Town Board - Regular Meeting

You're not going to be.

I'm just saying. You're looking for homework, and there's no procedure. So that's what you're on.

Yeah. I'm just saying that you can get ready on the T-boy. That's what I said, but no.

Okay, everyone. I'm going to call the Town of Rochester Town Board May 28th, 2026 workshop meeting to order. You could all stand for the bunch. 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.

I am here. Our first item on the agenda is the acceptance of the agenda. And I've been asked, there are some amendments.

So what I'll do is I'll make a motion that the town of Rochester Town Board accepts the agenda as prepared by the town supervisor with the following amendments. A resolution authorizing the closure of Main Street for Heritage Day and utilizing the town insurance policy. An appointment of a constable to follow executive session resolution authorizing supervisor be granted permission for TAC. And moving the Ulster County Planning Board appointment recommendation until after the executive session. There's one more.

So we had the discussion on the priorities for planning the town plan as to review

Okay. And a discussion regarding the town planner reviewing code. Any other amendments? Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Okay. So our next item on the agenda is the public comment portion of the meeting. So this is the portion of the meeting where we allow the public to address the board. One thing I wanted to mention, if you could try to leave your comments to three to five minutes, that would be fantastic. And we won't engage in a back and forth, but we may address things that come up um, in the next agenda item, town board member time, or if it's something that relates to something that's on our agenda, we will most likely, um, speak on that topic at the agenda item. Um, so is there anyone here that would like to address the board? Yes.

Hi, I'm Claire from the town of Rochester housing advisory. And, um, I just wanted to speak a couple of minutes for in favor of the $50,000 real estate transfer tax exemption for homes under a million dollars. I've wanted to say that the housing committee really appreciates that the town board is already on record as supporting the community housing fund. But this is to agenda item that you're going to be discussing later regarding the Exemption.

Our meeting is, if you guys could keep it down, our meeting is.

So the real estate transfer tax, RETT, is a $450,000 exemption on the taxes paid by purchases of homes sold below a million dollars. It creates a more equitable and targeted housing policy by protecting lower and middle class middle income homeowners while ensuring that high value real estate transactions contribute to community needs. Under this structure, a considerable portion of modest home sales and little or no tax burden, while larger transactions will generate a substantial portion of the revenue. The exemption recognizes that many working family seniors and first time home buyers are already facing rising housing costs, higher interest rates, interest in property taxes. By exempting the first $450,000 of value on homes under a million dollars, the policy reduces financial pressure on ordinary residents and keeps housing transactions attainable in our community. The policy preserves the RETT as a vehicle to generate locally controlled funds to leverage grants and other funding sources to address infrastructure and housing initiatives. It also complements open space protection. Higher value transactions, luxury properties and second home purchases can contribute proportionally more to local needs, helping our community manage growth and maintain affordability. The exemption also improves fairness with the tax system. A flat transfer tax can disproportionately affect moderate income households because the cost represents a larger share of their savings and available cash at closing. A partial exemption introduces progressivity into the structure without eliminating the tax entirely. In communities experiencing housing market pressure from the outside investment escalating sales prices. This type of RETT framework helps balance revenue generation with housing accessibility. It encourages long-term community stability by reducing burdens on year-round residents while still capturing revenue from the stronger segments of the market. And I just want to say, without that exclusion of the 450, you would never reach that 1% mark. Overall, the 450 exemption for home purchases below a million offers a balanced approach that supports affordability, protects local homeowners, and maintains critical public revenue. Thank you.

Thank you. So a lot of people came in. Just wanted to say that we are requesting that you keep your comments to under three to five minutes. And depending on how many there are, we may only allow people to speak once. So if you have something you'd like to say, you know, say it during your turn. Is there anyone here who'd like to address the board? Yes, Barbara.

Barbara Cornell. I'm going to start with some kudos. The first one is to Mr. Coleman. First time I heard he was in the community center during a tragedy that the septic backed up and he's in the trenches. The second time was during the revalve. He made extra time to be at town hall to accommodate people. The third time was I made a personal phone call him to clarify questions and he addressed my questions. And the last time I was at the transfer station and he's bending over, filling in for somebody, getting something out of the bin. So I want to give you an extra kudos for going the extra mile. Thank you very much. The other one is to Councilwoman Snipes. Thank you for receiving my personal phone calls. and clarifying why you weren't here. I'm glad you're well and better than that. And also the fact that you took time to have a discussion. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Barbara. Is there anyone else here who would like to address the board? Ken, go ahead.

I'll be really quick. I'm here also from the Housing Advisory Committee and we do, as Clare said, appreciate your support for establishing a housing fund. In discussions last week, one idea came up that hadn't been floated last year, which would address concerns that the way it's structured, we have a million dollar exclusion so that everybody would get an exemption. But when you got into the area of a million dollars and above, there would be no exemption for that that's afforded for the median homes. That's the proposal. If you're concerned that inflation may eventually make that million dollars more of the norm than the exception, right? Like today in our community, that's still an exception. You could amend the law and simply set the exclusion as a percentage of the median. So you could have a cut so that every year, if the median home sale goes up, then that exclusion cap would also go up. So unsuspecting people wouldn't be caught off guard after, you know, say four or five years, you know, home setting appreciated considerably in our community. So anyway, that was just an idea that came up. And it addresses some concerns that we've heard, but I'm going to leave it at that. We're here to answer any questions.

Hi, everybody. My name's Juliet Walsh, and I've been a resident of the town of Rochester for the past eight years and a landowner for 20. I also served on the village board in New Falls for three years. Thanks very much for putting the cell tower on the agenda. They're a group of us who've been volunteering our time to work on this and just wanted to ask everybody who's here up in the cell tower to stand up so we can hear because only a few of us are going to speak. Thanks. And so we came here kind of with the understanding from the last meeting that the planning board had asked you all to make comment on the conditional proposed conditional negative declaration. Um, and that's what we've, that you spoke about last meeting. That's what we've been speaking about in part of what we'll address the board with tonight. Um, with the kind of understanding too, that I also spoke to the town supervisor today and that, uh, we understand that, you know, the planning board is the lead agencies that you are not specifically an involved agency. And yet, uh, while this would be somewhat, uh, HAB-Masyn Moyer- An extraordinary circumstance for the plant for the town board to comment on the planning boards conditional negative declaration. HAB-Masyn Moyer- We still like to advocate for that and we are doing so with the understanding that this is an extraordinary circumstance. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You know, given the fact that this won't impact the view should significantly that both hours, the town and also is a big reason, one of the main reasons that many of us live here. You know, unlike a lot of the other projects that the Planning Board oversees, including site plan development, buildings and such, this is something that will impact the entire area and all of the residents. Under SECRA, you know, one of the main, we have a couple of reasons and you'll hear from different people, but one of the main reasons that under SECRA, this project can be looked at as a positive declaration is because of the scenic viewshed. The State Environmental Quality Review Act was specifically designed for projects like this that are going to impact the aesthetic of the viewshed. And the case law and law is basically that from any kind of state park or even scenic byways, the scenic viewshed can be the sole and primary reason why a positive declaration can be enacted. As we spoke about in the last meeting, and I won't go into great detail, you know, one of the concerns that we really have at this point is that the planning board has a conditional negative declaration as kind of a compromise with the cell tower company to lower it from 145 feet to 125 feet, which is still visible from throughout the area. But that this is somewhat of a red herring because of the federal law, the Spectrum Act, that basically says that at any time once that wireless infrastructure is built, it can be raised 20 feet. So that's kind of a moot point that this would still ultimately be a 145-foot cell tower. There are many other reasons that you'll hear about. but I think that it's important to just say one more is that we've felt that the planning board and part of the secret process is looking into the case for need. The entire kind of telecommunications act is geared around the fact that in 1996, we all remember when cell towers first came about, that's the law that we're governed by, by federal communications for coverage gaps in cell service. We do not believe, given the information that we have, that there is a significant coverage gap and that that gap warrants this. The issue that Verizon states they have is also a capacity issue. That is something that is very much in question. And even if that were to be the case, the case law and the precedent legal, the precedents that are set by the courts right now is that municipalities can rule against cell towers based on capacity alone. So these are points that we've been making, and this is part of the secret process. I was, the town supervisor asked, what will the secret process, you know, what is it that we want to come out of it? We really want to have more expertise done about the impacts that this will have both to the new shed, but also the sensitive ecological area that this is. You'll hear a few folks talk about that. There's not been a wildlife expert that has undergone any kind of study of this area. And the only group that Verizon has hired is an out-of-state Texas company that never traveled here. And so I just wanted to kind of raise a couple of those key issues and pass along to our colleagues. And once again, you know, ask you, So please, you know, consider as a board and as individual members of this board to make your voices heard. I just want to say that we would not be living with this long bridge intact the way it has if people have not been stepping up in order to protect it for generations. And we do feel like this could have a significant impact as such. So thank you.

Is there anyone else who'd like to address the board? No?

my glasses on to read this, but now I can't see you. So we have the advantage.

We're still here.

This is a letter I submitted to the board, but I want to read it rather than extemporize. And I also submitted to the board two reports that our groups, Larry Freeman, go ahead. and Michelle Hertz arranged for an IRF expert to do some reviews. And they're pretty impressive. So I hope you have a chance to look at them. So to you, Supervisor Byrne and board members, Thank you for the opportunity to express my opposition to the Verizon request for a special use permit from the Town of Rochester Planning Board to construct a new cell tower on Granite Road. For context, I'd like to start by citing the Town of Rochester Zoning Code, where it addresses telecommunications facilities and the role of the Planning Board. So from Section 149 29 on wireless telecommunications facilities, purpose and intent. I'm citing directly from that kind of cherry picking to hit the points that I think are relevant to our objections. The town recognizes wireless telecommunications facilities may pose significant concerns to the health, safety, public welfare, scenic ridgelines and viewsheds and the character and environment of the town. and its inhabitants in the neighborhoods from Section 8.1. Ensure that the location, placement, construction, modification, and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities will pose the least possible adverse effect upon the town and its inhabitants. Minimize the negative impacts of wireless communication facilities on surrounding land uses and protect the town's health, safety, public welfare, scenic, historic, environmental, and natural or manmade resources. Section three, provide for a wide range of appropriate locations and options for wireless telecommunications providers and encourage and promote the location of new telecommunication facilities And this is really important in areas which are not sown primarily for residential use. Section 8.4 says minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts to protect the natural features and aesthetic character of the town with special attention to the Shawangunk Ridge, Mohawk Preserve, and Capskill Preserve. I'd like to address setback requirements. I think they're lacking. The only setback in the zoning regulations for a new cell tower construction is a minimum of 110% of the height of the tower. For example, if Verizon has agreed to a height of 125 feet and the FCC allows a 20-foot extension, which the town must permit, that's the federal law, then the effective height of the tower should be taken as 145 feet and the setback Therefore, it would be 159.5 feet. That's just doing the math. Do the setbacks for road and street lines apply to the roadway requirement for emergency and service access that is required to surround the perimeter of the equipment compound? Is there a setback required from designated wetlands? The parcel does contain a wetland. Section 2.C on site plan requirements mentioned setbacks from property boundary lines, rights of way, wetlands and waterways, and public and private roadways. So the Environmental Health Trust, which is an organization that I found online, and they cite examples of towns across the country with strong installation setbacks. These range from 500 feet, that example was Scarsdale, to 1500 feet in Colgate, New York, to 3000 feet in Shelburne, Massachusetts. And they generally are setbacks from homes, schools, houses of worship, and parks. The tower site is reported as only 147 feet from the apartment buildings and the parcel in question. This fact alone should be enough to trigger a positive secret declaration, it is hard to conceive that the town would permit siting of a massive cell tower in the backyard of 24 apartment units and units that are so near to the buildings.

You're at five minutes still.

Also not the lot in question is 25 acres with a federal wetland in the western portion A lot of zoned R5 rural conservation district surrounded primarily on its side of Granite Road by R2 low density residential properties. Roughly half the lot, not including apartment buildings and wetland, is designated as Zone D Hudson Valley. It's an ecozone designation from Nature Conservancy, which according to a synopsis from the DEC is a quote, a biologically rich crossroad that supports roughly 90% of the state's amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species. Ecological cores within this region are large, unbroken forest patches typically greater than 100 acres that provide crucial interior habitat for wildlife. Another point I'd like to make, there's no finding of fact regarding the location of the nearest tree line and the height of that tree line. Identifying the nearest tree line and its height determine the possible height of the tower and whether a variance is required. Verizon withdrew its request for a variance from the zoning board, lowered the proposed tower height, and have changed its estimate of the nearest tree line height late in the process in what appears to be, to me, a move calculated to avoid dealing with the zoning board and the need for a variance. The planning board has given the impression that only the code enforcement officer can do a finding of fact, but there is no reason that the planning board cannot make its own finding. This should be done in a manner independent of Verizon and in a process that is transparent to the public. But another topic is conflicts of interest. At a minimum, the visual impact expert study has generated an appearance of a conflict of interest. given reports of his business associations with Verizon and companies working with Verizon. Further, the observations were based on documentation provided by Verizon and did not account for photographs of the Bloom tests submitted by community volunteers. The citizens against itself, however, did submit a FOIL request for relevant communications. I think Alex suggested that And we did do that in the past. Requests for relevant communications from the planning board regarding the visual impact expert were submitted as flow requests. Problems with access to the town mail server for correspondence prior to December, 2025 prevented that request from being fulfilled. So I hope you're all aware of it.

So can you wrap, you're at nine minutes.

