Planning Board - Regular Meeting

What's this? What's this one? What's this mellmo one of a series? Did you see this thing? I did not. Who are who are these guys? Do you know the problem?

Future memorandum will address. They have one of these hearings. They got lost on the mountain. All right, we're live.

Yeah, exactly. We're live. We're good. kind of like okay I'm going to call to order the February 9th meeting of the town of Rochester planning board of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Hey Stacy, would you uh roll? Chair Jones here. Member Nelson

here. Member Roberts not here. Member member. Member Farm here. Member Pinsky, Dave Gordon, Dave Church, myself's coming in.

Um We will I don't have any minutes for you. What we're going to do is next meeting we'll have the minutes for the February 2nd and for tonight's meeting we'll do those at the next meeting which is February 23rd. So we have what looks like a short agenda. However, I suspect that Brown and Verizon which are going to take us to the three hours of the morning. Um so let's let's get to it. Let's uh start with fresh air land. John Hikf. How are you, John? I'm great. Um, great. I have a map that I printed out. I uploaded it portal, but I doubt you guys had a chance to print it out or take a look at it. So,

you would ask for uh which I've highlighted. Um, we added a legend. We have labeled the um library page for the road for the rain. And I've also made an completion of those items in addition to the covenants and restrictions in the notes. Okay, great. So I don't have John, you need to get me a look at the full set. Give me a full set and we're going to need multiple copies of course any members of the board. And first we have to get to

approving the certification of the blot line change. So, if everybody remembers last time John was here and um it was a fairly simple except I had pointed out that there were three items that were missing from the original subdivision. There were two easements and one component of uh restrictions uh to whatever is built there. So, I asked them to find those for me because we didn't have them on file, which made me suspect that we never got them. Um, they weren't on the map. Uh, they were referred to. There's no reference to them to have. In any case, he had them, got them the next day and um, they happened to have been filed with the county as they should have been and therefore are parts of the deeds. So you have those in the MUN collab in the agenda that's available to the board. The three documents the uh I don't know if they were well I'm just going to leave it at that. So we do have them. I asked John to um prepare a map after we did the fillation done. He did it before um gave me a copy as you just saw. But I wanted reference to all three of those documents on the map. uh and also to assure me that it's they're filed in the county. I saw the county stamps so they are filed in the county and um and that should take care of of that. Then I also asked them to include in the certification that you have online or the u the two notes that we always put on to the uh the map. So those notes, Sean, um, in fact, if you want my copy, do you have a copy of this

of the decision? Yeah. Yeah. Do you have I don't have it on on the agenda. Let me get a look at the agenda. So John, there's two notes there. Oh, I guess we will add the notes. You have to add those notes. All right. So, let me just get my copy here. All right. Does the board have any comments before I read the U certification? Can we do a escro?

Thank you. Um, we usually collect $150 for LLIS and we've forgot to do a resolution last time. So, I'll entertain a motion to collect $150. I'll need the motion. See, makes a motion. Sorry. Second. Second. Everybody in favor? I. So, John, before I sign the map, I need $150. That covers um

our plan doing the certification. Um okay. So, if you have a copy of it or if you brought it up if you brought it up on the agenda, this is a lot line certification uh between two lots that were in the project called Honeycomb Hills uh on Beehive Road uh two separate parcels. Uh and the application is between Fresh Air Land Company LLC and uh Liam Burn along with Sarah Flood. So those are the two property owners of two properties that are swapping u about a half an acre between them. the um I'm just going to rattle through and go right to page two where it says the plan or plot shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or professional engineer to describe the conveyances involved by meets and bounds. Both the following notes must be placed on the map reflecting this LLI certification. The first note is these plans are acknowledged by the town of Rochester and for reporting purposes only to represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with section 125-18 of the town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given. Lot improvement parcel shall not be considered a separate building lot apart from the tract to for to which it is being added. And the second note, said plan of plat shall show to the satisfaction uh of the town of Rochester planning board chair references on the revised map to applicable covenants, easements or restrictions on both parcels, including but not limited to a road maintenance uh e easement, a drainage easement, and other covenants and restrictions previously filed for Honeycomb Hill subdivision and or Cra

LLC. That's what John had delivered to us uh between last meeting and this meeting. The owner shall file in the office of Oster County Clerk such certified plat bearing the chairman's signature and notes one and two above within 62 days of this certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four county clerk certified copies of the plant to the town of Rochester planning board within 30 days of filing. Um, so I'll entertain a motion to approve this certification. I'll make the motion to approve. Peter second. Second. Jennifer. All in favor? I I. Anybody opposed? Okay. Line is certified. John, um, I'll check this, but I Yeah,

you have both notes on here. I don't. No, I have to add the notes. So that that's that's to check for the references for the governing machine. Okay. So, I'll check that. And the map, but they get me enough maps. You're going to need I forget the number. We need four maps. They need at least two. So, get me as many maps. I'll sign them. Okay. Let Stacy drop them off. Stacy will let me know and I'll come in and sign them. Thank you. Okay. And bring in the check. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, John. Thank you. Okay. Um, next item on agender is digified dwellings. Mr. Liry Medine Jeremy.

Okay. So, just you have maps there. Just a quick update on the few items and then I'll let the dean I haven't missed anything with Dean will give us an update on the rest of them. Um the last time before we had a discussion about how would the roadill road that is part of this property how would it be would it be paved or would it be gravel? We wrote a letter to the town of Rumbletown Highway Department slashs supervisor's office. They got back to us. They don't care. So, we're going to do example, right? Uh so, they were fine with that. We did get the dean sent us a letter. We did get the changes made that we asked for, which included um moving the conservation line uh 100 ft to the east, changing the scale of the location, changing some colors of the property line so that you even had to breathe. Um notations about uh moving of top soil. It's all in a memo from the dean. It's on the uh in the agenda that's available to the board. It's dated January 24th. So, they have that. So, from what I can remember, everything that we had asked for uh you did. It's on the map. And there was also a memo from Mr. Larry, and I'll let uh you reference it Dan if you want to. There was a memo about uh the conservation area that we asked for,

right?

I think the way we came out, unless there's still an opportunity to do a easement with the Round Out of Sopus Land Conservancy, I don't know if that's still the case. But what this represents is a subdivision, a conservation area as opposed to an easement with a land conservancy. It's very similar to what we've done with some other projects. Danford for there were a few others I'll let you go into it but maybe you want to address or Jeremy you want to address or is the deal with Ronda Sopus Land Conservancy still moving forward or that's still up in the air. I I think there's been conversations about that at this time, but um we you know in my letter and and what we did as follow up to our discussion is like right now we're proposing um the HOA to be the principal enforcer if you will or holder of of uh responsible for the enforcement of the restricted covenants that will go into the deed which I highlighted in my letter to you and would also be placed on the map which you know and would be conditions of your approval. So we also spoke about the town being like a third party enforcer and we're more than willing to accept that um as a condition. Um there have been some discussions I think with the land trust but at this point we don't know where that stands and it may or may not happen but you know and for for this you know exercise and for this immediate um purpose we would like to see if we could stick to

what I offered in the letter um would that be an event pipeline you don't know when it's going to be

so what the board needs to discuss is um a scenario similar to what we did with Danford where there's a conservation area. There are things that are not allowed. It's in the memo from Dan. The items that are that'll be on the map and also in the deeds. These are the things that would not be allowed in that conservation area. It would be marked um along the line that's on the map. there' be markers there um indicating that it's a conservation area and it would be managed by the HOA and in the I guess the HOA agreement or the easement agreement with the HOA um the town would be named as somebody who could enforce the provisions that are going to be put into the onto the map and into the deeds. So from my perspective that's okay. If in the future you go for an easement with the round now land conservancy then that would be something that might happen after the approval if the approval is given. That could happen after and it could be with I guess individual homeowners or it could be with all the homeowners. We had hoped that you'd be able to do it as part of this approval process, but I guess that hasn't been able to be to be accomplished. So, I don't feel the need to insist on it. I don't like HOAs to manage these things because sometimes it's like the uh fox watching the chicken coupe. But uh the things that you've done to satisfy this board with eliminating the fourth lot, moving the third lot up to that rise away from the sensitive wetlands. From my perspective at least, I'm I'm okay with going forward, but I'd like to hear from the board. Okay. One question I

have is is um if there's a homeowners association, is it possible for a homeowners association, they're all in agreement, to just dissolve the homeowners association and make it basically if they just agree to undo it, can they undo it? Well, I think the answer to that is that if you make that a condition of approval that we have to have an HOA, which I think is where we're headed, um, and it's got to be, you know, in existence, and then they couldn't do that because the HOA would be managing the road. It would be overseeing the conservation areas, and it's something that's formed, you know, with with the state as well. Mhm.

