are still sleeping. How about 9 to 5? 9:00. Let's No, that's fine. It's nationally done on Tuesday at 10:00, but I don't want to pick understood. But it's a national time of of of

generator rank. It is generator score. They all go off the same same time. Unless there's a reason that to change it. We can change it if we have to. But I understand what you're saying. That's fine. But it's easy. Frankly, it's easy. I mean, I I studied this a little bit. Uh it's very easy to change generators. Yeah. They do their test. It's more just so people have an assurance that it's not going to be on a Sunday. Yeah, that's a good point. We're not going to do that. Are we keeping up?

Oh, Scott. The other item that's not here is that there could be other colllocators on this tower which will require additional generators. So in the site plan, not necessarily here, but in the site plan portion, um it's going to be made clear that if additional collator colllocators come to mount their stuff on this tower, they have to come down to this board uh to get that approval. I think that's provided for our code. So and it's obvious by the business by unless it's uh under the spectrum act and it doesn't change the physical appearance and doesn't increase the height. They actually well

well they may have to come back to your board but you have to approve it in 60 days. You don't have any discretion on it. Well then we can put conditions on it. We're going to put conditions on it. Painting it or stuff like that or No, I understand but that's Yeah, that's we can have that discussion later on. That's further down the road. I don't But most particularly if you put a second or third generator there, there's going to be more noise. So we're going to need to have a discussion about um they're not going off at the same time. They ain't going to be staggered. Oh, that's all right. So, there will be something in here referencing that it's part of a site. That's fine. Okay. Anybody have any anything else on the noise?

I I I want to ask question. Scott, can you please remind what was the agreement between Wner and Verizon about not doing something? Wasn't about the Oh, we limited uh the height of the tower not to extend above 145 ft plus the 4 foot. It's not additional additional component. No, no.

No, but since you raised the issue, you know, colllocators, the fact towers will potentially impact how many collocators can go onto a tower like that. without going higher. I mean, just like Doug Fisherman said, he said, you know, 20 is the it's six and one half doesn't. So, just brought No, but your code just talks about it. So, it just I think this board talked about it. We'd rather take the chance of keeping this uh lower and run the risk if somebody says, "Well, we need another town." Oh, I think that I recall that conversation. Sure. The board realizes that, right? Yeah.

Yeah. and we're okay. Yeah. All right. So, Peter, thank you. We hadn't got quite gotten there, but on page 15, you have four mitigation conditions uh to mitigate the impact on noise. And that's where it had the uh let me read them. The mitigation for noise includes one a dark clamp, an acceptable clampboard style enclosure for the entire 50x 50 compound. There was one at one point in time we were talking about um masonry but that's not necessary soundproofing enclosure wooden enclosure um not a chain link fence but

yeah I think the plans show um we had vinyl fence it was a solid vinyl fence or they soundproofing type no our position is you don't need the soundproofing type we've proven that we comply with your code so that's just piling on and I get what you're trying to do but but if you have two or three generators but right now we don't but you will probably have two or three generators so that's why we're going to have I don't think we're going to have three I think that's a unlikely scenario

so there's going to be a condition that requires soundproofing technology used out of abundance of caution to make sure that if there are colllocators that we don't you don't have to go back and change out the fence you could I hear what you're saying I'm not trying argue with you. You could always make the pudderator go change the fence out. Um because my client just looks at this and says why do we have to do something that was not required?

Well, if what is the how does the board feel? I I think uh about the study the study refers ambient noise related to the traffic but set street doesn't have a traffic but the only area is 60 dB kind of radio traffic it will be right now probably 40 45 so they will hear at the apartment the generator so I think in opening living generator open it's it's not a solution because noise goes up. So I I think the most effective way to mitigate the noise to put a generator in enclosure sound if if you add another gener I mean another somebody add another generator they will have to do essentially the same if you if doesn't want to make a big implosion predicting that maybe second generator need to be that's my

yeah no but what you said is noise proof and there's no way we're going to hide all the noise from yeah I was about to say not be mitigation. It shouldn't say soundproofing. It's a incorrect me. So Dave, I'm sorry. It should say sound mitigation, not soundproof. You know, soundproofing is uh something entirely different. It's getting rid of the noise completely. So sound mitigation. Yeah. Okay. The proposed generator does have a sound mitigating enclosure. It It does. it's baffled or the the exhaust which is the result of the noise studies. So there's there's already

I see um insulation on in on inside of the cover. Correct. Correct. So the enclosure around the generator is and I can't remember the exact wording they use but um it's it's a sound reducing enclosure. Right. they but they produce the numbers for noise source based on based on that that color that so we're trying to accomplish less because there is a apartment building nearby

so I think we have a solution we have soundproofing material sound mitigating material in the generator itself and Dave is suggesting that we have further sound mitigation type of fencing around with cover on top because otherwise cover on top of the of the compound. Hold on. I have comments tons of I did some some research around mitigation for generators and if you burn it since moist goes upwards that seems to be a very effective option. How would you burn this site earth earth and burm around it?