Yeah, I can. There's a lot here. The coverage need was another point that I wanted to address. I think somebody else may cover that. And so I'll skip that part of my letter. And the reports over that quite a bit and explain it quite thoroughly. So, just to conclude, we're left with a major question. If the Granite Road Tower proposal has so many flaws from our perspective, a strongly negative response from the impacted community as well, and it does not fill an expressed need for coverage, why would the Planning Board grant a special use permit? From what I've seen, I believe it should be denied. However, the planning board is leaning in favor of permitting for us to proceed. I asked the town board to submit a letter supporting a positive declaration in the state environmental quality review process, which would force a full environmental impact statement. and seek a resolution more consistent with the clear purpose and intent of our zoning regulations. I'd also ask the town board to take up a review of this section of the zoning code, which Councilman Coleman had suggested at the prior board meeting. I fully support that. And I think particularly we should explore the extent of setbacks and expand the list of conditions So thank you again for the opportunity. And I would just have one other remark, which is that I feel that the town board and the planning board should be working in conjunction with each other as agencies within the town. I think we all as citizens support good communications between town agencies. And I don't feel that we're asking you to tell them what to do or insist on anything. We're just asking if your opinion is that a full impact statement should be done, that you would share that. Thank you. Yes.

Hello. My name is . I live on Hillpath Road. I'm an environmental planner and a professor in the field. And I've been looking into some of the zoning issues. And also, I just wanted to take a step back before Verizon made its application. How did this come about? And maybe the town board can think about how to prevent some of the issues that we have before us. The first thing is Verizon themselves said, I quote, height is king, which means that the carrier that gets the biggest tower in a region attracts the other carriers to lease space on that tower. So all the companies are trying to get bigger towers to replace the last generation of towers. They basically go on a fishing expedition. They send out letters to an area that they want. And if their landowners are interested, they check out the property, look at the site, does it meet criteria? And in this case, 15 letters were sent out. Three people said, I'm interested. One met the criteria. The applicant filled out a handwritten application, gave it to the code enforcement officer, and the code enforcement officer made a determination on January 6th, 2024. It was two sentences, and it said that since the parcel is located in an R5 zone, it's an allowed use, which requires a special lease permit. That's correct. The next statement was, I quote, applicant has met zoning requirements and no physical restrictions apply. So that implies that the code enforcement officer did some zoning analysis to say that. It went to the planning board after that. But before we go there, the zoning code allows an appeal of the code enforcement officer determination. It's at 30 or 60%. received at the planning board. I don't know what the current practices of the town and CEO determinations, but if the zoning code says you have X number of days to appeal, that determination should be made public. It should go to the neighbors. It's a very important moment in an application before the planning board. So that's something I hope you can look into. What's the procedure? Right now, the planning board has really gone to a unique collab, which is great. We don't have to foil from every document that we want to see. And I think CEO determinations go on there, but nobody knows what they do. So that's one thing to look at. But I feel like TAB, Mark McIntyre:" The planning board was given a determination that was mistaken, because we learned that the cell tower is on proposed to be on the same parcel as the apartment buildings across from the granite or granite hotel there are 24 apartments in those buildings. TAB, Mark McIntyre:" On 25 acres so. It's roughly one dwelling unit per acre, which means if it were an R1 zone, it would be fully built out. But it's in an R5 zone, which would only allow five apartments. So how can a 14-story cell tower on a 50 by 50 foot concrete slab, which is... much bigger than a house be allowed density-wise on this parcel. We raised the issues to the planning board. The planning board attorney said, actually, I have that here, that the planning board doesn't have jurisdiction. The planning board doesn't have jurisdiction to interpret the zoning code. Only the CEO can do that. So they really wouldn't go back to look at the density issue, even though when they have a subdivision, how many houses on so many acres, what's the density? And they come up with how many houses you can build and they negotiate with this developer. In this case, we have two apartment buildings. And I know the town board is dedicated to creating more affordable housing, more multifamily housing in our town. The other thing to note is that our new zoning code addresses multifamily housing. And it says that under the new code, any new multifamily projects in allowable zones need to set aside 50% of the parcel for open space. So if we got a new proposal for 25 apartments, let's just say in the R01 zone where it's allowed, that would be allowed, but half of the area of the parcel will be set aside for open space. In this case, we have a parcel that half of it has 25 apartments, The other half is open space. So the planning board is always to approve a 14 story tower on the open space that the currently have. That is against the standard of the zoning code and what the town board wants to see happen in the town. We all want to see it happen in town, more opportunities for housing, housing that has open space as per law. And so we have a real issue there. And then just the last thing to flag is under community character under the negative conditional negative declaration, they acknowledge TAB, Mark McIntyre:" That the proposed action and i'm just taking it from the conditional declaration is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character and they acknowledge that the it will be bigger than the hotel building. and they acknowledge that the hotel building is most probably going to be demolished. So scenically, we would be losing one eyesore in some people's opinion and replacing it with another. So we have an opportunity scenically here to make our view better, but this will not result in that. The second is they say the proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape, but If you look at that section of community character, which speaks directly to multifamily housing, scenic character, there's no mitigation here. So it's very, it says there are impacts and they really only offer screening and yeah, just screening and they want to see a landscape. So we're under siege by cell phone companies. The CEO determination process needs to be fixed. How we can put a 14-story tower next to one of the only, maybe it's the largest multi-family housing apartment complex we have. And it goes . And so we just want to, I wanted to just flag those issues for you and appreciate your time.

Yes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is John.

Can you say that again?

My name is John Modesty. Thank you for this opportunity to express ourselves. My family and I moved to Stony Kill Road about 15 years ago. Never imagining this town of Rochester would consider putting a cell tower in a residential neighborhood. It's 0.4 miles from our home. A home is not just a building construction. It is a critical financial asset and a fundamental right protected under the principle of individual sovereignty. When individuals make long-term financial commitments, they rely on the surrounding environment to remain stable. External disruptions that devalue a home act as an uncompensated financial taking, which undermines the core and security of the homeowner. We take property taxes and invest our life savings into this community under the fundamental understanding that the local government will protect our investment from degradation. Homeowners, we will absorb 100% of the financial costs. Government zoning exists to protect citizens from incompatible neighbors. An over 125 foot steel structure is fundamentally incompatible in a residential neighborhood. We will be forced to move. We live 2,000 feet from it. Section 140.29, Section B.8 of the Zoning Code requires Verizon to submit in support of its application, to quote it, an economic study of the property value impacts the construction and the operation of the telecommunications facility may have on all adjacent properties within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries on which the facility is located. Verizon has never submitted an economic study that complies with this requirement of the Zoning Code. Nor did Verizon show any other means that this proposed maintenance will not adversely impact the market value of adjacent properties. In light of Verizon's failure to comply with this requirement, their application should be denied. Verizon has previously submitted two property value studies in support of this application, but neither of them comply with our town's zoning code. First, the Adams study. doesn't comply with the zoning code because the projections are based on data collected about the purchase and sale prices of homes in the vicinity of five other cell towers built between 2005 and 2019 in agricultural areas where none of the residences are as close to the town towers as the apartments and other residences are here. Five towers were built as much as 20 years ago when homeowners' concerns about having a large cell tower nearby were far less than they are today. and evidence concerning the adverse impacts of cell towers on nearby property volumes was not available. In the second study, called the Collier Study, presented by Verizon in December of 2025, Collier's itself admits that it did not identify, for purposes of its before and after study, a sufficient number of sales of homes within 500 feet of the proposed Granite Road tower site. Neither study complies with Section 140.29 of the Zoning Code. Because it is not a study of the property value impacts the construction and the operation of the telecommunications facility may have on all adjacent properties within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries on which the facility is located. Verizon must procure and submit to the town another form of economic study of property value impacts for our properties. Planning Board cannot waive the fireman of the zoning code merely because they couldn't find adequate data to perform one type of property value impact study. It is indisputable that Verizon is not complying with the zoning code and therefore Verizon's application should be denied. We're here desperately asking the town board to help somehow. The planning board is not doing its job. So we're asking you to please make a common recommendation to the planning board to issue a positive seeker declaration and to seriously uphold the town zoning code. Thank you.

Yes. Hi, thank you for allowing us to speak tonight. My name is Deborah from the Dusty. My husband John and I live at 502 Steinfeld Road. Just wanted to bring up that last year, one of our neighbors, Troy Harrison, documented the astonishing number of bird species that live, migrate to, and nest on the ground, as well as in the trees of the proposed Verizon South Tower site. Troy is repeating the study this year and began again on May 15. To do this, he's using an app called Merlin, which is a Cornell University bird identification app. In a span of three days each and within a half an hour, Troy documented over 35 species of birds at the border of the adjacent private property and the Telltale Tower site. I have a list of all 35 birds, but I'm not going to go through them all. The area between the Shawangunk Ridge and the Vondell Creek is also home to Barge, snowy, great gray, and great horned owls. Also many raptors, including peregrine falcons, eagles, and many species of water birds that also live and nest within this area. Other wildlife that may be found on the site are several species of turtles, amphibians, snakes, including the timber rattlesnake, which is a threatened and vulnerable snook in their state, as well as many species of animals. The planning board was planning to hire a local wildlife expert from Hudsonia to study the flora and fauna at the proposed tower site. However, we do not know why. The last minute, the planning board decided against this and opted to rely exclusively on computerized data and a report prepared by a Texas-based contractor hired by Verizon that never even went to visit the site. As far as we know, our neighbor Troy has done the only actual study of wildlife in that area. One can surmise that if there are that many birds at the proposed tower site, there are also an incredible number of native caterpillars and insects which provide food for the birds. And the caterpillars and insects there must then indicate that there are many species of native plants for them to eat. So members of the community hired Dr. Albert Mandel, a radio frequency microwave radiation wildlife expert and biologist with an extensive and impressive background. He previously served in senior positions at federal agencies. To provide his professional opinion about the siting of this tower, Dr. Mandel recommended against allowing a salt tower to be built on the proposed site due to the fragile and rich wildlife that is found there. Unfortunately, the planning board disregarded the expertise of Dr. Mandel. The northern side of the Chihuahuan Bridge is a treasure and should be protected forever. We are urging the town board to please make a comment and recommendation to the signing board to issue a positive declaration and require Verizon to complete a full environmental impact statement under SECRA. Thank you again for hearing us tonight.

Good evening.

I'm welcome.

I appreciate being able to talk to you.

I want to speak to the town board members about an issue that is important to me and many other people living in the town of Rochester. The issue for me is not about cell towers. In general, because we all appreciate how cell phones and the internet are an important part of our lives. The issue for me is where this particular cell tower that Verizon wants to erect here in our town and to air to those already in place here. I have lived in the Hudson Valley for over 60 years. I lived in Anchorage for over 48 years. I love my town. I have been a teacher in the Hudson Valley for most of my life. I have taught the children here. I have worked with the families here. That is really important to me. Children and families are important. I have seen the challenges that families are having living here in the Hudson Valley. We have three cell towers in the town of Rochester. I live close to the city hall road tower. I know neighbors were unhappy and didn't want the tower. Though I live close to this tower, I can't see it. It's tucked in and not interfering with anyone's life. The proposed cell tower is different than the other three towers in Rochester. I asked the question, why was this site chosen? And I think Ira addressed that. Why would anyone want to live next door to a cell tower? I don't think anyone would say they wanted to. So why would Verizon be allowed to put a cell tower next to a low-income apartment complex? There are at least nine children living in this complex. This is a blatant example of disregard for environmental justice. It puts a disproportionate burden on families that have difficulty finding more expensive housing. They will now be living next to the biggest cell tower in our town. There are 24 housing units with at least one children. I'm shocked that our town is allowing this to happen. I understand that the planning board feels that they have to follow the law. We have an obligation to investigate that this cell tower does not violate any aspects of our town codes. with regard to socioeconomic and environmental impacts overall. I would ask that the town board make a recommendation to the planning board to do a positive declaration for CEQA to require a full environmental impact study. This cell tower isn't in my neighborhood, but I care about the families that will be impacted facing loss of property value and a precious view shed that We all have enjoyed living here. I care about the beauty of our area. I love going to Minnewaska and driving toward our town instead of the natural beauty that we've all experienced. Now we're going to see a huge cell tower that You know, it's just very hard to imagine that we are going to be living here. It's not a place that I would want to live. I want to live here because of the beauty of our area. You know, I dread, I really dread that if this bell tower goes up, it is going to be ugly and large and really intruding in many people's lives. I thank you for listening and considering how you might be able to influence this becoming a reality. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Toby Stover. Thank you for your service. And I'd like to read to you my statement. I didn't say my name. Patricia, sorry. Technically, public health issues cannot be considered by towns when making decisions about the placement of cell towers. However, we can morally compel to express our great concerns about the dangers of radiofrequency RF microwave radiation from cell towers. In areas where cell towers are installed, there are devastating health effects to people and the environment. You will find a great deal of information about this from groups including Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Health Trust, and Americans for Responsible Technology, who are all reputable nonprofit organizations working to protect public health and the environment. Non-industry funded research indicates that RF radiation from cell towers causes adverse impacts on biological life. Animal studies report immune system disruption, reproductive harm, and neurological effects. Cell tower radiation has been associated with harm to flora, including changes in biochemical parameters with physical damage to trees and crops in close range of base stations. Children are noted as being particularly vulnerable due to deeper radiation absorption and are biologically more vulnerable to RF radiation, a fact that has long been acknowledged by medical authorities. The most consistent findings of RF sickness include headaches, heart and memory issues, fatigue, insomnia, DNA damage, and increased risk of cancer. This is particularly prevalent in those living within, this is important, those living within 500 meters of the house. Now, incidentally, 500 meters is 1,640 feet. And Verizon is proposing to build a giant cell tower just 300 feet from a private home and only 147 feet from a housing complex with many elderly people living there as well as children. Residents of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, there was an article about this, They say electromagnetic emissions from a cell tower just a few hundred feet away are causing them to experience chronic symptoms. One resident said, quote, getting up in the morning, being nauseated with headaches, after an hour of being home, getting that headache again. I never had headaches before. Now I've got them all the time. For some, the effects are so bad They are spending as much time as possible away from their homes. One family is in the process of selling and others are considering leaving as well. Dr. Sharon Goldberg testified to Congress about the potential harm of cell tower emissions and says these stories are similar to many others across the country. Pittsfield Health Director confirmed that the Board of Health will begin an investigation into the tower's effects which will be sent to the state legislature and the governor's office. In conclusion, leaving the evidence of harm to all biological life, we know that being in proximity to a cell tower is a known health hazard. For this and many other reasons that you're hearing tonight, we urge the town board to make a comment and a recommendation to the planning board that they, the planning board, issue a positive declaration requiring Verizon to conduct a full environmental impact study before allowing this project to proceed. And I thank you for your time. Thank you for listening.