Um I I don't think it can happen and if if it did, you know, someone attempted to do it the mechanism in in there that, you know, the town would have to be notified, but I don't think it's going to have it's going to be a condition of the approval. If they try, you know, again, that would be something that you would always have um enforcement authority over to to not allow that. the homeowner association being dissolved or abandoners association being a condition of the approval. We understand from the prior discussions that um you're you know as a condition of the approval you're going to want to see all that documentation. Um and we expect that and that's a classic requirement of a subdivision that has like a private road and the HOA is going to maintain it. Yeah, understood. The the the peer is and Rick alluded to this is that the small homeless associations, the members,

they could all easily agree just to, you know, uh not protect the the area, right? So if they've, you know, they're dealing in the what ifs, but

so you know, so the the areas these areas, you know, I know I get my language messed up, so I'm just going to call them areas or both bases. These um do go with the the property and the lots. So, um, a couple things would happen. If, say, one person buys all three of these lots and they combine them, obviously they come back to the planning board for that, right? So, if there's anything to dissolve any homeowners association because they own one, um, you know, there's also the easements that get, you know, go along with that and be on the plan and be reviewed. So that gives the planning board that opportunity. But um that they they go with the deeds and even if they don't manage one another, this is another thing, you know, if they go to get a building permit for something in these areas, it's on the filed subdivision app that it's going to be referenced somewhere, you know, when they do that. And then it's up to the building department um to say, "Well, you know what? You can't build in that area. It's a no build area. It has all these restrictions with whether they they don't even need the deed because it everything that we've talked about that's going to be in the deed is on the plan." So

yeah. So what the downside to the HO is that stuff can happen if it's done with the land conservancy. It's a little bit more difficult for to get around that. But I had a question for you, Dave. Can an HOA dissolve itself?

Well, as council said, it depends on what their other obligations are. If they're the basic answer is yes or more like I you know, the most likely thing here is just inertia. If if they're not going to be committed to doing this protection and the other things, they're just not going to do it. it's going to be, you know, it's going to be very hard to police the HOA itself. Um, if they have to take care of the road, they'll probably do that. I think at the end of the day the if if the town wants some level of assurance that these areas can be looked at ultimately the the ability of the town to enforce is I mean that's it's very very hard to make people do something that they don't want to do and and I'm not even saying that they are opposed to it. I was just saying when they get home at night they it's just not the first thing on their list and you know down the road I don't know who's going to be owning these properties. So if the town has a clear right to enforce and especially if we can get um injunctive relief um that's written in

so what do we write that into into the HOA agreement?

No into the what do we write? This is these commitments have to be on a document that is recorded and attached to and and in some and you know um virtually attached to the deed. They've got it has to be a a form of deed restriction or something you know a statement a statement of restrictions that's that that's recorded and that way that's goes to the world that this is that this is a doable thing. It will also be in the subdivision a condition of subdivision approval as well. So I mean the the CEO enforces conditions of subdivision of site plan approval and um this would be another enforceable condition now is what we want. Um, I guess the right to injunctive relief isn't specific, but it's to, you know, to enforce these that would get people's attention. You want to have injunctive relief to make them go to an HOA meeting. I mean,

no, no, wasn't. Uh, so it's going to need to be on the map. It's going to need to be in the conditions of the subdivision and it's also going to be attached to the deed. There was a statement here that that in some form or other these promises are going to be reported.

Right. We we took the land is it the Danford um precedent and pretty much laid that out as you know what we're going to be doing. So it's going to show up on the file map. It's going to show up in the deeds deeds as restricted covenants. It's going to show up in the HOA agreement. It's going to show up um in your resolution of approval. the town, you know, by law will have the right to enforce those covenants. Um, not just the HOA. So, you know, you're going to have those in there and the ZEO could charge us with violations and and seek injunctive relief that they're not following just like any other condition that's not followed.

And that that's really the leverage that you have over this. Um, and I happen to think because of, you know, what we're proposing, you know, very low density elegant homes that people would want you enforce these restrictions when you look at what they are. Yeah. I mean, anybody else from the board?

I I have a comments about the site plan. One question to go. First question I have about you show in the code of government big big enough for the confidence act meets um the town code requirements. That's what it's based on. In one of CPL's comment letters, they asked us specifically to check this turn to make sure that the truck hits this turn. So that's why we added it to the plan.

Right. But looking at the plan and then proportionally looking at the toilet, the vehicle that's going to have difficulties to maneuver inside the Well, the inside radius is uh 54T. So um the truck inside radius is actually I think outside is 42. So I don't I don't think it will but again we did it to the code. So if there's a problem with this radius there's a problem with the code. So you know any other questions?

Yes. Another question. You probably misunderstood me last time about the scale. The new code requires a scale one to 1000. Oh yeah, because I thought you said it was it was the wrong scale labeled on there. I mean, we we could do that. You just don't see as much. Yeah. You know, all you'll see is the lot. So, you want me to give you a paragraph? Um, no. I mean, if that's what the board requires. Well, we'll look fine the way it is. I just th Does it look fine the way it is, Julian? I didn't I didn't realize I'm sure it's not easy to find.

Does it look fine the way it is? You can't find the site on there. I don't think it's made of fine as it is the same. Let's we can change it to a thousand. I don't It's also it's also a requirement that we can we could wave but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it. Scale not less than one inch before to 100 ft. Well, I think you mentioned that the last time, so I must have misunderstood what you said because they changed it because of what you said last time. No, I thought you said that I had the wrong scale on there, but it was 1,00 when I measured it. I'm Oh, no. This one's a 2000. So, I didn't realize.

No, you probably just just pointed out it's, you know, up to chair. If it doesn't want to spoil it, it's fine. This is obviously not the final final plan. So, we have the opportunity. Why don't you do it to to code? Yes, absolutely. Anybody else? Anybody? How do you want to handle the Are you okay with where we are with the HOA managing the conservation area?

I'm not thrilled about it, but I um I also um because I think they you know, said I just think there potential problems there enforcement, but that's um you know, I also say that with a appreciation of the work that's been done for conservation areas. I also I also think in all fairness to the applicant uh the code needs to be clearer and there needs to be a solution code. Well, that part of the code does need some work. Dave, do you have church? Do you have anything?

Well, I'll just note from a practice the good news never put the conservation area in a separate tax person, which they're not doing here. I've seen multiple circumstances where okay, homeowners groups uh have walked away. The county doesn't care. They want the taxes. So they've seen property I mean multiple counties conservation lands that were separate parcels go up for tax auction.

In this case it's point of which good news just avoid ever making these things separate parcels if if you're going to do a HOA. All right, Jennifer, one comment about the easement restrictions and this is not my area of expertise, so I'm asking this for others that may know more. Do we ever is it common to restrict things like pesticide application? And I asked that just given the nature of the habitat it's in there. We have Oh, there it goes. Yeah. Hazardous materials substances.

Well, if it doesn't explicitly say that, we can make it say that. I think it did say that. I think I thought it did. Yeah. Conservation areas manage. Yeah. Generally, soil, no pesticide, herbicide, inorganic fertilizers or other. Yeah, that's that's and that's for the conservation. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, um if you look at my bullets and there you might just want to use an institutional reference to what's a pesticide and herbicide. Um there are there are legal lists as you know, right, of of control chemicals. You is that the issue like citing? Yeah. I mean I don't

Do you have a suggestion? Round jump's a perfect example. I Well, that's a herbicide, right? Right. Banned in most of the world. I commonly used in America. Yeah. But if you tried to if you tried to cross reference a list, Round Up is most likely not going to be on it. Correct. Well, that my guess is that board's interested in doing more. The question I have is how do you enforce this? It's if someone uses Roundup and the and the verbiage is pesticide, the CEO is going to have a pretty good argument in court that that that's a pest I mean oh

herbicide is not I mean I told my judge and that's the argument before me that's not that the department have lists that okay is that a no I don't know if you have any suggestions as to what the change they never use pesticides in So I never really dealt with the program. We're willing to work with the board on that. I mean press representative section. I've just seen with an unrelated land trust they get a little more specific on what the list is. Peter, do you have a list? I could get you get a list that doesn't that doesn't let things slip through the cracks. Then I mean saying that they're not supposed to use any in those areas.

I'm just saying what is the terms are undefined. Yeah. But I mean all right rather than go back and forth if you've got a better term I'll try literally if you have a term with that then okay we're willing to work you can nail on the head with you know that's number one and I mean herbicides are let's judge that's right okay

so I I I last time uh we were here I was concerned about the uh stabilization of the disturbed lane and I see that you have veget rehabilitated with vegetation that's all good um there's a reference to using the top soil around the site but my question is what's the intention with that part of the land is it to blend it so that it so that it's not known that it's there

not uh not really it's not going to be totally filled and regraded know back to the original grade or anything. It's really just going to be stabilized so that um there's no uh storm water runoff doesn't erode it further or find its own channel that it's just going to be uh restabilized in pretty much in place. But we do note that if there is extra materials uh you know from the work that still has to happen on the lower part of the road that those materials can be used in that area to to blend the the grades. So that is part of the notations on the soil erosion control plan.

Yeah. It's not very specific about how you're using those top soils that are available. No, because you know we've incorporated that entire area and the limit of disturbance because anything that's already been disturbed as part of this it's included. So um you know it's not like we're disturbing more if they do regrade in there or change the grades but we're not proposing any specific rating plan for that area at all. So I mean my once again my concern is that you put natural veget native vegetation in there doesn't have top soil it's just going to get washed away and you know that scar on you know it's going to remain and that was

you know but one of the things that when we did the site visit was very very disturbing to see what was done there and uh it gets back to the point of you know we hope that new land owners will do the right thing but you know we haven't seen that

well that is going to actually any of that reveation that's going to be part of basically the um the combined work. So, uh, developing, finishing development of the road and installing the shared utilities and and making sure that's stabilized will be part of the work that has to be bonded for the project before it. So, it'll be bonded before the subdivision is finalized and the work will be done based on that bonding. So, um, and that is that is something that you can have reviewed. making sure they're we're waiting to just make sure we're on this right path. So when we prepare the engineer's estimate that will be included in that engineer's estimate and bond that what gets done.

Yeah, I understand but there's no specification or painting plan to understand what is going to help them right on that. And I agree with what you're saying and I think it would be helpful if you gave us a footnote on what kind of seating mixture you're going to put in there on those. It could be just the conservation mix. Yeah, I believe it.