Sure. that that would be yeah quite a lot of area you know actually so that that's what I I saw

so I share okay so I know more about noise than I ever thought I would learn because I've had to do construction work so as part of those analyses I've had to do a lot of noise modeling etc given that this is an emergency generator it's only running 30 minutes per week given the distance to the nearest sensor of receptor. I don't view the noise as a significant impact. Um, similarly, if I'm understanding this correctly, this is um that we're proposing to put up something around the site that won't do anything for the noise at the generator. If you want to limit the noise of the generator, there needs to be something around the generator itself in a very close in relatively close proximity or the sensitive receptor needs to be on the other side of the wall. If it's like a second story apartment and the generator's here, you can have a fence, but it's gonna it's not going to make a difference. So, just in terms of how we think about what we want here, um, you know, it's 30 minutes a week.

Yeah. Every other week, it's 30 minutes. But we also need to remember we live in in the area when power goes down relatively, you know, once per month, something like that. So, they can it's an emergency, Zoran. At that point in time, you just have to live with it. Frankly, there will be will be 10 generators. Well, that's what I was going to say. I know that when our power goes out, all I hear is generators. I mean, the whole neighborhood is humming. I know. All right. I think we've I think we've beat this one to death.

Um, second one. Enclosure must be of a material that significantly dampens mitigates any noise from a generator. Since the larger enclosure may house more than one generator, the strong suggestion is that the entire enclosure be sound dampening material, which is what we've been saying, sound mitigating dampening material, not proofing. Fencing um fencing design and height required to soundproof neighboring properties for any operational equipment sounds. Post construction sound testing with corrective measures required if determined by town. Essentially, what this is saying that is if after it's built, there's a complaint to the uh code enforcement officer, he of course can go out there and monitor it and determine whether or not it it suits or is within the town code. If it is, that's it. If it's not, then he requires other things to to be done. That's all this one says. So, there's some rewarding that has to be done, but I think we've done sufficient enough with the sound for a limited number of times that it's going to occur. Section 18, consistency with community character. Um, and specifically number E, the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character of the area. After proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural uh landscape. Um and so this document goes on to talk about um and actually refers us back to section number nine and suggests that in the same way that yes um there is going to be some impact. However, the presence of the monoplline is meant to mitigate that impact um from Granite Road and from the

surrounding properties as well as uh the fencing as well as the um landscaping that would be would go around the 50 by 50 enclosure. So at the bottom of page 16 before we get any on which are you in the mitigation the overall mitigation hop to mitigation.

Well before you before you go because we've been mitigating sort of section by section. Go ahead. I would also want this se I'll talk to Dave to see what he thinks, but I would suggest that the section reflect that the um the lower height if we were to move in that direction uh would mitigate the visual the community character impacts as well and the community character impacts at 120 are going to be different than at 140 145. Okay. So, um you can talk about you can talk about everything else but the height here and I think that's probably an oversized. Perfect. That's a good idea.

All right. And then I I actually to that point the paragraph in the middle of the page uh talking about um the character of the area. It is mentioned here that the proposed action is in the rural conservation zoning district and that's as if to say we realize that but wireless communications facilities are permitted in this district as per the special use permit requirements of the town zoning code. So yeah, but we still have a we still have an obligation once to try to mitigate it, right? And that's and I think we're trying that's what I think we're trying to do by by considering overhead

and the mitigation conditions or the mitigation methods for this uh go on page 17. Number one, all the items already mentioned for section 9 will be used to mitigate the impact uh to community character. Most particularly okay is there

it is here the use of the monofine f screening of equipment compound from granite road and lower portion of the tower from nearby apartment complex and from all nearby residential structures using native vegetation as well as birming and fencing. Submission of asbuilt drawings and a landscape plan to review by the town code enforcement officer and the town planning board for any corrective measures. um replacement of any screening and plantings found damaged or ineffective within six month and 12 month intervals from the initial construction or planning. So this is the first crack at part three. Does the board have any other comments they want to make? General comments. If you have specific comments that we didn't get to or you didn't get to, what I'd like you to do is to send it to Dave directly and copy Stacy, myself, and Dave Gordon.