Yes.

I have one more thing to submit, though. I'm sorry. This is a graph which you can keep. And it shows the allowable RF in countries.

Can you email that?

Yes, I will. These are countries and the allowable RF and this is the United States compared to the other countries.

Hello, my name is Jared. I would also Just like to speak on the Verizon topic and ask the board to weigh in to the best of your ability to comment to the planning board and ask for a positive secret declaration for a full environmental impact. But I can't be too careful with this stuff. And it's really, I think it's well within Verizon's means to be able to spend the money to do what's necessary. I would also like to touch on one of the points that this gal just made regarding the Pittsfield study that was done in the story from the Pittsfield neighborhood from 2021. I know that technically health concerns cannot be used as a reason any determinations on this kind of stuff. But I think that the looming health issue affects nearly every other factor that we're discussing, such as wildlife and birds and various other issues, especially property values and the fuchsia because We're not just talking about maybe an unsightly building or a water tower. We're talking about a reminder of the negative effects and the documented adverse health effects of this technology in our community. So it's going to be sort of a nefarious and somewhat ominous thing to put there. building or other tower or something like that. And I think it's also interesting to note that that story which ran in Spectrum News, which is a relatively mainstream source, I think it just goes to show that there is more coverage on these topics and a little bit more of a mainstream awareness and acceptance and understanding that contrary to Verizon's claims or anyone else's claims that these things are unsubstantiated or the verdict is still out or something like that. I think it's starting to become a lot more widely understood that these things are problematic. And the one thing that that I see as an issue or a bit of a red flag smoking gun, if you will, is the fact that it's written in the act from 1996. And they wouldn't have put it in there if there was no problem. Because there's no issues with like, you know, you don't have questions about, you know, bicycles or Cheerios or a sink or with those things, then you're free to seek the truth and the truth will come out in the wash. But this is kind of a big block, like we're not allowed to discuss it. And the reason is because the industry defines RF radiation as pollution and they're well aware of what it does. So that's why it's in the document from 1996. And my wife is an RN. She works for a doctor and they treat all kinds of issues from lime to mold to various other things. And they deal with radiation issues too. And it's very common to have people who have a news from their homes because of issues like this, which are discovered after the fact, sometimes far too late. In closing, I just like to make two other comments. One is just that, again, the planning board doesn't seem to be too sympathetic to the comments or the issues that are raised by the community. And to a large extent, I don't believe that they have anything to gain by this, but I think that if Verizon were to have hired the planning board, things would look a lot similar. In other words, the planning board is acting as kind of a liaison to allow Verizon to do the things that they want to do. So I would like to ask that you both please do what you can and get positive declarations. Thank you.

Yes.

Good evening, everyone.

My name's Dave Ford. My wife, Jess, and my daughter, Ginny, and I live here in Rochester. And like many families in this community, we chose to build our life here because of the unique rural heritage. It's unbelievably beautiful. And yeah, just one of the most special places I've ever been. And I wanna be clear that this, I'm not gonna make an argument against cell service, you know, but I'm gonna make an argument for due diligence secret exists because some projects preserve a deeper look before irreversible decisions are made. A cell tower of this scale in a residential and rural setting raises legitimate questions about visual impacts, neighborhood character, alternative locations, cumulative impacts, and long-term consequences for the community. A positive declaration is not a denial of the project. It simply acknowledges that there may be significant environmental impacts that warrant a full environmental impact statement and a more thorough review. And that's exactly why Secret exists and what it was designed to do. So I'm not asking you to stop this project tonight. I really do appreciate all the other arguments that everyone has made here, and I agree with Pretty much all of them, I would say. But what we're trying to do here and what CPRA provides is the possibility to slow down and make sure we're doing the right thing. Because when this tower is built, it's not coming down. And if we have the opportunity and the possibility to take another... Take months to review and just make sure we get it right. And if you guys have the opportunity to... HAB-Jacques Juilland, Talk to the planning board and just take us take a beat to make sure that we're all doing the right thing together. HAB-Jacques Juilland, You know I I really think if that opportunity is President, then we should we should do it. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And I really do appreciate you taking the time to listen to everyone, and I respect them respectfully urge the board to encourage the planning board to issue a positive declaration. so that community can have a comprehensive view that this project deserves.

Is there anyone else who'd like to address the board?

My name is Bob Bloodsnow. The very breadth and depth of comments from all of the members of the community this evening reflect what has been carefully explained in a letter that the board received within the last 48 hours addressing itself to this particular need that the community feels. And I think Phil expressed also the need that I would imagine should be experienced by the zoning board, the planning board, the town board for these intergovernmental communications within our town. So that when issues like what we are experiencing now going over and over and over again planning board meetings about this particular issue with Verizon's application. We could readily depend on the fact that they're not alone in this decision and that there is open channels of communication between all of the other members of the government here in our towns. I would urge everybody on the board to pay attention to all of what's written in that letter. It was very, very well put together and pretty much everybody who spoke picked on some aspect of what's before you in that letter. So once again, thank you for your time. Thank you for your goodwill and really appreciate any help that you can be to our cause.

Is there anyone else who'd like to address the board?

I think we should just do one turn because we have a full agenda. So that's it. HAB-Juliette Boone, Right, so I will close the public comment portion of the meeting. HAB-Juliette Boone, Our next agenda item is town board member time I do want to note that all public comments that were received through emails. HAB-Juliette Boone, They will be part of the minutes and the town board does those as well okay so don't work.

I mean, I'm personally interested in hearing about the processes that the public's brought to us and there'll be something in conversation about feasibility of what's being suggested and the vulnerabilities, legal vulnerabilities to us doing that and the timeline. I mean, I just, I would like to learn more about what they're asking. Curious if the rest of the board has anything to say about at least getting more information about these processes.

It's something we should explore. I think the points that have been raised are very compelling. And I think that the location of this particular project is for greater scrutiny.

We do have it as a discussion item, discussion item H, just so everybody, if we don't get into that in the, I was just going to say, yeah, obviously I have comments that I want to be part of our discussion.

This is in my neighborhood, I think. See several of my neighbors here. Personally, you know, in terms of comment to the planning board. I know we talked about last time that we can obviously weigh in this board. I do think, you know, from a secret perspective, the board has spent a lot of time on this application. They put a lot of work into it. And so I would hate to respond in a way that doesn't acknowledge everything that they've done in terms of looking at this application. I think TAB, Mark McIntyre:" supervisor now on the point you made last time about the actual location on the parcel I agree, I think that is a major area of concern for me, I think you know a lot of times we anticipate common sense to drive things like citing because you can't. TAB, Mark McIntyre:" make your zoning code apply to everything and. To me, it doesn't make sense to have a cell tower immediately next to a residential structure. So I'm interested to hear what the board thinks, but I appreciate everyone's time and bringing these things forward.

I look forward to our discussion later on the agenda. For full transparency and disclosure to the community, most of the board members know this, but my father lives at the apartment complex where this cell phone tower is proposed to be built. So no one understands the impacts on someone's health, probably at this table more so than I do, than my 72-year-old father and his neighbor with terminal cancer who he gives rides for that I'm worried about in comparison with this. Thank you all for being here and for making your voices heard and participating in this form of democracy. I also want to thank the housing committee members and Barbara, our few non cell tower commenters at the top end of the night. Thank you also for being here and to the points for the housing transfer tax. I have more on that in response to what Claire and Ken pointed out, but just some other points about it during our discussion. um. i'm sorry i'll be trying to try to write notes. Oh, and yes, there was one thing I cannot remember who at this point. When they were talking about the apartment complex, I mentioned that there were 24 apartments already there. And if it was already zoned for R1 and it has 25 acres, apartment complexes have a different density than a single family house for a one acre. So I just wanted to clear that up for the record. So It's not going to be exactly that same. It might still be a close number, but just so you knew that a multifamily dwelling has a different zoning density in our code than a single family. So it wouldn't be a one-to-one comparison for that.

It's different.

We're not allowed to have a back and forth, unfortunately. But I'm always, my phone number's on the town board site as well as my email, and I'm happy to talk to anyone at any time, as Barbara pointed out at the top of the comment hour. Okay.

Okay, great. Um, we do have this as a discussion item I have, there's a lot more before that. Because I put our discussions in order of newness. But we will be discussing the request. We will also be discussing the real estate transfer tax. home rule authority request amendment to request that we'll be discussing both of those tonight. So I'll move on to the discussion items in our agenda. I did this meeting do something different with the agenda for the town board where there's a version that's in our SharePoint site that I sent the link to that has links to all of our backup documents in it. So Kate was taking notes in that version. So I made a new copy. If you guys want to follow along in that version, you can. It's okay. No, it's totally okay. And then I lost it. But there's one agenda item. There's an agenda in there that says use this one. So that's the one that I'm in. And I just wanted to make the board aware of that. And I did today link in some of the things that I hadn't been able to link in on Tuesday when I shared all the backup. So, and I can also share anything up on the screen, but I want to do a more traditional workshop style meeting where we're looking at documents and making sure everybody's on the same page about everything. So number one, we keep talking about community preservation advisory committee interviews. We have received to date six letters of interest. The, minimum size of that committee, which I forgot to look up. So I'm gonna pull that up right now. But basically we have started generating revenue to deposit into the account. And I think while the momentum is there, we should try to get this committee convened this year Um, so I wanted to suggest that we just planned to do interviews, um, at our, I was going to suggest our June workshop meeting, but I'm open to the board. I really wanted to ask the board, um, if that sounds good, that gives us a little bit more time to get more applicants in so we can build the committee. Um, But if we commit to that, then I can reach out to everyone who's applied so far. I've been trying to keep in touch with them, but let them know that that would be the time we would be holding it. So what do you guys, any thoughts? What do you guys think?

I think that makes sense. Yeah, I'm fine with the workshop meeting. I, depending on travel, will be here, not be at our next meeting. So we're at a workshop, so I think we can work on it.

So sound good to you guys?

How much further before the meeting or just during the meeting? What time?

Oh, just at the top of the meeting. Unless you feel like we should schedule a special. I'm open to whatever you guys want to do.

I'm easy.

You're easy? Okay. Unless you, were you suggesting that we do like a special meeting for interviews?

No, I just, you know, just wasn't sure how much time you were anticipating for sex interviews in addition to the phone.

Yeah, I mean, it definitely adds, usually it's about, I'd say 20 minutes per interview, even if we say it's 15. So it definitely adds like an hour and a half to the meeting.

I would suggest this. I would suggest something. I would suggest a special meeting just twice a week.

So like the following week, maybe?

So like the second, you mean? Like the special meeting the following week for the interviews? That'd be like June 29th.

If you guys are going to talk, can you please go outside so that we can... Thank you. Yeah, we could do it like the 29th or 30th or we could try to do it the week prior. Or we could do a Saturday special meeting.

As long as it's not June 14th because I'm going to have all the chairs. HAB-Masyn Moyer- away from this from. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That they getting fixed.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Well, why don't we let's see the planning board meeting is the 22nd.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes, the calendar is that the know it's third.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- place like. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So do you guys want to do a special meeting on the 30th in the evening.

June 30th.

June 30th. I'm happy to start as early as you guys want, but.

Yeah, we start early.

And we don't have to worry because after school, you know, so you could start.

Yeah. We could, you guys want to start like five? Does that work for you guys? Yeah. You guys okay with five? Okay. So I'll make a motion that the Town of Rochester Town Board schedules a special meeting for June 30th, 2026 at 5 p.m. at the Town of Rochester Community Center for the purpose of interviewing candidates for the Community Preservation Advisory Committee. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.

Seven.

Okay, seven, yeah.

That's what I thought it was seven.

And can we do like a... Oh, and request the town clerk circulate notice. Yes, that.

And can we also circulate it on the alert to the, like, used items? Yes.

So we don't have to text out again?

I don't know what was all that.

Yeah, the revised e-notify. Yeah, e-blast. That's all. And we now have 145 Facebook followers. Five.

For gaining on me.

Okay. So next I would like to invite Nancy up to the table. Let me get you a chair. Okay. So I'm just going to give a little intro to this, and then we'll hear from you. So we received what was called an appeal from the Code and Personal Office for a short-term rental permit that was revoked. But when I read the code, it basically the revocation of a permit can only be done by the town board. So that's if the code enforcement officer believes that a permit should be revoked, it gets referred to the town board. We decide if we want to move forward with it. And then there has to be a public hearing. The other thing is, is that if a, permit during a renewal inspection. So if your permit has ended, if the two years have come up and you're up for the new permit and you're having your fire safety inspection, the code enforcement officer shall not issue a permit for anything that doesn't meet New York State building code. So those are the two things. One is if it's a permit being reissued and it's inspection time, he can deny that, he has to deny it if the building doesn't meet New York State building code. If it's during the middle of that permit and the permit hasn't expired yet, and he feels there's a violation that constitutes something that it should be revoked, then the town board here's that case. So I reached out to the co-enforcement office to get clarification on which one, and I hadn't heard back, but I thought we should just, because I know this was, it's been like a couple months since the original. So March 19th. Yeah. So I wanted to just move it forward. I don't know if you are aware of which of those two categories you would fall in.