I don't know if it's in the XL, the soil control plan because um I didn't get any comments from CTL on it. So, I didn't think it was part of the discussion, but there are there is a do you mind if I come over there? told me there is a whole batch that's didn't know but you know and it's always good Jeremy so you know this so as soon as soon as you can stabilize with the conservation mix or whatever mixture you're going to use get it in ASAP because otherwise you're going to be dealing with invasive species coming in still threat etc and it'll be you know that happens in the flow of deal you So

yes so the native education notes you know we talk about native grass with grass covers you know we talk about scores and the seeds okay so so this we have examples of the bottle gr so we do have thoseifications might want to just throw in what the you know how many times yeah well and we do have a regular seed mix on here as well

so I do remember I do remember the last land Dave maybe was that mentioning that that area that needed to be restored is a slopes down and goes to an area off to the side there that kind of ponds there's a pond at the end of it and there was some concern expressed about how are you going to make sure that it doesn't get um I think it was Jennifer it doesn't get eroded away with super lanes while you're trying to restore it. So, I think that's what David

Yeah. Yeah. I I brought that up last time, but I I see, you know, once again, I want some assurance that there's going to be top soil over that.

Yeah. And it does it does it does say the soil, right? In the vegetation that section does talk about that. And um you know, we highlight the area that's supposed to be stabilized and uh it's already been stirred. And we highlight that there's going to be um a firm shallow swale at just beyond the lot three driveway to uh you know diverse so the water doesn't go right down there. So it will be diverted any border that goes beyond that will be diverted to undisturbed natural areas and yeah I can look at the language just to confirm that the top listed but

um it's on your landscape notes it said important so long on the bottom of that page under your hand. Yeah, the bottom left it says that even unfolding the plan there's a whole soil on the bottom doesn't specifically say that that area that was cleared for the road that will be covered in top soil in the native species. So it's about a specification for that particular area. I'll check those notes. I love it.

Let's take a look at those because this is the second time that that's come up and I don't remember who said it last time. Yeah, I this may have brought it up. I do remember that you addressed the um the u the top of the driveway going down there, but I think it needs a specification for that how that's going to be treated. But you're saying it's not going to be blended, but it's going to be like uh unfortunately, but you know, we look to the best we can. Yep. I'll I'll read through those notes, please. would have said placing top soil, but I'll make sure that

So, you've heard what the board would like to see. I like the idea that you're going to divert you're going to divert some of it to some of the natural areas, but it also sounds like the board wants um a little bit more in your notes, the field notes. Right. Right. Yeah. Again, I I thought it was in there, but I'll for instance, and tell me what you think, J. Um, how about a lot a statement that any slopes or reconstructed slopes will not be greater than a one on three. What do you mean reconstructed? Well, or you know when any side slopes that you're going to be receding, placing stock top soil. You don't want to have a slope greater than a one on two, one on three.

So, so we do have notes about that. Anything um uh on one or greater get permanent stabilization. So that's part of the large control plan. Okay. Yep. It's in there. Any other comments? I'm good.

So Nadine, I sent you a note and I didn't copy the board. I apologize, but I sent to know that the things that I could think of that are still remaining. You heard some things tonight. We need to see the HOA document that needs to be completed by our attorney. Uh we need a road maintenance agreement which reasonably will be part of the HOA but there needs to be um within that HOA agreement something referring specifically to the road maintenance. And what we usually do is we keep it it's within the HOA but it's separate because actually the code the town code calls for us to give it to the town board in order for them to approve not the HOA document but the RMA document. So if you include the RMA material into the HOA document I I need something to give to the town board for them to approve and accept the road maintenance portion of that document. And it might work to make it an exhibit.

Yeah, you could do it as an exhibit. Make the auto an exhibit to the HOA agreement to the town and then you referred to it uh the dean um I invite you and your engineers to come up with or for you to come up with a list of items to be escrow and what the amount of the escrow is going to be infrastructure bond. Yes. Yeah. So, that's also gets sent to the town board.

That's to go to the town board and they're going to be looking for whatever credit, cash deposit, whatever. Um, when you get that to us, Greg will look at it, confirm. Yeah, that makes great sense. And then it goes over to the town board. I'd like to send it with the RMA to get both done at the same time. Um, and they need to approve it, and then they'll set up the escrow to accept the money, however you want to do it. Yeah. All right. So, um I I was hoping and I don't know, did this set of plans go to Greg for review? There's a note on here. He just said

he just said I was just going to mention I just saw I say before um uh attaches revised letter for dignified dwellings. I think they've addressed my concerns provided the fire department highway superintendent satisfied. The grades are much improved except for right near the third house where it appears to drop to as much as 24.7% which may be an error but they don't provide stationing on the profile. And then there's a letter um about this. You want me to read it? Do you want me to read it for

uh chairman B Jones and planning board members CPL provided review of the plan submitted planning board 1225. The latest conservation plan shows three lots with two of the houses located the same general locations previous plans but the third house is shown much closer to the end of a fiber road than shown on previous plans reviewed. Uh the following comments are modified to reflect the most recent plan. The maximum grade for the lower section of the access road, excuse me, will need to be addressed as a private road. This private road of per 125-29S2 is required to meet the requirements of a minor town road, including 12529 C1, maximum grade for a minor road. The proposed grade for portions of the lower section of the private road is 14% in two locations station 2 + 70 to station 4 + 70 and from station 5 + 72 approximately station 6 + 75 both of which are less than 250 ft. The code indicates that no grave shall exceed a maximum of 12%. I'm just reading your letter. Um, however, grade between 12 and 14% is allowed for distance up to 215 ft with approval from the highway superintendent. The proposed grade of the private road is acceptable provided that it's by the highway superintendent. Greg, do you want to take over from this?

Um, great job.

Yeah, you're doing a great job. A turning detail is provided for a horizontal curve between station 3 + 50 and 5 + 0 0 to demonstrate that a 40ft fire truck can make the turn with a driveway being widened from 18 ft to 20 ft from station 3 + 80 to 4 + 80 and a turnaround at the end of the private road with an inside radius of 27 feet and an outside radius of 45 ft appear sufficient. Uh the planning board questioned the depth of cuts and the extent of fill as well as the cut and fill balance depth of cut and fill shown in the plan with a maximum cut of approximately 6 feet and a max fill of approximately 2 feet. The applicants represent added a note to the plans indicating blasting of rock is prohibited. The maximum grade at the end of the individual driveway exceeds 15%. This should be addressed. Town Code 125-29R1 states that driveways shall be subject to the New York State Fire Code access requirements. New York State Fire Code section 503 and appendix D calls for grade not to exceed 10% in excess to 150 ft unless increased by the fire code official for fire apparatus access. The fire code official, fire inspector's indicated that he would issue guidelines for the driveway. However, it is recommended that this not exceed 15%.

I just pointed that it looked like it just dropped off at the end, but that that may have just been a profile. Yeah, it it it doesn't. show some braiding there. And actually that's kind of why I extended the profile to show um I figured you know how how it kind of blended and that that this was this is the existing grade. Yeah. Right at the end of the profile there. It drops off to like 20. No the left end it drops off to like 25. Oh, this is Yeah, this beyond Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. But it just I just saw that and I wasn't sure and I I Yep. Yeah. And I you know what I can do driveway stations on here just for clarity just for

Yeah. Absolutely. I wouldn't think they'd want more than 15. Yeah. No. And then the only other only other note that I didn't get quite get to was that there's a a fire vehicle emergency access turnouts less than 20 ft and every 500 ft long shared driveway. Yep. So to answer your question, yes, it did go to Greg and Greg just responded. adjust me a bit. But so why don't you just if you could just respond to that and tell us how you're going to handle his comments. I think the only thing that was really to come was just that last little grading and that could just be a clarification on

Yeah, absolutely. Yep. So, so this is good because we were just talking about the engineers estimate. So that's what I was looking for just to make sure we were good with the swirl, we were good with the turnouts, the widening that we had shown because that is, you know, obviously going to affect the construction cost. So um yeah, so we will definitely I'm getting an engineer's estimate. So so that gets reviewed. Okay.

Um we wanted to touch base on on some of these some of the documents and some of the things that obviously need to get done. It's part of the the process. um typically they're you know part of the uh the conditions of approval. So um you know just moving forward what we're looking to do pretty fact where we are now we're looking to share this with the survey team so that they can actually prepare the subdivision map that gets filed the meets and bounds for the lots the um the road the conservation easements. So that's what we're looking to do with the changes that were made based on the last session moving the easement and you know the the the changes that we have. So I think that that's all um you know we can progress that for sure you know moving forward and that these would be you know a condition of the approval once once the approval gets drafted and then all the conditions can be outlined you know because we need health department approval. we need, you know, these things. So, um,

yeah, I I look, you're you're in good shape, but I would recommend what's what's the saying when you you you're digging and your road reach China with stop, you're good. I think we're ready to set uh public hearing tonight. Thank you. All right. For the 23rd, is everybody Can I have a motion for that? Make a motion. Wait, wait, wait. Sorry. Um, you don't want the 23rd? I'm we have major conflicts with town of Marble Town and the town of Lupal already booked for two meetings that same night if we could have it on the first uh meeting of March. March 9th, I think. Yes. Yes. All right. So, I'll change that. I make a motion to set to open the public hearing on dignified dwellings on March 9th. I'll second.