As soon as Dave is filling up, I we'll go over comprehensive comments. So, as soon you definitely don't want to push it past this week. Yeah, I want to get this redone by Friday so we can publish it. All right. So there's no resolution that's necessary at this point. In fact, it wouldn't be any wouldn't be appropriate at this point. Does the applicant have any comments? Yeah, if you don't mind, you mentioned possibly taking a break to look up the Doug Fisher report. I pulled it up while we were talking. Okay. Yeah. Why don't we Why don't we take another 10-minute break and I'm going to find You've got it. Yeah. Do we need a break?

Why don't you if you've got it already? I don't need to find you have it. He does mention the 120 foot AGL, but I think that's a mistake because we never analyzed the 120 foot AGL. So he he specifically is referencing our report. It's just a mistake. We use ACL. He mentions, but he mentioned ACL in the beginning of the um in the beginning of the letter as well and he and he differentiates them. So it's it's it's a it's a open question. We'd have to check with him, see what he means. Oh, I think that's a great idea because I think yeah because he because in the critical in the critical statement he talks about 120 foot as you point out 120 foot center you know

which um and he I think it was all the way back in page one or something like that he differentiates u maybe page two I don't know he says 145 above ground level so but then in this one section he says four different elevations were examined in terms of the minimum height justification and he says 60 HL 140 ACL. Yeah, Billy's confirmed. That's the letter. That's the critical. I'll confirm with him in an email and I'll copy you on it. I'll copy the board on the email.

Verizon antennas are specified with 140 acco. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. I'll follow up with them. Anything else? Wow. Record time. Well, just send them to us. Get them in. I'll do I'll point to minutes. The calendar you laid up, chairman. Yeah, let me just go back to my notes on the calendar. Go ahead. Uh, Larry.

So, thank you. So, um I'm I'm not sure you said you expect to make a determination of significance next Monday on March 9, and then there's a 30-day comment period. Um and the comment period is on the form three. So, if you pass a resolution of having a negative conditions next Monday, that is not a irreversible decision. It's subject to the 30-day comment period. That's right. Um I just looked up the exact wording of the in the seeker regulation which is in um 617.7 right

I think 67.7D um the way it reads which is a little odd is that the res the the declaration of significance is presumably effective when we voted after the 30-day comment period the regulation specifically appears to contemplate that we would go back and um reconsider it if um if there is a comment that indicates It's a significant adverse environmental impact. That's why I read the regulation. Thank you.

And Larry, to that point, what we'll do is next Monday, we'll open up the public hearing. We'll do what we plan on doing in terms of a declaration of significance. The 30-day period. The next time we would consider the application would be the first meeting of April, which is more than 30 days. And I'll open the public hearing again at that meeting, but then close it. and then we need to take action. Point is, uh, Dave, the decision that is made on the resolution next Monday is subject to being revisited depending on the board's reaction.

That's right. I'd also commend you to 617.7 ENF, which are the two paragraphs that relate to reconsideration of a negative declaration after the negative declaration is issued. I guess I'm not CND, I suppose, would be included in that by hint of 617.7D. And so you could look at those criteria. The bottom line is putting it bluntly, you would need to demonstrate a significant adverse environmental impact under seeker. I would suggest uh if you're going to do that, you do it in writing. Yeah.

Um in terms of whatever support you would be using to do that and and I would also suggest although it's not necessary because we're gonna have the public uh public comment period, but the sooner the better. And if you could do it this week, obviously that would um that would that would help. But just, you know, as soon as you could. and um in writing so that if it's if it's just oral we'll listen but obviously uh something like that will involve um some significant technical just got the draft part three last Friday so I don't think it's fair we we're looking at a month down the road so just uh and and Mr. Mr. Chairman, when you said that um there'll be a very lengthy decision thereafter that's necessary, not on the whole.