Go ahead. This is new to me. I'm just going to address if you don't mind, I wrote and I also made a whole table of contents of all the years that I have been certified. They're all here and passed. I want to thank you for listening to me. My name is Nancy Ostrovsky. I've lived in Akward for 41 years. I've raised my two daughters, and now my 13-year-old grandson also lives here as well. In 1993, and I have the permits from the town, I built my artist studio, the Timber Frame. And in 2015, I turned it into an Airbnb, which helped me with additional income. Since I'm a full-time artist and selling paintings every week is not the easiest or consistent task. I'm here because my Airbnb was shut down in a few minutes after successfully running it for 11 years. So this officer was there, I think four minutes. So I'm going to go into the violations that he sent. None of the listed violations were known to me at the time of the inspection. The officer was here about five minutes on March 19th, 2026 at 1245 p.m. He said I needed a smoke detector and I could get it and send a photo to Alyssa. I went to A&M and I sent the photo within an hour. Alyssa said, thank you. He never asked me one question. about kitchen facilities, bathroom facilities, clean or hot water for my guests. My Airbnb is an accessory to my single family dwelling, only 40 feet from the main house. At 2.30 that day, I was emailed all the violations. So the violations are no heating. My Airbnb is seasonal. I only do it in the spring and summer, not in the fall and the winter. And the heating isn't required for comfort. No kitchen. This is incorrect. The guests have full access to the kitchen. No bathroom. This is untrue. Guests have their own full guest bathroom with hot and cold water. And in the timber frame, I always supply fresh drinking water. There's a small refrigerator and a coffee maker. No water. This is untrue. Guests have full access. access to a full bathroom and full kitchen 40 feet from the main house. I've enclosed photos of everything. The notice to cease operating as a short-term rental was emailed to me within hours of the inspection and came as a complete surprise. This did not allow for me to defend the complaints or explain that none of the violations existed. For the past five years, I have passed annual inspections by the former code enforcement officers. In the prior six years of doing Airbnb, there were no inspections. Past inspectors asked me directly where facilities were, kitchen, bathrooms, and clean and hot water were shown to them. So in here, I have all the permits. You can look at all the permits that I've received with it. Yeah, I'm leaving this for you. So the whole board's getting this. And here's my listing. I've compiled with the New York Fire Prevention. I installed a new smoke detector March 18th within an hour of him saying I needed it. See all the paperwork. Since March 19th, I've had to cancel all bookings, many repeat guests over the year, which affects my super host status and my income. I'm 70 years old. I'm on social security. Since March, my income has been severely impacted. The Airbnb income is vital to my ability to pay my real estate taxes in this town, insurance, and allows me to stay in the community. So my question is, what is the basis that the five previous years of certificates were issued as he put in the code in error? What does that mean? And the second one is, what are my pre-existing rights to the permits if any of the requirements have changed? So in here, I have the art studio permit I have, which was 1993. January 2000, I have the electric. I put a whole new electric. I just put a new roof on it. I have the certificate of compliance. I have the town of Rochester, all the permits for the last five years. I have pictures of the full kitchen. I have pictures of the bathroom. I have an aerial view of the parcel so that you can see how near it is to the house. And this is my letter of what I just read to you. So I don't know. So thank you for listening to me. And I'm glad I didn't get emotional. So this is new to me. So thank you.

And so if it's okay, I thought I would allow the board to just ask you any questions. Yes. I don't know.

I have one. Yeah. You live on property in the other facilities where the kitchen and the other access is. Yes, I've lived there for 41 years. Okay, I just want to make sure I had it right. That it's owner-occupied and you're on it. Yeah, and you can see. It's like a shared premises that within your owner, you occupy, and then sometimes your guests would occupy the same portion of the unit. Yes. Even though the rooms are separate, where they actually sleep is separate from the primary building. Exactly. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I had that right for the question.

Yes, that's correct. And besides the smoke detector, you're given no other path towards redemption. And what was the whole timeframe beginning in the end to like losing like the inspection to losing the permit to now?

He came March 19th and it's March 19th. So it says he had the violation to seize and desist, or he's going to find me and their daily fines. And I thought it was a little harsh. And you attempted further communication with the office? Yes, with Alyssa. It's in here. No, I talked to Alyssa, who's a doll. And she was also shocked. But I've dealt with Alyssa with other things. So she was just surprising. She goes, we'll work with you. So then it just, you know, so here I am.

Just unclear from your statement, are the bathroom facilities in the studio or?

It's in the house. There's a guest bathroom. Yeah. And you can look at the photos. So, you know, this is the, this is the Airbnb, the timber frame. So this is, this is it. Okay. That's a new roof. This is inside the kitchen. This is the Airbnb looking out. So it's that near. This is the full bathroom. This is, yeah, in the house. I also have port-a-potties and stuff like that. But I'm saying this is what they use with COVID. I did all that. But it's unnecessary. And this is how it's advertised. And so you can see. That's how this is the house right there. And that's it.

Are there any other questions? Have you ever had any issues with neighbors?

Not one. I have a super host rating. I have people coming from all over. Usually people sleep there and they go to all the restaurants, they go hiking. I mean, really, they don't really cook, they eat out and I keep a whole list of all the places near where they can enjoy themselves and hikes and that's really what it is.

And Nancy, you said it was before December of 2016 that you had started operating it?

Yeah, you can see it right here. There it is. You can look it up. It's been 11 years.

But you were active between 2016 and 2021? Yes.

Okay, cool. Yeah. But the inspections just started. So they started, you know, five years ago. Yeah, it was $100, then it was $200, and this last time it's $400. And the taxes went up from 2% to 4%. So everybody's getting paid. That one's not us. That's a county. Yeah, that's a county. Which is fair.

No, I understand. It's fine. It was once we had an actual law to be able to code them. So thank you. I'm just trying to see what's in the code of mail.

Do you have any other questions? But it's not laid out that there's any health, safety, sanitation reasons for revoking the permit? No.

The violation is...

the board backup and it it lists everything but right but it says it's missing but she's saying it's not missing so it's just not part of the actual unit that's the yeah that's it and it's it's listed in airbus and it's been passed you know well i remember nancy um from when we were passing the initial standard medical law this issue came up as far as then And I know there were several people that had non-atypical short-term rentals that they were using for their babies. And I thought then, and I worked draft legislation at the time, that we should figure out a way to incorporate that into the code. We talked about things like Tenter and these kinds of- Right.

Well, I had two Airstreams that were shut down.

Yeah.

Yeah. Overnight with no- Anyway, that's fine. I'm cool.

yeah well I I still think it's something that I as a board member would consider looking at you know whether or not we could make make find a way to make sure that these types of arrangements can comply with um or tell code yes can be incorporated and make sure they're not adverse impacts to the neighborhood but um I know at the time when I had brought that up the board was to do something like that.

Well, I could get letters from every neighbor of mine if you want it.

Well, and I appreciate that there's impacts to you in terms of this is something that's been operating and the sudden changes.

Yes, absolutely.

I just want to say I would support doing something, talking to the board about trying to figure out How to do that, because I think the issue from a code enforcement perspective is they have to follow building code. They have to follow what our code says. So that's what they're doing now.

Right. So it all passed. So something changed. Any other questions for Nancy?

Okay, thank you, Nancy, for joining us.

And you're going to leave notes with us. Yeah, this is for you. So I really appreciate your time very much.

Thank you. We are going to continue to discuss it. But we're just going to do that amongst ourselves now. But thank you. Okay, so what's the next thing that happens? Well, if you want to, you can take a seat and we're going to decide that right now. Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think number one, we have to, and Mary Lou and I talked about this this afternoon, we have to figure out for certain which of these two scenarios that are in the zoning code this falls under. Because if it's revoking an active permit, then this is our, then we would be the ones who would be making that decision. But if it's the permit was being renewed and reissued, we don't have a say in that if the code enforcement officer is saying the building doesn't meet code.

So I'm going to have to- Fire safety inspection either way.

Yeah.

Yes. Yes.

So Mary Lou, did you want to add anything to that? Yeah. I think first we kind of have to clarify things with the building department on that exact issue. But if it is code violations, and I'm so glad we have Nancy's perspective on this. And I do not know off the top of my head if the New York State Code allows the bathrooms, et cetera, to be in a separate building. So it may just be different interpretations by the former billing inspector and the current one. But I think we have to talk to him in the first instance. If it is fire code violations and he is sticking to his interpretation, the proper place for Nancy to go is actually the Secretary of State's office, they have a division on code enforcement. And she can make it, I don't know if it's called an appeal, but she can be in touch with them to see if they can make a determination as to whether or not she's in violation. I think step one is that we have to talk to Keith. and clarify this because it sounds like he went in, he made his determinations, he left, he wasn't there a long time. I don't know that Nancy got the opportunity to explain to him why past code enforcement officers said she was not in violation by having the spaces available in her home.

Didn't ask anything.

So I think that's probably a conversation we should have with him, Erin.

Okay.

And say, if you were aware or if she had showed you this space in your home, would you have made the same determination? And do you have to go look at that? But I think that's number one.

Okay. So I was hoping to get all this clarification by tonight, but I have a meeting with them Monday morning and then at our, I'll notify the board of which of these we're moving forward with. And that would be at our next meeting. And Nancy, we'll keep in touch with you and I'll let you know which path it looks like we would need to follow for this issue. Okay. Thank you.

Erin, do you mind if I zoom into your meeting or be on the phone with you and Keith? Oh, not at all. I don't think I have to drive out there and charge you for the travel time.

We have a standing meeting Monday mornings at 8.30 or every other Monday. So I was just going to do it then.

Okay. If you want to just give me a call when you get to this particular subject, that would be great. Thank you. All right.

Okay. We passed the moratorium on. Oh, yes.

Is the board interested in revisiting the possibility of a law that would govern these types of campsites or other? I mean, I'm happy to dust it off. I would tear it apart. Sally, what'd you say? I would be. Okay. I'll pick it up.

Especially if there's other sites and we're just going to be dealing with this again and again and again as things keep coming back up for review, then maybe we do need to review it.

I'll find it. Okay.

So moving on to the next agenda item, the battery energy storage system regulations. We passed a six-month moratorium, which I'm sure seems like a lot of time, but it happens before you know it. So I would like to get a sense of what path forward the board would like to see. We put in the moratorium that we wanted to do studies and analysis. So I want to get your direction on, like, are we going to hire someone? Are we going to look at the model local law and see where the open parts in that are? Like, what do you guys think in terms of putting a zoning regulation in place within our moratorium timeframe? or attempting to.

Well, the one. Sorry, that's all good. I was gonna say the one question I had in the model law is, it says you, you have to change your comprehensive plan to adopt it. And I'm not sure if that was this model or it's just the model. Is that might be a bigger issue. But I thought I thought the model law was fairly comprehensive. I think, you know, some of the discussion around other applications currently on the docket, I think we definitely need to look at some of the setbacks. Some of this seems like really generous in terms of how close you can be to different properties and things like that. But I thought the monologue was pretty comprehensive. And I think that we used it as a good start. I think the big thing for me would be John Pimentel, figuring out what zones, it makes sense, and. John Pimentel, The other thing that seemed weird to me was they don't. John Pimentel, I think they reference referring it to. John Pimentel, Maybe the local planning board, but I think we need to make sure that I know this is coming up in terms of an application, we have to make sure the fire district is included, and we should maybe even talk to the fire district as we're doing this as well.

Right. Yeah. Is there any plan to kind of coordinate with the Ulster County or New York State EMS emergency services? Just about making sure that where these are cited can kind of take the contingencies into flooding or fire risk mitigation. Same thing with the fire department. Just make sure that we have, you know, going in the same direction as other towns are. I think that would be something I'm interested in seeing. to make sure that everybody's kind of moving in the same direction on this. Do we have a consultant that's been suggested to us for any of this?

No, this is the first time we've actually talked about it, I think.

So I guess we figure out where to find somebody. Does our town planner have any insight?

I can ask Dave the... Ulster County Planning Board has been putting together some recommendations and I know I can reach out to the county because I know they also were involved in that emergency notification law that the county passed regarding issues with the systems. So Dennis, I can ask Dennis Doyle. and um dave yeah i'm curious what types of things they've come up with in their studies like what what are they studying well i do want to say i think a month or two ago i circulated a lot of um information to the board that had been sent to me that this is very like very studied technology there. I mean, there have it's new, but there also have been a lot of analysis of it. Um, so I think it's more about in the event that something were to go wrong, what do you need to have in place? Um, and how far should that use be, um, from people?

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Right so like traffic studies or. HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, So.

HAB-Charlotte Pitts, I do think the Ulster county playing board issues official recommendations to. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, And I can ask. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, If there. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Are any specific. consultants who we might want to engage with.

I mean, six months is going to be tight.

Yeah. I mean, just to reiterate, I think we're all supportive of this. It's just about making sure the siting and the zoning.

Yeah. I, yeah, I think, I know six months is going to be tight and we might have to renew the moratorium, but I personally want to make a commitment to renewable energy, um, And I do think that this is a technology that creates energy independence and supports a lot of the goals that I think we as a board have in terms of meeting those goals, like even in our own facilities and our own vehicles and things like that. I just don't, I didn't want to be like, oh, we have six months. I want to make sure we have a plan in place, make taking steps and use that six month mark as a goalpost to at least have, you know, accomplished something and not just like sit on it.

And these are larger scale systems. Yes.

Home systems are fine. Anybody can, people can still just like, get a permit. We approve that permit for those. Anything else on that topic? So next up, we have the real estate transfer tax discussion. Thank you to Claire and Penn for putting together your thoughts. I would like to give the board a little bit of background on this so that we have context for what it is we're talking about here. So as the board knows, last year we requested Home Rule Authority legislation to allow the town to put in place a real estate transfer tax that would go into a community housing fund, so a sister fund to the community preservation fund that we have passed that is actively generating tax revenue specifically for that fund. Last year, that legislation was put forth unbeknownst to us So assemblyman mayor introduced a legislation that was modeled after something else and they kind of put the town of Rochester in that legislation.