Okay. All in favor? I. Anybody opposed? So, Nadine, um appreciate and Jeremy and um Dan, Mr. Larry, we appreciate Sorry about that. We appreciate everything you've done. So, there's still Nina, if you can respond to Greg's letter. Absolutely. And when you send that, feel free to send it directly to Greg as well as to myself and to Stacy. Y um and then there's a lot of details to work out in terms of the HOA agreement, the RA, right? That doesn't hold up the public hearing, right? Hopefully, we'll get most of it done. You have a month to get all this done. if not u you know be part of the conditions of map approval.

Yeah. Yeah. Typically what I've seen over what's become kind of a likely career now um is that those are made conditions of approval and of course you would have to sign off on all the documentation with with council and your professionals uh before um you sign the flat and it gets filed. So, you know, it does occur usually at that time with the town board involved another condition of approval, but we can work on all that. Well, I think the longest the longest lead on him is going to be the HOA. You have to do that with the AG's office, right? That's right. Yeah. Okay. All right. Everything else is All right. You know what you what we're looking for and Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. You're good. We'll coordinate public notification. And I don't know whether Stacy takes care of the public notice. She takes care of all it. Okay. Okay. We charge you. I'm not I'm not pushing but maybe it seems pushy. Um I just wanted to ask about seeker um you know because subdivisions typically the seeker is done prior to the public hearing. So I didn't know if we were doing that next meeting. We've switched we've not switched the procedure. We've tightened it up to say that we do it during the public hearing period

on advice of council courts that we have to have public hearing after the secret declaration of significance. Right? You can start before that, right? So you can have as long as there's we need to have at least one way I'm interpreting it and I I talked to Dan about this but we need to have at least one session of the public hearing after so that looking at the court case kitridge right so that the um

the public can have the benefit of a neck deck that's what it is though so whatever we're doing there's nothing wrong with public hearing while we're considering it but we do a neck deck if that's what it comes down to and then we'll continue we'll have one session on public hearing afterwards so they The way I read the court case, that's kind of where the court was going, right, wrong, or otherwise, and threw monkey wrench into a lot of things. But I think that that is where the court wants to, right? I think the court case is almost counterintuitive because most people say they want to be heard.

Public should be heard before they make it. in the chicken and egg. The court said we wanted we should the public deserves the benefit of a of a of a neg before they our termination of the seeker process before the public hearing. So as long as we have one session of public hearings so they can enjoy the um the culmination of seeker and then come and speak to us about whatever was on their mind. I think that solves the problem. That works for me and I think that's the correct approach. So thank you. Uh what about circulation to the fire department and um the highway super? So uh circulate this in the same way that you are you asking about Marvel Town? No,

because we'll do that as part of a public notice recommended that it it get circulated to the town. Okay, we'll do that for the T new private road which is in the town of Rochester. Okay. And um to the fire department. So we'll do that. Okay. copy you on that. I thought you referring from me on that. Let me I thought you were referring to we will during the public as part of public hearing notice we'll let Wobbletown know too because they were contiguous. Yeah. And I I spoke to Faith today and you know he was like you know he has no issue at all with saying that that Okay. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next state.

Okay.

All right. The next item on the agenda is Rav T. Is there anybody here for Are you Eric? Yes. Eric, how are you? Well, thank you for uh delaying two weeks ago with the snow because in DC uh schools were closed for six and seven days. I didn't think you wanted to fly. Yeah. Right. Rain and drive. They're not used to clearing snow. I guess we're we are using clearing it. They were only closed for a day. So is um Mr. Kaplan

Kaplan is coming uh to address the principal issues that that you all are interested in. You know the the water issue. I know he wants to highlight how the number of campers will not increase and yet the new facility will have two benefits. One is water conservation equipment uh that modern will be installed as well as going from nine meals a day to three meals a day. As currently they they've got to do free waves and you have pots and pans and serving things that get get uh washed and then then put back out and and a a uh their analysis is that we'll use substantially less water. But I I'll leave that to him. that's his area of expertise as well as you know issues regarding how they're going to lower the uh profile of the building uh which will lower of course in the in the cafeteria he wanted as big as you can but we understand it go down to 18 feet for the kids and lower the overall roof again those are his issues

all right so we'll let him address yeah I'm going to let him do that let me just give the board a before you go any if I just give the board and the public just what we wanted to accomplish tonight we have two people that were going to speak over here from the applicant. Um it was Mr. Trent, Eric Tren who is here on behalf of the applicant to discuss the issue of what's called relooper. It's an acronym. Uh the religious land use and institutionalized persons. Say it louder.

Boom. Religious land use and institutionalized p uh persons act. Apparently in the 90s, Congress passed a law that protected both religious groups and also people in jail. I one can only imagine how that came about. But um it the the um on the religious end it can if a church synagogue has a has an application for land use approval such as a site plan approval this can um constrain the board's um uh authority in terms of um considering that that that application.

So we wanted to have Mr. Tren is going to address that and then Mr. Kaplan um is going to be here presumably with with the applicant himself and he was going to address some of the other that you uh spoke of which is their latest proposals to the board. The um the board and we're going to listen I'm sure we have some questions about all of this and I know that our attorney will want to speak but then the board's intention I wish Mr. Kaplan was here. Um the board's intention is to go into to begin the seeker process. Um and there's many steps in that, but one of the steps that we need to go through is called the part two, which is to go through the 18 questions in the seeker documentation. um and for the board to indicate whether or not and which of these 18 items have significant or moderate or no uh impact at all. So, it was our intention to do that tonight also, but we first wanted to listen to uh the applicant and um the attorneys for the applicant. So, are you okay starting?

Absolutely. Uh Mr. Kaplan will be here any any minute, but just Yeah, you you raised an interesting point. Why do they do land use and prisons at the same time? What happened was Supreme Court struck down a broader religious liberty law that said any government law at the state or federal level that imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise was subject to strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny and compelling government interest through the least restrictive means. Supreme Court said that exceeded Congress's power. Congress went back to the drawing board and held hearings and found areas and we're not going to get into the legal legal stuff, but that there was the ability of Congress to legislate in the area of zone based on the record and the issues involved. And so it it it enacted Rupa and then at the last minute Chuck Coulson came along and said, "Hey, wait a minute. What about the prisoners at Prison Fellowship Ministries?" He wanted their prisoners. So they they enacted a a prisoner provision. uh uh tied to federal spending. Anyway, that's that's the answer. Hey Jeff, how you doing? Uh we just sort of jumped ahead with the with the uh the Lupa piece. Basically, what LUPA does, it says in land use actions as a as a matter of federal law, uh you may not in the application of of a zoning law uh impose a substantial burden on religious activities. Of course, you you know it does not usurp local power to to do regional regulations, but when something is a substantial burden on religious exercise that uh contravenes for Lupa. And so we sent a letter uh right before Christmas highlighting the need of this congregation, this community uh this this religious camp uh that has a three-month session during the summer where the where the kids come come

together and study live in community at meals. They have uh lessons like sermon uh uh given to them. They have prayers, other other activities. And so they have a a strong need that we've laid out there. I don't want to, you know, go over it again right now, but it's it's in the it's in that letter of why they need to come together as one body. And there various cases from around the country that uh show how when there's a need to worship as one body uh rather than say having three sometimes there'll be a church that has like three religious services and say no, it's important for us to to meet in in as one body that that can be a substantial burden. And it doesn't mean the applicant wins. It means it triggers strict scrutiny. The government has to show a compelling government interest pursued through the least restrictive means. Um so that's that's our point here. Uh, additionally the the free exercise clause Supreme Court recently has uh ruled that when there's great discretion given to a board like in the conditional use process uh that triggers under the free exercise clause of the constitution u strict scrutiny when it burdens religious loopa it has to be a substantial burden under the free exercise clause it's just a a burden on religious exercise but still it's the b the the applicant has to prove like it is a burden on a religious exercise. We think we can show that here. Uh but again, that would be our burden. Uh but then the burden shifts to the government to show a compelling government interest. But hopefully we you know get to that. We think we've got a reasonable plan that that addresses the water concerns and the height concerns. Uh I do want to say, you know, in the public you see some things about, oh, this is going to uh make this town turn into Curious Joel. Have you seen what's going on there? I mean, you're talking about,

you know, large uh residential developments. Uh a very different kind of thing than what what you're seeing here, which is a camp that wants to have one facility, reasonably sized facility where all the campers can gather for meals in community and have a religious worship as as part of that. So, with that, I'm going to turn over to my colleague. Well, you know what? Before you do that, Yes. Dave, do you have anything you want to

juic I just want to point out that whatever and you you you alluded to this in your letter and it it it it bothered me a little bit because you mentioned that there were certain comments somewhere you didn't you want to be very specific about it. I'm unaware of that. I've sat through every meeting and so now you're alluding to comments out there in the public. I just want whatever I haven't I have not seen them. I have not gotten on whatever website. I just want to be very clear that there is a very strong difference between whatever may be uttered somewhere in the in the you know virtual space and this board's approach and and and what what the concerns are for the board. So um

sure the materials I've seen have been things like in uh comment sections to papers and and the like. Jeeoff you you've seen yeah some letters that were submitted in but you know whatever illusion there was to curious Joel I mean obviously this is not a residential development. the sport understands the difference but more importantly this community is not curious stool we understand it and so um I just want to make it very clear that there's a that there is there is definitely a difference between whatever comments are out in the public that you are taking offense to and this board

sure but one of the things that our clients are very aware of is what's what's the buzz out there what is he hearing what do people send him hey have you heard this you There there is there is buzz out there. That's that's all you know referred to. I'm not saying it's no buzz in here as of yet to the best of my knowledge.