No, my reference to the decision was on the whole hypnoodle site plan approval. The site plan approval. I'm not aware that the board has made a decision on the need. Will that be addressed in that decision? Yes. Okay. It's also referenced here in the part three. We It's both in Doug Fishman's letters and it's referenced stand in part three, but absolutely it'll be it's a requirement of approval. I didn't see any reference to the need. I thought it was I don't think so. Okay. Give notice of the public hearing. Yes, we did. Well, the DEC public hearing is notice by virtue of putting on the DEC website. Correct.

Also, but they also allow, if I remember the regulation correctly, they also allow the board to use its own notice procedures. Okay. instead either one but it definitely has to be noticed. Now there is there is no required public hearing. It's a common period. Everything in seeker all the seeker comments are always common periods but uh the tradition is every comment period is accompanied by and seekers accompanied by public hearing including um scoping sessions comments on DEIS is in this as well. I think we're going to listen to the public audience a little. So, we'll have to notice depending on what we do next week, we'll have to notice this in the newspaper. Um, again,

also look check um there are uh the environmentally notice bulletin the state thing that goes out weekly. So, you should check and see when you need to get it in to make sure it goes out the correct week to start the comment period. You have to do a little back bit of backwards math, right? But the notice itself is very short, a short paragraph. So the the day that it my understanding from the code is that the day that it is up on that site is the day that the 30 days clock starts. But if you want to align that with our planning board schedules, then you should see when that will end. See when we can do some

a question I do have. So if the point in time when the it goes up on the DEC site, that's when the day starts. Are we in any way? And we're going to send out our own public hearing notice. And that needs to be done five days before

I used to just do all of it at the same time. You know what? We're just going to do it all the same. I would do it all at the same time. Do it all the same. And And the critical thing is having at least one meet 30. I think I'll double check, but the critical thing is that having at least one meet the 30-day requirement. Let me let me see what it says. So that public notice that we sent out it'll have to be different in that it'll have to indicate there will be a formal public hearing at the first April meeting but also reference I think the DEEC commentary period as having kicked off on a certain date.

I'm just going to read the verbiage here. got it up and then we can use our combined intelligence to to be able to do it. So um this is a one of the requirements for CND for issuing a CND is number four uh has published a notice of a CND in the ENB which is the environmental the DEC environmental notice bullet and a minimum of 30-day public comment period has been provided. The notice must state what conditions have been imposed. An agency may also use its own public notice and review procedures provided the notice states that a CND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed, and allows for a minimum 30-day public comment period. So, the way I'm reading this is if we were to do both, the first 30-day comment period to finish is is the is the first that's when we would be able to do the final action. Um, we don't need both 30-day comment periods to be done. It would be the first one. We got to have one or the other. Okay. The next 617

67.7D and I'm reading sub paragraph IV 67 67.7 D as in dog sub paragraph IV for little four. So don't do both do ones. Say again. Don't do both do one. I'm confused what one of the

you can do either. You can do both. If you do both, then the first 30-day period to end in my view gets you to the point where you can you can do the CND, which means that's when you can get issue your your approval, disapproval, whatever your action is going to be. Actually, you only need you only need a CND for an approval. Disapproval doesn't require a super um doesn't cause. So if you do both that gives you the best time frame to get the 30 days done quicker because however and Jennifer's right got they're going to be populated differently. The EMV publishes weekly. I don't know what they

I mean in my experience we've all always whichever we were always more conservative. So we would if there were multiple lengths of open hearing periods then we would just have all of them end on one day on one day. So that wouldn't be confusing because one is still a little bit. You know what I mean? Like that would do. Okay. Intelligence. I don't know. I'd have to do more legal research to figure out. It gets confusing if you're trying to keep up with it. All right. We'll talk. Um Larry, you got that? Thank you for answering my question. Okay. Anything else, Scott? No. No, thank you.

All right. I think we're done. Uh All right. All right. I'll entertain a motion to uh end our meeting, the official meeting. You want to do the minutes? You want to do the minutes or do you want to do them next week? Oh, no. We'll do them now. Yeah. Let's get There were two sets of meetings. Minutes, right? Yeah. Three, third. Um, minutes from February 2nd and minutes from February 9th. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve both sets of minutes. I make a motion for both for both sets. Both sets. Second. Dave seconds. Everybody uh approve.

Anybody disapprove of six to zero. Thank you. Um so I entertain a motion to end the meeting. Motion by Jennifer. Second. Second. Uh Vorian. All in favor? I. And we need to go into a session with an attorney client uh private session to discuss um one of the projects.