But we asked for it. They just didn't tell us.

We asked for it, but we didn't submit the model that they used. I don't recall a lot of last year, One of the biggest conversations we had was that we wanted to make sure that the percentage in that legislation was increased from 0.5% to 1%. So I know that we had that conversation because we put that in the Home Rule Authority resolution that we brought to them. Recently, I have been having lots of contact with our state legislators' offices because it is getting to the time when their session ends at the end of June. And I want to make sure that this bill goes through this year so that we have a chance of putting it on the ballot this year. And the deadline for that is August 3rd. So not a lot of time, but doable.

So the deadline for... Us determining whether it goes on the ballot is August 3rd?

Yeah, so if this passes, we can then introduce a local law that would establish the real estate transfer tax, and then it's subject to mandatory referendum. And the deadline for us passing that law and getting that in so that it's on the ballot is August 3rd.

But the first deadline is June 30th, which is the rule.

Right. Yeah. I think they adjourn sooner than that. So I've been making sure that they are on it. And one thing that they were not on is they had not changed the percentage of half percent to one percent. So I've been in touch with both of those offices and I've received a verbal commitment that that change is indeed going through. So what the members of the Housing Advisory Committee brought to me is that last year when we were discussing this issue with them, in all of the correspondence that they sent to the board on the topic and the requests and suggestions they had for what we should be making sure was in the Home Rule Authority legislation was this idea that The exemption only applies to real estate sales. The medium home sale price exemption that exists, our community preservation fund real estate transfer tax has that same exemption. So you don't pay a real estate transfer tax on $450,000 of any sale. So if it's less than that, there's no tax. If it's more, you only pay on that portion. And the, um, the document that Claire submitted to us shows, um, that in a side by side, what they are requesting we do is if the sale of the, um, is a million dollars or more, there's no exemption. So once you hit that benchmark, that exemption goes away. So in the community, what we're used to is that exemption doesn't go away and it just stands. And that was in all of the correspondences we'd have received last year about the community preservation fund, real estate transfer. I don't remember. I like made it up or we did talk about this briefly at a board meeting where I thought I remember the board saying, We don't want to do that. We just want to increase the 1%. I don't know if anyone else remembers even talking about this, but that's the number one thing. The second thing is, does the board like this concept? Would we want to include this in this Would we want our real estate transfer tax to have that exclusion, the million dollar exclusion? That's another question. And then the third question is, there might not be time. Basically, I have to send the language in writing to the legislative head. And then they decide whether or not they're going to introduce that amendment. And I also don't want anything to tank this. So I really want this to go through and I would love to see this on the ballot. So that's my piece. I know Charlotte, you also have, you said you had things you wanted to say, so I can turn the floor over to you. And then I just wanted to hear from the board about about if, number one, do you remember having that conversation? Number two, what do you think about the exclusion? And number three, should I lobby for that change?

So the only things I wanted to add to what you said, Erin, is for background, one, this exclusion is in the original town's law that we are using as precedent for making this law a transfer tax. that's in South Holds and the floor, if five, I cannot remember, I think it's four other townships in Long Island that have it all have this exclusion because it was based on their let verbiage was based off of South Holds and that's where ours is. And so all of them have this. So it would be odd for us to not put it in there as far as full state perspective wise, if we're not gonna match the townships that we had the precedent of. And then that being said, I do also share the concerns with what's gone on with the reassessment and the changes and values of homes. And I support what I think Ken's suggestion from the committee that had come out of, instead of moving it a dollar amount, we make it a certain percentage above of the median household income, of the median home sale. So whether we make that 200%, which right now would be just over a million anyway, That's fine with me because as the market fluctuates, that will also change. I think that anyone who can afford double the median sale price of the homes in town could afford the 1% tax for housing myself. And I am excited to hear other people's thoughts on it.

My understanding from the conversation that we don't have was that the terms and the revenue structure, fee structure would be the same as for the community preservation fund. I would also oppose the exclusion as the housing committee has requested. There's already a 1% transfer tax for properties automatically incurred by the state. I think that what happens with the exclusion is there's a, when you look at it numerically, there's a cliff rather than a gradual marginal increase in tax return. So for those reasons, I would impose the exclusion. I think that the exemption for the median sales appropriate, as it is for the Community Preservation Fund, but that it's actually applied equally for all properties with irrespective of their subprice. I think that the example of the laws that we are comparing this to are all Long Island properties where HAB-Masyn Moyer- To be hard pressed to find anything most of the million dollars.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- that's not necessarily true zali there's a lot of under their median sale price way less than that actually more comparable to ours than most townships and ulster county. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I appreciate your opinion on that I personally look at this and the Community preservation transfer tax. HAB-Masyn Moyer- As a way to ensure that. The people who are buying homes and moving into our neighborhood are also willing to buy in on the values of this community, which are preserving our natural resources and making sure that there's a variety of different socioeconomic availability of housing stock. So I think if someone's not willing to pay those when they buy a house in town at that value, then they can find another town that doesn't have the transfer tax myself. Because I think that that shows what the issues are that we see all the time here between the divide in town of us versus them a lot of the times. And a lot of it has to do with the community values is what we hear brought up and that they don't want the community character change. And so these things are a way to ensure that not only that people are still welcome in, but that they will match the community character in some ways. when purchasing homes.

But we're also the only county outside of Long Island, the only town outside of Long Island that's proposing such a tax.

Yeah, it's hard to be a trendsetter.

Well, should we be a trendsetter?

We would be a trendsetter by not putting it in there.

Why are we? I mean, I sort of have a... Everyone else did it, so... Excuse me, I'm speaking. I do kind of have a problem with being the trendsetter and setting legislation that should be something that is a model for the state. Well, that's ambitious, and kudos to us doing it. Do we really have the resources as a town to establish that type of policy? Are we better off or are we better off as we are with the battery storage system? example and the Community Preservation example tagging on to things that other states, I mean other towns have gone through the great expense and time of drafting and vetting and recognizing that most of those towns or many of those towns have significantly greater resources to devote to the development of legislation like that, which we simply do not have. We can barely keep the toilets in this building running.

This would give us more money to have to use for projects in town and for things. And also, we would be doing the same thing as other towns had set before us. If that's not clear, we would be doing, if we don't put this in, we are the odd man out of any town that's done this tax law if we don't put the exclusion in. Everyone else has before now. We would be the first one not to do it. Just because I got confused at the end of what you were saying, Sally, because it sounded like you were agreeing that we should do what the precedent is set by other townships who have been successful and done this and spent the bulk of the work and the money on this process already.

But there is no statewide legislation for both. Those are all home rule exclusions, if I'm not mistaken.

I put the... I went ahead and put the chart that Claire submitted. So people who are watching on Zoom or in the audience that this is the chart we were talking about. Alexis or Michael, did you have any?

I just want to say that my recollection was that we were going to mirror both the RETTs on the same formula. So this is a little bit of a surprise. That's just what my recollection of the conversation was last year.

Yeah, I recall that it was intentional that we just did the 1%, but I couldn't find the recording. of the discussion. And so it was like, didn't know if we just never even thought about it. So I wanted to, the request has been coming in very strongly from the housing advisory committee. So I wanted to make sure that we talked about it, but it is perhaps 11th hour. It could also be too late to get this in this year. So I just want to caveat that.

Yeah. I don't remember having that conversation. I remember saying that we wanted it to match the percentage and making the percentages match specifically myself. And I just lost my other point, so I'll go on someone else.

Well, I'm not helping remembering what was discussed. I certainly support progressive tax structures. And I think There is a possibility that I would support something like this. I would not peg into a dollar figure. I think it needs to be a percentage based off of the median sale price. But I very much want this to pass this year. I think I would not be comfortable with the recommendation, which is saying, you know, just adding language about a million dollars. I think it needs to be brought through and have a percentage associated with it. I'm worried that that will create concern in the legislature or the Senate and that will sink this. There's not a lot of time at all If it did just sell through, I'd also be worried that people aren't actually reading what they were voting on. So that's a separate.

Yeah, I was going to say, I think we need to bring up reading through everything again in meetings then since all of us are having this issue.

Well, I'm talking about the legislature. I also think it has the potential to complicate the discussion locally with residents about what this is and

Especially after assessment values have changed.

Yeah. I mean, we're talking what, like $5,000 tax? But that $5,000, that would not be included.

This year, if say we had that in place, it would be year to date a difference of $9,000.

It would be a difference of $9,000 in terms of what we Received. Yeah.

Over three months. That's only one. That's one quarter.

Yeah. That's over three months. Yeah. Sorry. I said year to date. Um, I mean, my, I, my, based on the conversation I had with the chief of staff, um, I'm more focused on making sure that percentage is 1%. Like that is something I know that I can push and that I can be successful with. I think, you know, I don't wanna like play a violin, but I've worked very hard to put this, to move this forward. And I really want it to pass because I really want us I mean, I personally want to take the win. I personally feel really proud of this and the proud of the collaboration we did with the housing advisory committee. And I think it could be a springboard for the county. I know they're looking at this. I know they want to make a similar request. it's also possible that they could include this exclusion and then we would be able to include it in the future. So I don't think that that necessarily ends with this, but like I said, I don't even know if there's time for, or if they're willing to put this amendment in. I think that's, you know.

I think we absolutely need to have the 1% in there. Oh, the other thing, I don't remember the other thing. Does anyone remember me arguing with them about this last year? With who? With the board when we discussed it, because I wouldn't have let that exclusion go without putting up a stink about it. So if no one remembers me arguing about it in a meeting, then I don't remember having to argue with anyone about it and try to give pushback on keeping it in there. So That's why I don't believe that it was only about the percentage. But personally, this whole process has just been disappointed on so many levels of government. Whatever we can do to make sure it's on the ballot at this point, the public can levy us if they think that we should be getting that $40,000 plus extra dollars a year and have that exception in there because it can go back on the ballot for change next year. But I'm also insanely proud of all of the hard work that the housing committee has put into the past two years to this process and to trying to get this to happen and advocating constantly and lobbying us and our state representatives and people around town and meeting with experts, meeting with the townships that did this and all the homework that they did for us for this. So to them, I'm sorry that that exclusion is not going to go in one of five votes.

The future change to this requires a change in Albany. What were you saying about the county might include it though?

Well, I guess I was just using us as the example. So if we don't have it, they're not going to have a harder time to get it in there.

Oh, I thought you were saying if the county does add it.

I was saying that in, if the county were to put for, because the community preservation is a tri-county home rule. So it's Ulster and two other counties. It's not a statewide legislation. So that was what allowed us to do that. And I know that the county is interested in doing home rule authority for this as a county.

So if they lobbied the state to pass a law that allowed for them to speak at that,

I would have to vote on it again. We would still have to. Any changes to, well, the way that it's phrased is the way it's phrased on the ballot is any exemptions we are allowed. That's how it was phrased on the ballot.

But so I that's that's a that would be. So as of right now, not unless the town. Press. Unless the county passes one for the 200% or $1 million value sale, we can't because it's not an exception that exists in.

Amy Nunez, Our township or an account in a governing body over us to fall down to our town right well, so the only yeah would this tax is only allowable for this one would only be allowable for this one purpose with any exemptions that were allowed for that purpose. if the Home Rule Authority Bill is to pass.

So if ours passes this year, we cannot add that exemption on until New York State or Ulster County, a following presidential year ballot passes the same thing? I'm saying- Yes, that's the process if we can't put on ours.

We could also request that our Home Rule Authority Bill were amended in the future.

Mary Lou, is that also subject to mandatory referendum then?

She's on mute. It is. She gave a thumbs up.

It would be subject to mandatory referendum, yes.

Just so you guys know, I'm about 100 pages HAB-Masyn Moyer- And so far, to the assessment role and so far only 15 property be subjected would be at this exemption in 100 pages parcels this for perspective.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- I mean I don't. HAB-Masyn Moyer- My like I guess I don't know if this means anything, but I think I also was we didn't given how important the. this came to me like last week with this, the urgency, I was surprised that we didn't talk about it at all. So I think it did, I did feel a little, you know, I don't know how we, I don't know how we didn't, if it was in, if it was that important, how did we not Like, talk about it.

I guess I'm just... If anyone said to take it out, we would have talked about it because it's important to me to keep it in there. But if we didn't say anything to take it out, why would we have... Like, if it was an initiative no one brought up to remove it, then we wouldn't have discussed it. is what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. I don't think we should be using SharePoint anymore. Like we're not talking about things and like, we don't know if people are going through things in the meetings for like this exact example. Like, we're not sure if we had an issue with this or not because we didn't, we aren't actually discussing things start to finish in meetings anymore. And I personally find that frustrating in the process, but we can go on to the next agenda item. I think that it's clear on that while we're here, so.

I guess I don't know what you mean. It wasn't in the fill that we, it wasn't in the legislation that was.

You mean the backup from our meeting?

No, I mean, I'm saying everything, we weren't using SharePoint last year. Everything that the housing advisory committee sent us was circulated to the town board. And I'm just saying the legislation urgency that came up in the past couple weeks about it, I just was surprised that we didn't talk about how that needed to be included at all when we were doing the home rule resolution. That's all. I'm just, if it was something that, that's all. I just don't, that's. Can we clarify anything? Are we allowed to say anything? I don't know how you would clarify whether or not the town board talked about it or not.