So I have one more question not not to be in any way argumentative or whatever but maybe you could explain u why the client thought it necessary to bring in somebody of your uh your stature. You were in charge of the justice department um religious area. And is it a perception on behalf of the applicant or as you looked at the documentation and the board comments that there's something unourred or you or the applicant felt that he needed um to place this in a different uh light if you would and get additional assistance. Could you explain? Yeah, but at all any conversations we had by said in general uh how important it was to for him to have the camp to be able to come together in one group and be able to listen to lessons together that that was very important to him worried that that was not uh being heard as and he wanted to to make sure that that was that was emphasized. Uh he also uh had a bad experience with with uh town hallsing a few years ago uh that did have to result in litigation. And so I think he he just really wanted to uh do what he could to make sure that this project you go forward and uh you know serve these kids as as soon as one I want to make one other point in the exchange that you had with the chair. Um, in general, uh, Rick's comment to you was that, um, he was generally quite accepting of your proposition, which is that serving all of the campers in one sitting was, uh, essentially that he understood it to be of a religious purpose. My guess is that he's also speaking for the members of the board on that. I'm not sure if we've had any full conversations, but I think

that that is going to be generally a sympathetic proposition before the board, Lupra, or not. But I also want to make it clear that the board is concerned about a number of potential environmental issues that may end up um uh uh the board is going to be eager to look at alternative ways of accomplishing specifically what you are asking for i.e. serving all of the all of the campers in one sitting. But that does not necessarily mean that the particular proposal is going to be the one that moves forward. And we're going to you know we hope to work obviously with the applicant uh in a structured way to do that. But um we're with you generally on the idea of serving everybody in one city which was as I read it your your fundamental main point but the the dimensions the where this is how it is etc. the board is probably going to take a a good look at how we do that because it's a very sizable facility in the area and and um members of the public have expressed concerns that frankly I haven't heard a lot of you know the the types of things we were talking about before but there's there are concerns about the physical layout and we're going to we're going to look at those alternatives but within the goals that you've laid out I think there's a I think there's a substantial um sympathy for that particular goal but uh there's going to be kicking the tires a little on the on the particular proposal.

Sure. Which is right. And your responsibility. So that go

sorry I'm late. Um I I did want to just again um go over a few items uh just so we're all on the same page. So the first item is that on your agenda uh this project is referred to as a 15,000 square foot facility. And at one point we had somebody from the audience compare this facility to the pops or shop uh grocery store in Ellenville. In fact, um, we have a facility that, uh, as a result of, uh, back and forth discussions with the sport is now going to be 19,500 square ft. It's going to be on one first story. The basement is going to be baking, no use for the basement. They've removed the second floor, which was of some concern. So, we're looking at a facility that's more than half what is being indicated in this in this um agenda. So, again, one of the one of the things that uh seems to be an issue at least the board has brought it up a few times which we don't really see in the same light is that this is a facility that's been there now before and so I think this is going to be the fifth year. um whether or not we get a approval of this project, they're still going to be there with their 550 campers, 220 um family members that help operate that. Uh and by allowing this camp to go into one building, we will reduce the number of meals for the campers a day from nine because it was three servings per meal to service these people because

we didn't have a large enough facility to three. We will have water saving devices uh both in the kitchen uh in the bathrooms um um that are were not there um before. So there will be a savings of water not more water and there'll be less sewer needs just as a result of going from nine to three meals a day. Um, we will have submitts before the next meeting even though we'd hoped for an approval tonight, but I have a feeling we'll be here again. So, we will have submitts before the next meeting that will substantiate what I'm uh indicating to from an engineering perspective that we will be saving water and septic uh and not increasing. And again, I think that a key to that is that um the camp is going to be there. And so looking at the entire camp and saying that we want to see this that this test and that test when ultimately we're going to show you that we're saving water and sewer, we do not think is an appropriate um request for this uh application. Um, we did even review, you know, there were some comparisons. And again, I'm I'm going a little off course here because I'm going to compare our use to when it was a uh Jude ranch. um they were doing at the Duke branch uh in terms of uh using washing machines, dryers, uh daily linen and towels versus uh our camp's general need to do that once every 3 weeks. They were doing it daily. Um horses were not only drinking but being bathed and groomed every day. uh the guests and staff needed far more

showers because of the nature of the activity on the premises than um are the the case when you have uh basically uh children uh in a a camp and educational facility. Um the um hotel had baths. Uh a bath generally is 65 gallons uh per use. a shower 15 gallons. There's only showers there now. There won't be any baths. Um the um showers there all had are the old style showerheads. They've all been replaced by water saving uh devices. Um going to the building itself, as I mentioned to you, the building uh the footprint of the building will be under 20,000 square ft. uh we feel that that is the uh minimum that we can uh do and still have a kitchen and a dining facility for 550 children. Um the building height in this uh district uh 35 ft is the uh height uh maximum height uh we will be under that. We've reduced the actual ceiling from 22 feet to 18 feet. That doesn't mean that will be the roof line because obviously there's a a roof on top of that ceiling. Uh but we feel we'll be under 33 feet in that uh respect. Um uh there were complaints. Probably the biggest complaint I heard um through most of the comments here was the lighting. And again, even though uh most of that lighting is already in place, we will as part of this application uh agree to dark light, dark sky all of the

fixtures and reduce lighting the as much as possible. So um general I believe that the applicants has made every effort uh to be sensitive to the needs. Um even the color of the building has been changed uh to earth tones and the uh straight lines have been uh removed. Uh so we are prepared to uh respond to any additional items you might have but we feel that we've we've come a long way from the original uh presentation and application that we've made.

I have one clarification which is when you said that they're going from nine meals to three it's the same number of meals it's just three servings. Three servings. Okay. So it's the same number of meals. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But there'll be more efficiencies in water and sewer use that I can show you by doing it all at once rather than having again nine meals. Anybody else have comments?

So I'll I'll make a couple of comments which which u summarizes the many meetings that we've had had in the past and um I think where the where the board is is at right now. Um clearly we've been working for months um to get this to what the board was hoping to be a more acceptable size in terms of the footprint, the height and all of that. The look, the feel, color, etc., etc. Um we also have talked in the past before you even came on board, Jeff. Um but we have had that discussion uh with you that there's a little bit of um project creep here uh with this with this site. Nailing that uh is the feeling of the belief of the board um substantiated by some documentation that we've been a able to find that the us the number of people the usage the number of bedrooms all of the facilities that were used before it changed hands multiple times. Um that the amount of water and the amount of septic was substantially less than it is today. And that in the course of what I would call project creep, new buildings, old buildings renovated, old buildings with a second floor placed upon it, old buildings taken down, new buildings put in, new uses created, indoor golf replaced by multiple showers, and a whole sort whole host of changes that have been made. there was no adequate vetting of the impact on water and

sewers, water and septic um and the addition. So period the board has been looking at this as a project to put in a unit dining facility of 550 people uh seating at any one time. I think what let me think I know the board became aware at some point in December or late November that there was additional 220 people that was mentioned in a report that we got from an engineer by the name of Sterling Engineering that was somewhat of a shock I mean if I look at it retrospectively it might maybe it shouldn't have been but it was somewhat of a shock

in that we thought 550 was the entire number, be it campers, be it add-ons, be it counselors, be it family. We thought the 550 was the entire number and then it grew to 770. Well, it always maybe it was always 7 to 70, but our knowledge of what was was that it was 770. It was never the case that in prior years that there were 770 people there. while it was being operated as a camp um under Bravav under that name it could have been but prior to that it was sub substantially from what we can find substantially less either in terms of the housing available for those people as well as the water usage although it's been difficult to find actual water usage numbers be that as it may I'm sure we will at some point. So the concern has been that from the years in which it unbecame the dude ranch after the early demise of of the previous owner, its acquisition by one of the um workers there and then the subsequent acquisition by um MCRT um that there was significant increase in the number of people and the usage of uh infrastructure namely water and s and septic from the dude ranch up to two and three years ago and certainly up to today. So thus the board has been calling that kind of a project creep. It should have come to us during the course of all these additions um in order for the board to take into consideration an amended site plan, multiple amended site plans because there were multiple changes made. the same for lighting. All of a sudden the lighting I don't

know what the lighting was like when O'Halerin had it but certainly the lighting now has crept to a point um of light pollution if you wish in the in the country. Um so I think that's where the the board is extremely concerned right now in terms of what is the capability of the groundwater aquifer of the current septic systems to accommodate 770 people. So, I know that some of the discussions we've had with you at this meeting has been we're only applying for a dining facility for 550 people. Well, yeah, but we need to look at the whole site, the impact of that on the whole site. And then we come to find out there's been a host of changes in the last four years that presumably went through a building permit process. talk. I'm sure it did of some sort, but never should have been handled individually as individual this individual that should have been an entire look see at the entire site to see whether or not that site was able to accommodate that kind of use and if not then what would need to be done by the applicant in order to accommodate that kind of use. So this board is at the point where we want to evaluate everything that's going on there has gone on there up to this point as part of what we're doing right now with this proposal for the doning facility. Um and we believe that under Seeker um that we're we should look at that um to only look at what 550 the impact of 550 might have is ignoring what's been

going on there for the last two or three years in terms of total water usage and total septic users. I don't know that and that look see needs to take place along with the applicant the applicant's engineers I have no idea what the answer that answer is going to come out as could be the same usage could be more I I don't know you've proposed or suggested that it's going to be less because of water saving devices God bless if that's the case wonderful but if it's not if it's significant if it's more well we need to know that and be reassured that there is enough water in the aquifer and enough septic coverage if you would in order to handle them. Um, one of the things obvious from the Sterling report that I referenced before, which we saw for the first time, it was November, I believe, sometime was the suggestion that the applicable gallons per day um used by that engineering firm was significantly less than what we would normally see used by an applicant for a similar use. And I only take that other camp that we had where the number, as I recall, was 55 gallons per day as opposed to 35 gallons per day. Be that as it may, that's why we have an engineer to tell us based upon the New York State standards, what is the number that should be used. And of course, you have a department of health who also weighs in on that. And by the way, on that project, the Department of Health agreed with the board that the number is 55, not what they were trying to use for that project. So, and there was enough water as it turns out. There were just other issues with that situation. So, um that came as a shock to us that that was the number that was being proposed by that company and that's fine, but we believe it's wrong given the use or give

yes given the use and you know so on and so forth. Um so we're faced with um with this project creep. We'll call it project creep. um and the need to look at the entire project and its impacts on the environment there and in the surrounding area. Yeah. Traffic. I know I've heard the applicant speak eloquently about or maybe it was you Jeff um speak that when it was the dude ranch people were arriving there all week long or year long and now it's a condensed period of time when buses arrive deliver the children buses go back to take the children away that may be the case there may be less traffic but until we do some sort of a traffic study since the uses change from a Duke ranch near what it is today. We're not going to know that. I mean, there's there's no argument that the lighting has got to change. Um, I think we can all agree to that right now. In fact, we could even agree that you would be getting those changes right now. Um, and we'd be happy to figure the proverbial um hot pun. Um, so there are multiple things that are going on there that that we want to get our arms around as a board and take into consideration um and work through with the applicants experts uh in order to come up with where we at. So today we're tonight and I'll let you of course respond to that both both gentlemen and to Bosshi and um the other gentleman who has arrived um our intent tonight was to go through the seeker part two which as I mentioned earlier before you got here is a go through all 18 of the items and it's up to the board to decide which of those items have no impact or we don't have to worry about

or there is an impact and is that impact significant or not. When when we get to that, I'm going to want to go into a little bit more detail. I'll let you do that. The words may the words may not be the same as Let me do So, that's what we wanted to do tonight, but I've talked longer than I usually talk, I bet. So, but I'll let the two of you respond.

So, again, my my major objection to that is that um they've been there four or five years. Um the they've followed the steps. The building department has been on the premises while they're in operation. The board of health has been there. DEEC is aware of their use.

Um there was never a requirement by the building department for any other uses other than the one we have here today before this board. And that's the protocol in this town. You go to your building department, they make the determination of whether or not you should be before the planning board or not. And that this is the first time on the this first application they said to come here. So, my concern about what you're doing is obviously um it it sounds like you've never been on the premises before, um Rothkco, and so we're going to treat this as if you just bought the property yesterday and you're coming on and we're going to review the whole use of the property. And that's not what this application is. At the end of the day, your approval process is going to be should they be able to build a new kitchen dining room or not? Because if you say no where they get walk right back in and they've done what they've done for the last five years. Uh, and so I'm it's not clear to me that your overall analysis of a of a camp that's already been there for so many years and reviewed at different levels is an appropriate review. If we can show you, and I think we can, that our water and sewer use will be less than what's been there before, and that they've been able to get sufficient water and sewer for their uses up until now, that should suffice. That's obviously

Jeff, what if it's more? Mhm. You just said, and you said it before as well, you you made now a consistent comparison between what's being used now and what was used before when it was Pine Grove or or whatever it was before. And you're you're asserting that the water use is is less or is going to be less, right? Less than what we've been using, not less than what it was when it was a dude range. I was just I was trying to compare what the water uses of a dude ranch because there's been some comments here about the population when it was a dude ranch versus here, right?

And I know I might have gone off on a tangent in doing that, but the bottom line is I'm looking at a camp that has now been in effect for four to five years. Yes. using certain water and sewer and our position is that what we are doing now will save water and sewer but you've also compared it whatever you did but you compared it to the use that was before right and my question to you and you've asserted that it's less and my question to you

I did not assert it was less than the pine grove I just gave comparisons because there have been comments here that the population when it a new branch was significantly less than it was a camp. My comments were that it was an entirely different use of the water and sewer systems when it was a blue branch. Whether it used more or less, I don't know the answer to that.

Well, that's with all respect. We've all heard it. You you you bur the comparison yourself. I think it's an apt comparison. And you're probably aware that you're in an active protection district. I wrote a memo to the board a year ago believing that there was going to be no greater use here and therefore that we didn't need to do an acro a hydrogeeologic study. If this water use has increased over the same period you're referencing that's a different tail of fish. I mean we we have an aquifer to protect here. The the rule is that we need to do a hydro geological study if if it's increased. Um, we're beginning to look at some of those old records and I don't know where it's going to come out, but that's something that we're going to look at.

And I think the important thing that the board has reflected on is the cumul cumulative effect of the last four years of operation. What's the cumulative effect over that of the previous use under the duty branch scenario? So, what is that cumulative effect? And when we were looking at at this 550, I mentioned we erroneously, as it turns out, thought that that was the total number of people that were there. It wasn't. It's not.

It's 770. So, we're looking at the cumulative effect um or want to look at the cumulative effect since the time of the the Duke branch. Um

that's where this board is at. But Jeff's I think Jeff's point is that the apt comparison is what you know the the new building will have that you're considering approving or not versus what will exist this summer if the building's not approved which is the 750 on the current premises without the water saving devices and having nine instead of three meals a day. All but our point uh Eric is um that 750 I understand what you're saying the 750 that uh are there today is using water and septic way in access potentially of what the capacity is in the aquifer or the septic systems and that's what we need to evaluate to see if as a result of what you're doing. It gives us an opportunity to look at the cumulative effects that have not been evaluated properly u if at all in the past since the demise of the of the dude ranch and under seeker we need to look at those cumulative full sight effects in the same way with lighting right by your potential argument you're saying well you know they got approval for lighting before from the building department and they said it was Okay, I guess I don't know. We can't eventually we'll find those permits, I guess. But we're saying right now it's like, wait a minute, the lighting is inappropriate under the the current rules. And we believe, not ours necessarily, we have a code that says we follow the dark sky. We're dark sky compliant, the state dark sky rules. And we believe that as a result of this large project that we have the ability to look at the the full project, the full site and to make corrections where there may have been errors made in the past that I don't I don't want to I'm not

going to speak for the board. However, I think it's to say that the board agrees with the concept of putting everything in under one roof. It's where on the property is that going to happen. What's the size of that facility? And then what are the effects the cumulative effects that have occurred over the last four years that have not been adequately measured? What are the cumulative effects of all those items? uh we we now have an opportunity to take a look at all those and to work to make sure that uh there is enough capacity or if not a way is found to create that capacity. What if we find in our analysis your analysis you know we're going to work on this together. What if we find that there is not ade adequate septic? I gave the example of Sterling Associates, the engineering firm. Their numbers are wrong. Well, not all their numbers, but some of their numbers are wrong in terms of the water per day per person. If that's wrong, then the n potentially if that's wrong, then whatever has been built in terms of septic capacity might also be flawed because water out, water in. And that's what we want to look at. Dave, anybody else from the board?

I agree. I think we have to establish what the benchmark is in order to understand it. We we've we have just a lot of numbers that are not uh backed up by documentation. There have been incremental years of incremental changes and they haven't been assessed for whatever reason. I think we just need to establish the benchmark in order before we we have to have all the information before we can play. And we have a we have a we have an obligation because the communities people live around them so it doesn't jeopardize everyday activities and and that's essentially what comes.

Yes. Yeah. Anybody else from the board? I do want to get into the part two. We good. I think you summarized Yeah. I think you summarized I think you did a very good job summarizing the board's concerns and all right so we're going to do the the part two which is which is painless in some ways we don't we don't flog we don't flog the ampl as we go through it Dave help me with go ahead you wanted to say something

I did uh as everybody as I think people know the part two has two different categories we got to choose either colony column B. Column A is none or low expected impact. Column B is moderate to large expected impact. Column B if we were to check something in column B. You got a question? No, she's I'm looking for the handouts. Yeah, that and we sometimes use the the the form differently, but I just want to make it really clear to everybody on the board and the applicant

that if we were to check moderate to large impact in column B for any any particular impact, that is not by itself a basis for positive declarations. It does not mean a positive declaration at all. What it means is that particular potential impact needs to be reviewed in more detail and that those whichever impacts we decide are moderate to large and therefore need to be looked at more in more detail becomes the basis for a part three essentially which ultimately will will go into our declaration of significance. So just because we check moderate to large doesn't mean it's a pos. It means that um we're cons we have a level of concern and that it will be looked at analyzed more uh with a hard look in a part three. If it's if it's loaded to if it's zero to to low impact that basically means we're dismissing it from further review. So you are free essentially to call us virus collars which means we're going to basically be ordering more of a hard look at it without necessarily bing into a positive declaration and want to make that really clear to everybody. Um sometimes that that aspect is missed and I don't like that happen.

So Stacy gave out two items. one is the blank sheet. Um, and I want to make sure that the applicant has a copy of it. And then the other thing is Dave Church's letter of February 3rd, which starting on page three, um, goes through uh, his analysis out of the box uh, of of what the items how we should find. Hang on, sir. I know you have the hand up. what we uh how we should evaluate the item. So um Dave is going to take us through it. It's not Dave's decision, it's this board's decision. So what I would hope to have happen is that there's a discussion. Some things are pretty obvious and I'm going to ask the board on those on those that aren't obvious. We'll have a discussion and then we're going to vote on each item and we're not going to spend a lot of time on each item batting it around. Um, so patient by the process Stacy document the comments and what we needed and and so on for each each patient.