Well, I can actually. I looked at all the videos in which this item was discussed, having been involved in looking at the original legislation. It was not discussed. And I know why it was not discussed. And it's not anybody's fault, really. Because if you remember what happened, we sent up a proposal. We started a discussion with the state legislators and they introduced the law without even talking to you guys. And they use the model from the statewide legislation. And the statewide legislation actually includes an exemption, but if you opt in for the exemption, you have to have an exclusion. The statewide bill that was proposed by the Assemblywoman in Dutchess County sets the exclusion at $2 million. But it was, if you're going to have an exemption, you need to have an exclusion because not everybody needs to have that exemption. So that's one thing for the historical record. And the second thing is that when we were talking about it, if you remember, there was really no hope that it was going to get through the legislature last year. So I think the view from the committee was when this comes up for discussion at the town board, we will have, we will revisit it. And that didn't happen because, you know, you had the discussions with Aaron, with the legislators to make sure the percentage was corrected and that was done. And that was very important. But this issue of the exclusion, It is not quite as important as the percentage, but it would be at least 30% of the fund. So you would be giving up 30% of the community housing fund, which is barely enough to make any impact. I mean, realistically, you know, I think Zali has made some points in the past that, you know, what can you do with $200,000, $250,000 a year? I mean, I think the answer is you can leverage it. And that's why it's a good idea. But if you give up the exclusion, you are giving up about 30% of the income, which as Claire's chart shows, comes from those higher valued homes. And whether or not it's a million dollars or 200%, that's where some of the main contributions are. So it was never discussed previously just by, it was just happenstance. It wasn't because it wasn't important to you guys, to the committee, to the community. It was just one of those things. It's an artifact of the way the legislature, the legislators dealt with the town. Honestly, I think that was it. So just, I'm sorry to be speaking out of turn here if I won't, but those are important things to keep in mind. There was a statewide precedent. There was precedent for both an exemption but the exemption included an exclusion. We picked a million because the statewide exclusion at 2 million has to cover counties like Westchester and Nassau County, where the median would be a million. So then there would be, you know, there would be no, there would be no, nobody would be paying back. So anyway, that's it. So that's it. So, you know, look, we're appreciative of everything you've done to try and advance this. We think it's a good thing for the community. But that's the reason why, if you wanted to know why it hasn't been discussed, it's not because it wasn't important.

Well, we did have it on an agenda in December and then we did have it again on an agenda in January where we made sure that the 1% was in that resolution. I think that's what I'm saying is like, we did, it's not like we didn't, it's not like the board hasn't talked about

this at all since for a year we've been talking about it you know quite a bit so i think i just don't know you know i'm you know i just that's yeah but i just have emails from you that have that included that when you were preparing for this resolution that has that million dollar exclusion included in the resolution that i wrote you just were laying it out in preparation for the for the discussion with the board. And it had that in there.

So you're saying I presented a resolution to the board that had that in there and then it got taken out?

But it was just a, no, that you, it was included as a subject matter of the resolution of this exclusion. So it was there, but I don't know. It wasn't discussed or decided on. It wasn't, that's what he was proposing that it wasn't, Discussed during that time. And that's why it's not there.

Yeah, just as a point of correction to Charlotte as a tentative role. There are 185 properties in town.

So a little bit more than 10% Yes, there are other exemptions.

Yeah, there are other exemptions so

HAB-Masyn Moyer- um I mean. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It sounded like. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The board wants to move forward with how it the majority of the board wants to move forward with how it is I don't I don't think anyone's opposed to the exclusion I think it's the. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Well. HAB-Masyn Moyer- um okay. I had wanted to also have the model local law introduced to you guys tonight, but I ran out of time. I want to get that on the table so that we have a lot of time to review it, make sure it's tight so that we're not having issues where we have things that we didn't catch. So hopefully I'll have that. ready at our next meeting, just so we have that ready to go when, hopefully, when the bill passes in June.

So everyone out there, call up our representatives up in Albany and tell them that you want our home rule law passed for the town of Rochester for a housing transfer tax. Bombard them with letters, emails, calls. Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell people who don't live in our town and still want to call them for us.

Yes. They do respond to that. Yes.

I mean, if they get three calls, they'll respond to that. Yeah. If everyone in this room makes a call before the end of June and their session closes, it'll pass, guys. All right?

Can you give us the phone number?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We'll post a little, we can do that on the housing committee site. We can do like a little bullet points of the pros of the RETT and to encourage people to call.

Yeah, absolutely. I do think that our town supports this and I think it feels good. This is like, to me, the most important thing that we're doing. And when we get the contract for our grant, we'll be able to move forward with the community housing planning project. So moving on to the town job vacancy and hiring procedure. So we have three open, we have three job postings and I've gotten like 60 applicants Um, and I personally don't have time. I usually am the one, you know, man leading all the hiring. Um, but the, I was going to ask, so here's my proposal. So I linked to the positions, um, and I've spoken with the departments and I would like to work with, um, the assessor and the deputy building inspector together to start vetting, screening, and interviewing applicants for those, the two clerk positions. But I was going to ask the town board if there could be maybe a hiring subcommittee for the transfer station attendant job, because I have been failing on that one because I don't have a department head. You know, it's helpful when I have a supervisor or department head that I can you know, interface with. So I was going to ask if you guys were interested in taking that on. And if so, we, I need to get you in to Indeed and getting those interviews scheduled because that some people applied like a few weeks ago. So I feel.

I think you can read a lot and I'm happy to schedule interviews. I don't know if that's what you want to do.

Is there a list? As soon as possible. We got through the hardest part, which I guess, yes, I should give a huge recognition to Paul, who was the, by happenstance, the only employee who was available for an entire week. Harry stepped in and juggled covering shifts and worked overtime over the weekend to make sure Saturday was covered. And Michael covered all day Tuesday because we knew it was going to be busy. So everybody kind of came together and pitched in and it was good. I, I would say it wasn't like everybody covered it and it ended up being great. So, but however, it happens sometimes that two people like unexpectedly have to be out. And then just one person there is like, it's not tenable to have one person there. So it's, As soon as possible. That if you read the job descriptions, that position, we are looking for someone who might be able to split some of their time because there are times where a fourth person is too much. So having that person do some grounds work was part of it.

we still only have just one right so that one is one vacancy yeah yeah listings yeah yeah i am gone for 10 days from saturday for my actual like physical and personal schedule i'm not opposed to doing like a zoom interview if we needed an ambassador for them but i can still do all the reach out and try to spend it on if that works for you we'd still be in the next two weeks just

What I would do is check in with the staff and just make sure that that timeline matches and make sure nobody's planning any vacations. Yeah, I can do that. I can double check the schedule. Usually we do that with two. We do the interview process with two people.

So is there another? Yeah, it was all the last time frame. So that's what I was just saying. I don't want you in person until 10 days from Saturday when I'm back. Okay. Yeah, and you're fine. I can do it.

Okay. Okay, great. And then you'll bring, it sounds like in a month, could possibly have recommendations.

Maybe by the workshop. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And. Okay. Okay. Can I ask a quick question just about employees and departments of Just Home? Yeah. Just because we've got, like, I feel like this year we bulked up a lot of departments, which I'm very happy and pleased about, but I wanted to make sure because every time we do one of these, like, a new position or add something into, like, our civil service, I, like, have, like, an almost, like, PTSD flashback to when Kate cut her deputy for us to save the budget, and I feel like we still have not made up that manpower in some way for you, because you lost that person, then you lost your other clerk to a different department transferring, and I, and you're sharing half of Clarkswood Highway, so I just want to make sure that your department is personnel-wise like in pre-thought of next year of budget season like you could use another body right just and yes like without thinking hey the clerks yeah i mean i probably work over 50 hours a week and it's it's a lot but it's how it's been so

I've been one of those that's willing to share with other departments because I do understand that there's times where one department might be busier than another. But my department's also the only department that interacts with every single department. So if there's an issue in one department, it does affect my department as well. I wasn't expecting you to ask this.

No, it wasn't on my mind until I was looking at the three different departments. departments, and then I was like, wait, and I was counting how many employees we have in each, and you have the same amount of employees as almost all of these departments after these hires.

Well, I only have one full-timer, but I, oh, okay.

I mean, I mean, physical people, like the number of bodies that you could have in the building in the office at one time. So, okay. Thank you. And we, Kate and I were going to talk about that too. Mm-hmm. Cool. Yeah. I just, I saw it and I was just like, wait a minute. How many do we have now? It was the clerk and the clerk to code enforcement.

I mean, I do, I do want to say, this is going to come up in our, the budget modification conversation, but I don't know how we're going to pay for this. Just so you know, I don't know how we're going to pay for this. I don't know how we're going to pay for what we next year. I think we need two more full-time people, one in your department. So I don't know how we're going to pay for it. Just so you guys know, I literally have no idea how we're going to pay for this.

Well, the transfer station is back.

The not yet. The transfer station. That one's not. But the other two is not budgeted. Technically new people, new body. Don't know how we're going to pay for it. We're just moving forward with what we talked to that we were going to do and we're figuring it out. We're laying the tracks while the train is driving. So code enforcement software. I as I put on the agenda, um, I didn't, I went ahead and just did email intros to move it forward. Um, so did you guys have any contact with them that I wasn't copied on?

Well, I have two schedules. Yeah. All right. My full schedule though. I just didn't respond with my daughter's birthday.

Yeah. So you guys, um, can you make sure you do those in time to make to see if we can make a decision by June 11th. And if you're like, red flag, don't really want to make a decision this fast, that's fine. But that's kind of the schedule I'm trying to keep us on. And Alexis and Zali, did you guys have anything else on that? I think you both said that you didn't feel like you needed to. Okay. All right. Just an update. I'm trying to move things along with the roadway safety limit reduction project that we've been talking about. I linked to a correspondence I had with Brian Slack at Ulster County Department of Transportation. He wrote up a really helpful sort of memo for us to use of like, here's kind of what you need to do. so he also said that um it's a little more complicated that we can't decrease town road speed limits to 25 um we have to do 30 is like but we can have 25 mile per hour areas so it's just like a little bit more complicated and speed zones yes recommendation recommended speeds yeah

Oh, you mean, could we post that? That's not enforceable. It's recommended though. I think it's the difference between speed limit and speed zones. Like when you go in a school zone, you can't, even though like right in front of the school, you can't go over 25, but the rest of the road is 35 or whatever. I think that that's difference in definition of what it is for it. Yeah.

So then he's linked to the authoritative document on the establishing linear speed limits for the 25 mile per hour, and then tells us what procedures we need to follow. And then of course, there's also, Just so you guys are aware, the Traffic Safety Board is doing a full countywide study, but they're not going to have any findings for a year. So basically, I asked Brian, like, do you think it's worth it for us to do anything? And he said, yeah, because I think there's going to be other recommendations other than low speed limits, because obviously, like, that's only one of the tools. So... You know, it's a little bit like a big project in a sense, or we collect information and try to see what fits. And then basically we would be requesting that they do a study. That's basically what we would be doing. Because I don't think we want to pay for that. um so how do we i hear from the public about this i think you probably do too because you did all that outreach sally i hear from the public about this so i want to move it forward so do we have like other can can someone else be the project lead on this

Sorry, I'm still trying.

So that would mean compiling all those suggestions from town, from people in town and coming up with the companies.

Yeah. Yeah. And then also it's helpful, even if you're bugging me like to, hey, let's like get this decided for the board meeting. That's helpful. But it's hard for right now. It's hard for me to be the head of it. So that would be great.

I want to jump on these committees if somebody can find me a babysitter for the end of June.

Yeah. Awesome.

Oh, did you just sign?

It actually goes to both seats. She's 16. Yeah, I'm kidding. What road is this for? What's the thing? I'm just trying to do. Oh, can I see what you're? Yeah. Yeah. That is a link to an example that he thinks is a good model for us to illustrate his point.

But we are going to be doing several, we want to request several. Okay. Okay. There wasn't one specific. I told her and basically let him know, hey, we're not just wanting to do this for one road. We want to do it for a bunch. We think it's worth it. How do we do it? And he sent me this guidance. How long does it go down? I'm happy to help on post-5H. Great.

Since I live on probably the most requested.

Okay. So now we're at to the Verizon cell tower discussion item. I would like to do the follow-up that I... talked about at the last meeting. So if you recall, at our last meeting, I knew that I had received the notice of seeker determination from the planning board. And I was confused because I was like, are we, did I receive this because we are um, an involved agency or, but I received it because I'm the town supervisor. So we are not an involved agency, which means that we are not being asked to comment. Um, because we don't have, we don't have any authority over this decision and we don't have any financial stake in the project. So we Um, we are not an agency that has any decision-making authority, but somewhat, you know, the DEC would be, um, an involved agency. Um, the Ulster County planning board, usually I believe because they have the, the referral. So we receive, I received it as a FYI. I shared it with the board. Um, and you know, I guess I just, uh, thought it would be helpful to hear from Mary Lou on the topic on some of the questions you were asking Alexis about like, what is the risk of the town board weighing in at this point at all? And what does that mean? So.

Okay. The planning board is a completely independent board from the town board. Your only obligation is to appoint the members. I guess, are public hearings still open? Because you could, if the board wanted to, you could comment at a public hearing. And I don't know if they've closed their public hearings or not. I think otherwise, it's probably not appropriate for you to make a suggestion with regard to the seeker outside of a public hearing, because you shouldn't be influencing their decisions. Right.

Mary Lou, is there a comment period on the conditional and negative?

I don't believe there is. You know, those comment periods would be if it had been a positive deck.

I thought for conditional negative.

It is, and that's the referral notice I got.

Oh, yeah, the comment is from the involved agencies. Exactly.

I see, okay.

And to be an involved agency, you have to either be financing, you have to be a state, local government, either financing an application or having approval authority over the application, which you don't have here. Or it has to be your application. Like when you folks do a local law that requires secret review, then you're an involved agency.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

You're not an involved agency here. So I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about after it had, you know, been made for sure.