I'm lost. He's asking if Stacy's going to document our board's comments. Yeah. Oh, your comments, right? And basically her to document everybody's comments. Well, conclusion. What is missing? Yes. Okay. She's not necessarily going to have a rendition of everybody has I didn't know. I'm going to check the answers and I'll try my best. We have it taped if you want to listen to everybody. All right. So Dave, are you okay with going through this leading us through it? Sure. Okay. I'm excited. What's that? I'm excited. Good.

Or do you want me to get started? No, I can if you want. What do you want to do with it? Well, well, let me get started. You want me to set the Sorry stage. Go ahead.

There are 18 categories in the or impact areas on the part two. You've done this before. Uh, as uh Mr. Gordon noted, um, you've got two choices. Each category is multiple subcategories. They're basically statements to answer no or small impact or moderate to large impact. Um, uh, the chairman asked me earlier this year to based on what I available to me as of that time, how I might recommend you answer these. Um, uh, there may be new information that's come in since I'm aware of or not aware of, um, which will change this change this. Um I I also working with Jennifer and Felina uh crafting this memo uh will emphasize um that if you're going to make a decision about whether there's an impact and whether it's is or isn't and is it smaller, moderate or large. Um in that analysis world, you have to have a baseline to compare it to. Um what are you comparing the delta the change? What's the change? Um and in my mind we still it's still a bit elusive exactly what we're comparing the proposal to um because of this you know the is it the dude ranch as fully approved? Is it the current applicant first got on the property?

Is it somewhere along the way still unknown? So, let's make sure that we don't make believe that we're launching a rocket ship, right?

And we have to get every nut and bolt riveted on properly to get the rocket ship somewhere. Let's just go through it. And I I think the board knows enough about this project to be able to say, look, I think with this project, the way it was described by me, the cumulative effects, they'll be able to make some determination. Um I have one question for you and it's um should be an easy answer. Do we need to go for the first one impact on land? Do we need to just simply for some of these just say no impact on land or are you suggesting that we go through every subcategory? Well, I've seen clients uh answer the yes or no first and then go through them or go through them and then reach the conclusion. Yes.

So, what do you recommend we do? Uh I think in this case we probably need to go through the sub items. Yeah, I would the one the sub items the A through this first one and then decide if it's yes or no. Okay, everybody go with that. Yes. All right. I'll do the first one. Impact on Williams. Um the proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 ft. No. Everybody agree with no. It's a fact it the soil type does not have that situation. Thank you. No.

The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. No. The proposed action may involve construction where bedrock is exposed or generally within 5t of existing ground service. No. No. If if I say something and you disagree, you got to let me know. I'm just going to keep rolling. There are out rock outcrops at the near road. Near the road. Yep. And also I thought there was a rock out crop in the area where the building or within 5t of the surface. I don't I mean whether or not that's a significant impact. Do you know that for a fact? I believe that I have pictures of it.

Not a fact. All right. So you're suggesting that's moderate. No or small. Or no or small? Mostly. No or small. Okay. So that's what we did. We did no or small. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than a thousand tons of natural material. I don't believe that that's okay. So that's a no. They're proposed to actually in fact they propose to cut and fill right excavate and use the fill on site. So removal means actually removal from the site not moving. That's how it's been interpreted. Right. Right. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or multiple phases. Dave, what do you recommend there?

No, we've heard you're doing it in within a year. Yeah. So going with small impact. The proposed action may result in increased erosion whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal. Well, the fact is they can't, right? They're not allowed to because of a SWIP would have to Yeah. Excuse me. It's a Toyota Senica van that the alarm keeps going off on.

Okay. Not mine. I know that. Okay, that's a no. For F, that's a no. G, the proposed action is or may be located within this uh coastal. No. No. Any other? Are there any others? I don't know of any. Anybody know of any? All right. So, everybody agree that impact on land is a no. Impact on geologic geological features. I'll let you read the three and then I'm going to make a suggestion. I'll let you read those three geological features we remember. So I would say this is a no.

Everybody okay with that? Yeah. There's no by the way no national natural landmark anywhere near closest one to my knowledge is the Palisades. Okay. In fact on surface war let's go through each of the detailed ones. The proposed action may create a new water body. I would suggest no. Proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10acre increase or decrease in the surf. No. Uh proposed action may involve dredging more than No. No.

D. The proposed action may involve construction within or returning a freshwater or tidal wetland. No. The proposed action may create turbidity in a water body either from upland erosion, runoff, or by disturbing bottom sediments. I'm going to look to the water people for I mean it would only be if there were storm water or some kind of other and they do have requirements for um the switch and for sediment erosion control and they're showing those on the plans. I mean, it would only be if there was like a failure or something, but I I don't I think no. So, is everybody okay with no effect?

Proposed action may include construction of one or more intakes for withdrawal of water from surface water. No, you're not siphoning water out of the pond, right? I just had to say that one. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfalls for discharge of waste water to surface water. That what I interpret them to mean is wherever the septic outfalls are. Greg, where are those septic outfalls going? Just all of the sept all of the septic outfalls are subsurface disposal.

So subsurface. So it's subsurface. They don't have a speed permit for discharge to one body. So the answer to that is no. If the proponent's action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of storm water discharge that may lead to situations or other lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. Right. And I would say no again that with the storm with the swift that they're required to have and there's not really a receiving stream. Well, there is there's one of the very good but couple of thousand feet.

Yeah. So, I would say okay. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. No. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in around a water body. No. Proposed action may require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. That's a question. That's So how do we answer this one, Dave? You are put a note that says maybe. So is that we put a note? Is it no or small? Is it moderate to what?

Well, it's the I think what you're going to discover in some future ones in the other categories, it's uh you need more information. So, would everybody okay with putting here need more information? Yes, that works. I think it's also worth the review of the interpretation because this is an impact to surface water bodies. So when they say a wastewater treatment plant, I I think a wastewater treatment plant which did charges do a surface by a septic tank. I would not consider a waste water. All right. So we're going to change that. I'll recommend that that's a noticeable.

All right. So this category, Alina, impacts on surface water is a no. Everybody agree with that? Um that was number three. Number four, impact on groundwater. We know anyone relates to Okay. The proposed action may require new water supply wells or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. Maybe. I know. Maybe. Maybe. Is maybe the same as moderate? Well, again, the exercise is do you need more documentation? Okay. So, this is more documentation. It's what I explained before. Go ahead.

If you if you do no or small, we're going to be dismissing it from further secret review. If you check moderate to large may occur, that means we're going to look at it more closely and and develop the information of how to review. Okay. So, we should emphasize on correct. Okay. So, moderate. Well, it's it's two things. one, if you don't have enough, if you feel you don't have enough information to evaluate, and two, you're concerned that in in a worst case scenario with that, you know, in terms of your lack of information that you you're going to be looking at a potentially significant adverse impact. And again, it doesn't say we're locked into we're not locked into a poss means we're going to do more work to develop that information. But, you know, in other words, if it was trivial, you

you would you still wouldn't say if you thought it was trivial, you you still wouldn't say moderate to large. But if it's, you know, substantial and you don't understand it, well, that's when you get to a moderator to learn. Okay, great. Could I just add something? Um, you'll find for the board members, you'll find that embedded in this process, this exercise, there's a lot of language like potential for impacts may require it's not definitive in any way. And that's that's the point here. And you you we'll get the same when we get to a declaration of significance. The neg says there's not going to be any and a pause deck says there might be a significant adverse impact and we need to do more in terms of an EIS. Right now it's just a question we need more in terms of part three. Yes.

Next one B. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity. I would say that's a lot protection overlay district. Um, the proposed action may allow or result in residential residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. I don't that's a no. No, not residential. And proposed action may include or require wastewater discharge to groundwater. That's a moderate.

That's a moderate. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is or suspected to be contaminated. No. No. Small. Proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum. No. Two. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 ft of plottable water. So on this one, impact on groundwater. We came up with three moderates. So I would say that this is a yes. Right.

What zone? uh regards the petroleum can okay storage petroleum do we know what kind of heating is there oil what kind of what heating heating I don't know if we ever found out what the capacity is of their oil tanks show is that because and it is in the over the u protection overlay district they may need what you're saying and they may need a bulk petroleum permit registration. Really good point. Well, the issue again here is they exist. We were back there, right?

Not sure what those I don't know. I think we've asked I may have asked to see if they have registrations question about what are you examining what is proposed or andor what exists. Well, we're doing both. Well, that's your call. I'm just proposing that we need to know what bulk heating oil storage exists and is permitted. Well, they register. Yes. Right. So, I think the issue is Well, I'm using the term permitted broadly. It's Yeah. Okay. All right. So, you would suggest that we make that a moderate. I'm just saying again it's the we need more information to

So, that's a moderate. Yeah. Okay. impact on flooding. The proposed action may result in development in designated floodway. Okay. No small. No floodways north and east of there. Okay. Thank you. There is no oil. They use propane. They use propane. Okay. That was easy. Are you proposing that? Yeah. Go ahead forward. We're staying with propane, right? Yes. So that goes there's no proposed action with regard to so that goes back to no or small intact. Okay. Um

I might leave that could have well you just need to document it that right B on under five. The proposed action may result in development within a 100redyear flood plane. Correct? I don't think there's any flood planes here. No where they're proposing development. Okay. No or small. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year. Well, if it didn't do 100 year, then it's probably not going to do 100 years. So, no. First action may result in or require modification of existing drainage patterns. Greg,

wasn't that an issue that the drainage patterns are changing? Well, no, because the last SWIP they modified that and they're showing the drainage patterns to be consistent with what exists. So, they're not showing changes in drainage pattern uh based on the most recent SWIP or the first the first SWIP did show a change. Correct. The first plan showed the drainage to go towards the road where the existing drainage goes back towards the pond. The most recent smell shows drainage going back towards the pond. Okay. So that's going to be a no or small. And

of course when we go through the the the actual conditions or the actual they need to make sure that that drainage plan is the one that they gave us. Yes. So that's Noah small implant. Proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. No. If there's a dam. No. Okay. So, number five. Does everybody agree that that's a no? Okay. Dave, do you want to pick up number six and then I'll pick it up again? Sure.