Mary Lou, just because you'll remember as our lawyer better, did we ever pass that requested stipulation for planning board applications before it that they have to have all violations and fees paid on the parcel? No, right? We didn't put that through. Okay. My biggest issue with this is... HAB-Juliette Boone, There is a building that is filled with mold and unsafe housing for people there and we are going to let them build more unsafe things on the property and I just don't and I know that our hands are tied by the that's being a separate board from the planning board. My hands are especially tied because my father is a tenant there. But I find this whole thing frustrating when there's people without fire alarms or smoke detectors or fire extinguishers in some of those apartments. And they've been condemned on and off for the past 10 years. And they won't have any environmental effect on that property.

No.

I'm very frustrated at the whole thing, but I think myself, I need to be abstained from it from my own personal bias, from my knowledge of the residents there. Oh, and also their water is getting threatened to be shut off by the owner of the Granite Hotel because their water comes from that hotel. So not only are they going to be living under a cell phone tower, they're not going to have any clean water like they do for two weeks every summer when they fill their swimming pool. Don't get me started on that apartment complex, guys. I've had friends who have lived there for 20 years, and my father has lived there for the past six.

So, like, so far as issues with water and things, I would assume that someone has contacted the health department? Yes, yes.

Yeah, I've been... A tenant has a child who's on a government body. Yeah. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had any of it.

Yeah. Yeah.

So I don't, I was trying to find out, so the comment period for the secret identification is the thing I've, that's what we've been talking about. And that ends June 8th. I don't know if the public hearing is still open. So if the public hearing is still open, So does the board want to issue a comment for the public hearing?

And I think you also have to remember, you know, whatever you folks feel is right, is right. Do you want to look at all of the information before them? I don't know if you've looked at that. everything that they've considered. You got a lot of information tonight. I don't know if people have looked at the reports that were referenced and I have not at this point because I'm the ZBA attorney and oh, and I just want to correct something. Someone said that it had been that the applicant had withdrawn their ZBA application. That's not totally correct. They've asked that it be put on hold until after the planning board makes its decision. So there's still the possibility that it will be a ZBA matter. We don't know yet.

Then we move together as a body or do we vote on what to do next?

I mean, you can, as residents of the town, you can If the public hearing is still open, you can comment as a resident of the town.

If we wanted, if we had any comments as a board?

No, that's what I was, huh?

I think they did. I mean, someone from Flannery just texted me and said that town board was invited to provide honest public hearing.

That's what I'm, no, what I'm, what I'm talking about is I received that you guys, I sent it to you. the notice of secret determination. And that at our last meeting, I said, are they inviting us to comment as an involved agency? Or did I just receive this as the town supervisor? Because the email I got didn't match the cover letter that I got. And I got clarification since that meeting that I was just receiving that letter as the supervisor, because in the code, it says that it should be sent to the town supervisor as a FYI. Right, as an informational letter. Not as an invitation for the town board to comment on the secret determination.

But I would support a general comment outlining concerns that were raised at the meeting today, doing it collectively as the town board during the comment period as a written comment.

Yes, thank you. So what we would have to do is a motion authorizing one of us to drop that and then submit it on behalf of the board.

By the gym.

Yeah, which is soon. And we've got two people on vacation. Right. Do you support this.

Well, we'd have to, we'd have to meet before. I would not, I would not want to weigh in on anything related to secret determination. There's a period if we wanted to declare a lead agency or we wanted to be involved in Seeker, we could have made a case for that and PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The planning board has done an extensive amount of work on this project, so I would not as a board want to say you should do a positive declaration, you should. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, make any changes related to see here, I do think the issue that a lot of people have expressed here about the concerns about how close it is to. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The residential structure, I think that's something I would support highlighting I know that the board was looking at citing it on different parts of the parcel I don't know. why uh that didn't end up happening if i have to look back and see what the discussions were around that um but i certainly don't want as a board to be perceived as you know yeah putting putting a thumb on the scale in terms of the secret determination that the board spent an extensive amount of time on but mary lou i think that it would be appropriate for us to summarize the comments that we've learned to to um

to advocate on, to present those viewpoints to the planning board, even though I'm sure that they've received them directly.

So what do you think about, and Kate, this puts a little pressure on you, what do you think about sending them a copy of the draft minutes to make them aware that they came to your meeting with these comments?

That does put a lot of pressure on Kate.

It does. Kate's closing out time soon. She's just beginning down a full-time staff member and still has about 40 foils before her. So this being done before the A battle.

Or send them a link to the YouTube video and say, you know, there's many, many concerns. You may be aware of these. They may be aware of everything from public hearings. Yes. However, we wanna make sure that you're aware that they came before the board with these comments. That's another way to do it without weighing in or trying to, I don't wanna say sway, because I know that's not what you're trying to do. But they're a separate board.

I think we can summarize the comments that were presented to us at this meeting, certainly.

Yeah, I probably could get it done because most of them are going to be emailed to me.

But I wouldn't do it as a family of draft tenants.

Yeah. I mean, to me, there's two things. I think, well, there's two maybe things that are valuable in us maybe synthesizing if we have a concern as a board Um, number one, and I've every person. that's met with me about this issue, I have also made this clear, but I understand the public perception of the planning board because I'm on that side of the table and I get told that too. I get that you're not listening or I will, this planning board works very hard and I don't think that anyone is, not is phoning it in or is just pushing this through or is a liaison to Verizon. They take this very seriously. I'm projecting when I say this, but I think it's kind of like how we all feel. It's not like anybody is like enthused to see this cell tower, but like all of us planning board members take an oath of office and we they have a duty to follow the law and the code. I know that people keep talking about they're afraid of getting sued, but there's another part of it, which is the duty to follow the code and the law and to do what it's telling you to do. And I know that they take that seriously because I watch their meetings. And so part of me, I just want to stress that because I think that a comment is also an opportunity to acknowledge all of the work and effort that they have put into this and all of the other applications that they review. And I think the second thing is that there are things that people have brought to us that I think putting our viewpoint out particularly the proximity to the apartment complex. And, you know, I, for one, want to make a commitment to, you know, echoing what we thought from public and from Councilman Coleman, that we need to make a commitment to fix that because, like, that's on us. And if the planning board had a thousand foot buffer, you better believe that they would be making sure that it was a thousand foot buffer. And, you know, I think that it's helpful to both synthesize, I don't know, but synthesizing the feedback. I, you know, I am concerned about that, but I also have not been following this application as closely as the members of the public have. And so again, I, you know, a lot of the questions that are, have come up for me, I feel like I need to go watch meetings and read minutes and figure out why, you know, like what is their thinking behind this? But the concerns of not having established the tree line height and, you know, I do feel like we have to fact check all of that if we're going to assert, you know, I don't want to I don't know everything that has transpired throughout that process. So, but.

This is dissuasive because I really hope that you guys all keep it up. And I got involved in the town board because they wanted everybody to gas station them. It was affecting me and I got really involved. And the best thing that happened was they pulled out the project out. So that's always, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but there's a possibility if there's that kind of like passion. She's shaking her head no, but I'm just saying like, Keep keep talking.

To pay for the lawsuit.

there's always a lot of will this last summer, though it's always awesome work.

Your time.

I agree, I think we need to update those chapters in our zoning code, I think, in general, we need to. look at specifically i don't think we need to change the actual chapters maybe but we definitely need to look at uh appendix c we need to look at our schedule abuses because just from a housing perspective it's we make it impossible for anyone to build anything but a single family home by anything but a site plan approval if it's not single family home or or uh multi or two um two family housing like which is wild and that's one of the reasons that we don't have any developments So I think in general, we need to look at those, the schedule of uses and what's site plan approval, what special use permit, what do we need to take out to make it undefined so it comes before us to be reviewed HAB-Masyn Moyer- It needs that level there's things like cell phone towers, or we did the same thing with gas stations and we did the same thing with. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Commercial events space, we had too many issues with trying to regulate and. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The applications coming in and then getting article 78 because the public didn't felt felt you listen to during the process, so then those got removed and now if anyone tries to apply for an undefined. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Use in our zoning code, they could put that application into the town board, not the plan for it, so I think that we should heavily look into that. If we're going to... Side note, from right into the planning board, what we actually have authority over and can legally do, we can legally do.

So I guess just trying to... If we're going to comment as a body, how are we going to do this? Get it in by June 8th. Oh, you were going to ask Mary Lou.

Yeah, Mary Lou, the one thing that has come up is this idea that the 1996 Telecommunications Act allows them to extend an additional 20 feet. And my understanding was if there's a site plan, an approved site plan, and they wanted to make a change to the site plan, they would have to go back before the board. Does the federal law trump that?

I think so. Well, federal law rules. But I would I would defer to Dave Gordon because he is the planning board attorney. So I don't want to opine on that because it would be a planning board issue.

Because I think at the very least, the space that is offset from the building should account for that in terms of what we would say to the planning board. They should factor in an assumed additional height to make sure that it's still... Yeah, I know they have like breakaway technology where the breakthrough break in the middle or something. But at the very least, I think I would want to advocate for them moving it very far away from the residents. But absent that, I think they at least need to account for that issue that comes up.

Also, road access. The residents that live in that apartment can barely get into it because the driveway is so poorly upkept. I've had to help my dad green beam two of his tires in the past five years from them popping from the potholes there and they've never paved it and it's worse every winter. So they're going to have to have engineering trucks in there. We should also make sure that their parking standards are up to snuff so that it doesn't impede on those residents more.

Aaron, back to your question.

Yep. If you're going to have one of you draft the letter, you would then have to vote on, you'd have to have a special meeting to vote on that. Because just like passing it back and forth and kind of getting a consensus, that's doing town business and that has to be done in open meeting.

So do you guys want to do that?

I think this is too important if it's what we're doing.

yeah. i'm i'm standing you guys don't want me to write it it'll be too long.

Okay um okay. let's look at our calendars. um. Yeah, I can't do June 4th. So the, I know.

June 3rd.

I can do June 3rd. June 3rd? Afternoon. Afternoon. We'd have to have the, sorry, afternoon or in the afternoon? In the afternoon. Not in the, as opposed to in the evening. Well, no, no. Afternoon or later. Oh, okay. Yeah, I can do that. How about you, Michael? I should be able to do that. OK. What time would you guys like to do that? 5 o'clock. 5? So we'll need to do it at a different location. We'll have to do it at the town hall and hopefully not reach capacity for that.

Right? Is there a closed meeting?

No, it's not a closed meeting, but we don't have a, the issue is the community center. Well, if we have it at 530, we do it at 530. Okay. So we'll, I'll make a motion to schedule a special meeting on Wednesday, June 3rd at 530 PM at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road for the purposes of, um, HAB-Juliette Boone, drafting and voting on a comment letter. HAB-Juliette Boone, And request the clerk circulate notice. HAB-Juliette Boone, Any more discussion. HAB-Juliette Boone, All in favor aye opposed abstain abstain motion carried. HAB-Juliette Boone, rates. Great. So we will be drafting something and voting on it next week. Updated lease agreement with the Rochester food pantry. We have this version dated May 16th, 2026. Does anybody need to take the popcorn, Grace?

Sure.

Yeah.

Does anyone need a bath? Oh, I'm just going to pause. Okay. That's just what happened to me. I like my eye hurts. I also feel like I love, like, I don't care. And I do care. Yeah.

this is terrible three nights in a row i wanted to go with the cherries together that sounds good really important maybe tomorrow thank you guys

No, I don't see another public comment.

We just do two at the business meeting.

I'll email you my phone.

Okay.

About Nancy Ostrowski. She was not telling the truth. Okay. And the problem is that she is in a two acre zone and needs two separate, two acre for her house and two acre for her Airbnb. And I know because I reported her and had to go to court. So there's more information. So I wouldn't be surprised if you are.

Barbara, if I can interrupt. Yes. They're in recess, right? For the bathroom break.

Yes.

And they can't really be as a board doing town business by listening to your comments on this. But if you want to get in touch with the supervisor individually tomorrow by email or phone, sorry, Aaron, I'm making you available. That would be a more appropriate place to, to bring that up because I think it's what you're saying is important, but I don't want to get beyond the,

the law and how we conduct things i know you i know barbara i know you are in fact before i leave for every meeting my husband tells me to behave feels no no sometimes Right and right.

Wrong and wrong.

It's disappointing to find out I put this building on my property and I don't have the acreage. Maybe they are being leaked, but they only have 3.8 acres, and I need to. You were screaming. Well, I just didn't.

You are to second people. Well, it said for streaming, but I didn't get the notification in the link.

I don't get the notification until the next day.

Oh, I usually get it like right away. I have that. When the meeting starts streaming. I mean, it started on the browser, like it usually does, but.

Watch.

Okay, so the next

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Three items, these are all. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Things that we have up for adoption, I just wanted to give us an opportunity to review changes that were made from the versions, we had in our last meeting to this make sure everything's good and then, if it is we'll move to vote on these things so. Up first is the updated lease agreement with the Rochester Food Pantry. And I apologize, Solly, I had missed your email. So when I initially sent the backup to the board, I didn't have the 516 version. Could you just tell us what changes you made?

I just, the paragraphs were remembered. There's no substantive changes, just formatting and cleaning up.

Great. And you included that the no driving through, you included that. Yeah. And that looks good.

Yes, that was the only change.

Any questions or questions? Any questions from the board about the MOU?

Just something to mention is that they had to relocate the shed to the other side of the parking lot because it was, it didn't meet with 70. So they're going to, we're going to, they're going to try to hook up the power to the land post. Yes. And it's actually, I think it's a better location, but it was unexpected.

I think it worked out. And it's going to be a really cool shed. And I have a freezer and a refrigerator. Yeah. Great. Um, I think this looks great. Thank you, Zolli. So if there's nothing else we can just move, make sure we're good on the next one. Next items. So the MOU with the clothes for free. I had a couple of questions, Michael, but will you walk us through the changes you made since our last meeting? My main question is, are we doing an MOU with an individual?

Yeah, so that was one of the things.

That's my change.

That Mary Lou changed because the group isn't like a formalized organization. if she made the changes to that individual.

They're not a legal entity. If they were a not-for-profit charity or some business entity or something, then we could make the lease with that volunteer group. But they're just a group. People have got together to do this. So we made it with the woman who When I looked at it, it said that it was Tina for the group. But the group can't be a party to the contract. So what I did was made changes to make everything Tina. And it says that there's a group of volunteers that she's going to be working with throughout. And then for the insurance, I do not believe that the voluntary ad hoc group can obtain insurance. So I put that down as Tina as well. So I don't know if Michael, I don't know if she has seen these changes.

No, we haven't circulated.

Okay. All right. So we won't adopt this tonight. Cause I, I think the two things, one, I think there needs to be some language in here about property access because We're allowing this use of the shed. We're allowing you the use of the community center once a month. But in terms of like, is it, are we going to let them access the property 24 seven? Where is that? Yeah, there are hours.

Access hours. So I spoke to the rec department. So right now I put six to 8 PM during weekdays and 7 AM to 7 PM on weekends, unless otherwise approved by the town. So Ashley said that was how the access is working now. Oh, that's how they're doing it now? Yeah, she wanted to make sure it's after hours during the weekdays and weekends. She didn't seem to have concerns, but it's, you know.

Would it also be possible to put that shed out here too, so they don't even have to be in the back?

It's a big shed.

It's big, yeah.

And also if that shit transfers to the town, I think it would be good to have it back there. So we can further restrict that the weekend hours, you know, it's 7 a.m. Well, I don't think we need to. And then it's always like, as long as it's not interfering. So if they had an event there, we would just have to figure out how to notify them that the space is not accessible.

I just didn't read very thoroughly. So, okay, great. Then my other thing was just in terms of like, I'm just going to throw it out there. What if we do a policy instead of MOU? I don't know. What are the repercussions on an individual? I don't know.

I was going to ask Mary Lou what happens if that individual, because we've had these conversations, if they're not involved or if it transitions to someone else. Mary Lou, I don't know.

Then we would have to enter into a contract or an MOU with someone else. from the organization.

And this is, so this is doing two things. This is handling the actual transfer of physical property. And then there, to Erin's point, there's more like policy related things.

So should we just- Well, I mean, if you make a policy, does that not apply to everyone?

I don't, so here's the, one of the things we were trying to remedy with this had nothing to do with the shed. It's that this, we don't have a use like the, this event that's once a month. And I think it is a beloved event that a lot of people are very enthusiastic about. And I think we want to support it, but the, I don't think that our like, Policy, I mean, maybe it's worth reviewing, but I don't know that this is what our use of the building policy contemplated.

Okay, so you're saying a use of building policy.

That would apply.

Yeah, and somebody could put in, you could have people put in applications and they could put in an application for the entire year. And maybe you can waive fees for something like that.

I'm sorry.

Put it in an application with rules governing the use of the space.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Kind of like you do for the pavilion. Yeah.

And then have a separate agreement that is connected to the physical property.

Because Tina is purchasing that. Like she is. She's purchasing it and donating it. Right.

We have to accept that then.

We do.

Yeah. So do you just want to have the application for the community center attached to that?

I think the way I was thinking about it was maybe we pull those two things apart so that the whole thing with the shed is like this special thing. Yeah. And it is tied to an individual, but the, the, the use of the space, it's like 200 people come. Right. And like, that's like not what we've contemplated. And I think it just, it's fun. Everything has worked out. I don't want to make it sound like there are major issues, but there have been things that we've had to like figure out that aren't really contemplated. Cause usually it's like a group is having a meeting and they're here for a And it's not this regular high traffic, high traffic thing. A lot of use on the furniture like tables.

So if we have a generic application, how do we cover the need for access to the shed to set covered in the contractors that cover?

And Karen was saying we do that separately. Yeah, I would just put that in the shed.

MOU. But that's tied to an individual thing.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So I got more work. Well, I guess I, I guess, or do I? Can we just remove the sections that I added that are related to use of the facility?

You know what I think we do? Talk to Tina.

Yeah, we also need to talk to Tina.

Because we could go through all this and she could say, this is never going to work.

I know I've since joined the organization, but the last organization that we let use a town-owned property to do a project ended up costing us money, the Rotary at Transfer Station. So, and they had insurance. So I just want to make sure that like liability wise, all the T's and I's are dotted. And if it's that they need to incorporate themselves into being a nonprofit for us to be able to like have all of the liabilities and things check out for that, then I think that that's what needs to be done. But I do think it's doing an MOU with an individual person just seems.

You can also check with our insurance agent. Yeah, I'll do that.

Yeah, yeah, that too. Yeah, it would be under our umbrella. Like, are there volunteers or customers? Yeah, I'm pretty sure there is.

And can they, can this voluntary, group obtain insurance. I don't know if there's something we don't know about. That's why I'm saying ask Dwight. He may know of something. I doubt it, but let's not.

Let's check with Dwight.

Okay. But yeah, I support the use policy and fund and MOU as long as it's not to an individual person, it's to some nonprofit where our bases are covered or all liabilities of the town for whatever insurance-wise and risk. The only other point I want to make, it's not with the actual MOU itself, it's with the actual shed and that all of this started from me requesting in 2024 for us to purchase a new storage shed for the recreation department so they could stop using the one that's leaking out back with a park over top. I know, I'm just saying, I would like to see that happen because I feel like we keep, we're advancing them over someone else again, like, and it's been a year or less, so. That's happening. Oh, I'm sorry, Alexis, am I allowed to have an opinion on things? I think it's getting late, so. All right, that's a job.

So we're going to, split this up. Kate, do you have the application? Okay.

So you know what direction you're going in?

Yes.

Okay. Body camera policy. Michael says it's all good. Brian says it's all good. Okay. Well, good. This version was incorporate. So it's the version that Michael had, that we'd been considering at all of our meetings, but it incorporated, oh, this is the red line version.

I thought it was supposed to be a clean version.

Okay. This beautiful red line version is Brian's comments incorporated. And it has everything that we discussed right now. It's only covering code enforcement because...

It covers everything.

What?

It covers the constables too. I asked him to add the constables too.

Oh.

It's everything. It's everything?

Yeah.

Good thing is we have a special meeting next week.

I just want to make sure that we're voting on the thing.

Okay.

Okay. I uploaded the red line version, but it's the same. Is it? Okay.

Just like you put in there.

I mean, you said it was the same. Okay. Well, our next thing is an agenda item that you requested, if you still want to do that.

Yes.

All right, well, maybe.

Yeah, this is the right version.

OK. All right, good.

All right. As vehicle on traffic law enforcement office, peace out.

Okay, great. So I'm fine adopting that tonight. Is everyone fine adopting that tonight? Yep. Okay. Michael, you had a discussion item request?

I had two resolutions, and folks were waiting for resolutions. Yeah, so discussion item. The planning board just, we've been talking to them for a while. The church has said he would be willing to go through some of the areas of code that they wanted reviewed. And they just wanted the town boards guidance in terms of what to prioritize. So their priorities were conservation subdivision code, they have major concerns about clarifying some of the language of that. So they And that's like a larger section that they wanted Dave to tackle. There's some different ways in which language around prime farmland, prime soils, drained farmland that becomes prime soils. There's just some confusion in terms of that language. So they wanted Dave to look at that and clarify that. They mentioned building sizes in residential zones. and then also potentially cell power setbacks and zoning around that. And then I know another thing that was more general was just thinking about water. So I'm inclined to say, yes, that's a good list. I think you can work them in that order, but I don't know. So conservation subdivision, language around farmland, prime soils, et cetera, building sizes, which I think is, Pretty easy. And then looking at some of the cell tower language.

So can I just be clear? This is to make it easier?

Make what easier?

The process.

This is to ask Dave Church when he's looking at our code to prioritize these sections.

I'm saying what's the goal of the...

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Conservation subdivision and language around prime farmland is clarifying because they have questions that are coming up in their meetings and they're not sure how to make determinations based off of PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Things that aren't clear in the code. So that's clarifying the code around it, making recommendations to how we could clarify the code or where there's highlighting where there's confusion that we as a board need to HAB-Masyn Moyer- These are just questions for Dave or are we looking outside for other sources for Dave initially take a pass and say this is, these are the issues that the board's having this isn't you know briefings clarification, this is inflicting with another second.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- So there's always the committee's to yeah.

Well, if we did any proposed changes, I think we refer them to the appropriate containers. And then the other one is prime farmland, prime soils, I guess.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify that these are things that have been creating challenges in the review process. Yes. And they want to clean it up with that in mind of making it smoother, easier. Correct.

They want Dave to provide recommendations to help it.

Can we add... To make, to Charlotte's point, see if he's interested, because I've had this conversation with Dave before, but making that when it's a residence, a single family dwelling or adult, like make that not have to go to the planning board. Take out all of those. Or if he could look at that. I know he and I've talked about it before. And I think that would make it easier for them too, because then they wouldn't even get those applications.

What about lot line adjustments and subdivision? Lot line? Oh.

I've literally been waiting for years.

Not yet. Charlotte, the building department said, can you please not do that yet? Because...

HAB-Masyn Moyer- All right.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- We're just merging two lots.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- So it's not. HAB-Jacques Juilland- So is that the list conservation subdivision prime farmland. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Building size and residential something is either just pointing out like we don't have a restriction on building sizes and residential rooms, we have it in other areas. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And then the single family dwelling I can put that as third.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Or what I just wanted to add it to the list all right.

So what I'll do is I'll send that back to them and I'll CC you on that. So.

Send it back to the planning board.

I'll send it to Dave and say, here, the board discussed it.

Okay. All right. Okay.

Great.

Okay. That's it. All right. All right. Let's try to blow through these questions. Um, So I'll make a motion that the Town of Rochester Town Board accepts the 5B-2026 Abstract and approved payments in the following amount. General Fund, $46,081.49. Highway Fund, $33,708.70. Capital Fund, 0 Street Landing Fund 0 Ambulance Fund is a total of $54,917.50 which breaks out to the Town of Rochester District $48,667.50 and the High Falls District $6,250 and escrow was $2,197.51. $2,197.51.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Yes. Motion carries. And then I forgot to have you, Liz, sign this. That's fine. I agree. Yeah. Okay. The budget modifications, I guess I linked into the agenda, but I don't think anyone else is following along in the agenda like I thought. So I will... Read them to you and then, if you guys want to discuss them, we can i've been threatening to do this for like two months and i've finally done it. So the town of Rochester town board accepts the budget modifications to fund a general fund and the amounts presented by the town supervisor. In her capacities budget officer as presented in the document budget modifications 528 2026 and i'll read those out to you. oops. They are, this is a modification of fund balance as revenue increase over what was budgeted to $50,660. And then the expenditures that are going to be funded by this are to budget code 7110.46 parks operation and maintenance increase of $29,060 for accounting for unspent 2025 budgeted amounts for the community center yard project. 8664.2 code enforcement equipment in the amount of $3,000 to purchase body cameras, monitor and drafting table, no code enforcement office. Budget code 1620.2 buildings equipment increase of $12,600. That is for the metal detector that is the JCAP project. And this will also cover the shed purchase for the recreation department. And 1620.44 buildings professional services, an increase of $6,000. That is for the carpet that was part of the JCAP project. Do I have a second? Second. And so for discussion, these are all things that we had budgeted for 2025 that we thought we were gonna expend. by the end of the year and we didn't, and we spent 150,000 less of fund balance than we had projected during budget season. So I'm just taking some of that and moving it into this year's budget so that we can pay for these things that we still need to do.

Yes. Do we have enough left to do the fence at the park?

I think we can talk.

If I get close.

Yeah, we can talk about that. It's just too. I know.

Now that we have the bathroom and I close it up and I look at it, I'm like, got it. Okay. Did I get a second? Yeah. Okay. Can I call the vote? All in favor? Aye. Aye. HAB-Masyn Moyer- posed abstain motion carries. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And again, those are all one off expenditures, those are not like recurring expenditures. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Next we're not doing the short term rental appeal one because that. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I tabled the Ulster county planning board appointment till after the meet after the executive session sorry. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And then i'll move that the town board. HAB-Masyn Moyer- i'll move for resolution he as presented on the agenda any discussion all in favor I oppose explain motion carries. HAB-Masyn Moyer- wrote the resolution at appointment of an alternate dog control officer. So I will move for the motion as presented with the name Andrew McKee inserted until December 31st, 2026 at no compensation and authorize the supervisor to retain Sean Murphy as special counsel to assist Andrew McKee in a specific matter.

Second.

So we have a specific case that needs to be brought to court and Andrew can take it on. I talked to him on the phone. He said, or we texted actually, he said he and Jill do this and they don't, they never request compensation from the towns. So he was pretty insistent on that. I asked, so. Great. OK. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Do you want to do the next one, Alex?

I don't have the date. Do you mean the dates or do I just give it as presented? Oh. Sorry. You need the date to say yeah yeah yeah i'm adopted yeah. yeah. Like to make the motion to introduce society fast fast forward to do the resolution. Whereas the town of Rochester adopted the New York state time smart canyons pledge on as adopted and whereas the town of Rochester created climate smart class support. unadopted to provide local government decision makers with information about establishing and implementing climate smart initiatives to propose new ideas to local government and to identify funding sources for projects. And whereas the town of Rochester's Environmental Conservation Commission, ECC, actively works to raise awareness, preserve the natural world and enhance appreciation of the town's backyards, meadows, forests, wetlands, and wildlife. And whereas the town of Rochester's ECC and CSTF have been working together since adopted to gather information on the town and community's energy use to formulate plans and targets to reduce energy consumption and to pursue the shared goal of guiding the town to preserve its natural beauty and reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas the work of both entities would be enhanced and made more efficient by operating as a single unified entity, now therefore be it resolved that the town of Rochester hereby officially designates the Climate Smart Task Force as a standing committee of the town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission with the CSCTF