If the proposed action requires federal or state air emissions permits, the action may also emit one or more of the greenhouse gases at above or the following. Uh, I don't think it requires air permits from anybody. So, all these or no? Yeah. Does everybody agree? Yes. Go ahead, Dave. Proposed action will generate 10 tons per year or more of one designated hazardous air pollutant. No. Proposed action may require a state air registration or may reduce may produce emissions rate of total contaminants may exceed five pounds per hour, etc. That's a vow. Okay.

Proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in A through C. That's no. Proposed action may result in a combustion or thermal treatment for more than one ton of refuge per hour. So number six is everybody agree that that's a no.

Okay. Impact on plants and animals. Grant Dave. Uh, a the proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species as listed by um that that use the site or are found on or near the site. I think we've got a we've done research in the EAF, right? There's no known threatened or endangered species. So, no a small impact. Uh B. Proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of a habitat used by a rare, threatened, or endangered species as listed by New York State or federal government. There were no hits on the no hits.

So that's no or small proposed action may cause reduction in population loss of individuals of any species of special concern or conservation need as listed by New York State or the federal government. So this is your northern long-eared bat. I don't think trees Yeah, you're cutting trees. Yes, they're cutting trees, but none of those trees that I know of are habitats for bats. Those particular trees along the road. Yeah, correct. No, up on top. They're pines. There's a handful of larger specimen trees, right, that you were that are kind of where the building was proposed. So, only where the building is, but we

remember the control mechanism is seasonal cutting. So, it's this is a no everybody. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. D D. The proposed action may result in reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern or conservation need. Again, again, the the species of concern here is the northern longear bat or or bald eagle. So, we have no hits on any of the forms that we've gotten from the DEC. So, that's a no. Uh E. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a register of national natural landmark. There again there aren't any inst county. That's no.

Um the proposed action may result in the removal of or ground disturbance in any portion of a designated significant natural community. No. And you have to site the source. So that's a no. Um G. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting, breeding, foraging, or overwintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. No. H. Proposed action required the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest. That's a no. I proposed action involves use of herbicides or pesticides.

So this number seven is a no. I can okay uh impact on agricultural resources proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group one through four of the New York land classification system. So that's a that site's pretty much disturbed, right? Greg, I guess. So no or small. Um those are you know prime egg soils except proposed action may sever cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land. No.

C proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil protype profile of active agricultural land. No. D. Proposed action may irreversibly con convert agricultural land to non-aggricultural per uses. That's a no. E. Proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. No. F. The proposed action may result directly or indirectly increased development potential or pressure on land on farmland. No. G. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal farmland protection plan. No.

Which to my knowledge you don't have. We don't have. Number eight. Everybody agrees or no? Number nine, Dave. Okay, here we go. Impact on aesthetic resources. A proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. The closest one would be the scenic byway. And I'm not convinced it's visible from route 209. Is it? No. No. No. But from the lookouts it would be. Yeah. From the from the scenic byway. We don't know that. Right. What's that? We don't know. You'd see the proposed building from there. We need We'd have to find out. Great. Visual assessment.

I thought we had some pictures at one time. They were the ones that I recall unless they were replaced for Conclusive conclusive. All right. So, let's put moderate. We want more information basically. Moderate. Go ahead. From and in this case, Stacy Footnote from the from the 4455, right? C overlook. Um B, proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination, or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic

use. C. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points. Uh subsect a little eye seasonally, right? That is screened by summer foliage but not visible during other seasons or year round year. Well, what is vintage point? Just case it's not the fine line. It's a collecting food. So we take 4455 as the end that Well, this is like another project you have for these sort of inventoried resources versus things that are locally appreciated, right?

I you're going to have to make a decision if you want to stick with it's publicly accessible vantage points would be would be the road. Yeah. Oh yes. We need more information. So it's Monica to launch. See the B is officially designated. Right. Right. That's where that's where C is the it's similar to another project we're talking about. It's it's kind of the lowest on our is the resource category, right? That's so designated. Is the local the scenic the Cherry Town Road isn't designated as scenic. No, but it's not. But it is a vantage point. Right. Okay.

So moderate but but it under goes evaluation. I mean it's not the same if you're on Cherry Town Road. It's not the same as seeing it from a park or something like that. Okay. So for purposes of number of number C these two questions little I little two I is yes is moderate. Okay. Keep going D. We're ready. We're up to D. D. The situation or activity of which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is little I routine travel by residents including travel to and from work. That's true. That that's a yes for sure.

Is it small or moderate and andor recreational tourism based activity? Well, that would be so for little I it's moderate to large. What about for two eye? If as well tourists in the cars now getting around that's about how you see well I mean that that be true of anywhere. I mean tourists drive all I mean that seems low low to me. That's not fair. Are we okay with that or all right? Keep going.

Are we taking into account with these that part of the application is requiring and and uh landscaping that will literally hide the building from the road? I would say that with the landscaping is closed adult tree. You're not seeing this project in 4455. So those are the medications as a result of the left. This puts us into part three. What you just said is going to be a factor in the evaluation. Otherwise, we just don't deal with it at all. But this that puts parts that's why do I have this right? Is this a good way of saying it? Like this tells us where we should have a header in in adopt where we should talk about it versus we don't talk about it at all. Go ahead, Dave. Number E.

Uh the proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment or appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. I the issue is there there's nothing designated. designated resource. Okay, so that's a no or small. Dave, explain designated resource. Designated resource is uh parallel to um inventoried resource that we've talked about with the other project where it's on a list kept by the town, the state, the county, the federal government. It's uh so for example, scenic areas of statewide significance that New York State give examples. Give examples specific examples. The ridge. Yes. Bohawk Minasa.

Correct. Okay. So, this is a no because that's not a designated Hudson River Shor is a state designated scenic resource, right? The Gunks are there are F there are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project. Zero to half mile, half mile to three mile, three to five mile, and five plus mile. Well, there is a project down the road, Peter. What is that, a half a mile down the road? Which one? The other camp going west southwest. The other camp up Jerry down the road. Yeah. Yeah. Is it visible from the road?

I think it's visible from here. I think the similarity here, Dave, correct me if I'm wrong. And the critical issue here for in terms of the visual impacts, the aesthetic resources is not the the camp use, it's the size of the the size of the building, right? That's what we're talking about. Is there anything? Yeah, I think it's a context question, right? Okay. So, you can see this, but can you see other things just like it nearby? Not from here. Not from here. I mean, in these routine travels, how far do you have to go from that building to find something similar to it? in terms of the proposed building or to the current camp. The proposed proposed building

it's you're not going to see anything because there is no nothing similar. So it's a no. Okay. Um okay. Number nine is a no. I'm sorry. Number nine is a yes. Sorry, lost my head. Impact on historic and archaeological resources. I'll pick up here Dave if you like. Um the proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any building's archaeological site or district which is listed on national. This is this is a yes. Yes. The farmstead is on the National Register of Historic Places. The property immediately north and west.

Right. So moderate. Go ahead. That's the whole property not just the house. The whole parcel. Correct. B. The proposed action may occur wholly or partly within or substantially contiguous to an area designated or as sensitive for no idea sites on the New York State historic on Shipo's archaeological site inventory. No says no. Okay. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to an archaeological site not included on the New York State Shipo inventory. The cemetery.

The cemetery. Yeah. So is that no or small impact? I would say yes only because you need to talk about it for a So you would recommend moderate. Yeah. Because I think we were saying that we would not want them to disturb that area but not regulated by the state. So we just make sure that there's no disturbance at cemetery. Okay. Okay. So that would So that category is a yes category of a oh sorry it's a it's a weird format of the form but

where is E added after any of the bulber moderate or large

I see if any okay continue with the following question to help support conclusions. In part three, I the proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. No small. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property setting or integrity. No small. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are at a counter with the site of property or may alter its setting.

Again, this is relates to historic and archaeological features. It's not just that it's aesthetic. It's got an aesthetic impact which we acknowledged earlier historic and archaeological resources. Specifically, if I heard correctly, the cemetery. Is this going to damage the visual appreciation of the cemetery? Small z small or moderate to large potentially. Do we include the farm adjacent farm? Is that we include the farm in the previous one? That's right. That's right. Yeah. Although Shipo said there's no impact.

Yeah, we would talk about it. I'm just telling you you have record from the professional in the state that said there's no impact. All right. So, let's just pause this for a minute. This is section E which is meant to elaborate on the previous sections. We already determined that this was a yes for this section number 10 on the aesthetics. Yeah. Yes. So, I don't know that it makes a difference on historic. It has a message you the one resource of note is the cemetery and the adjoining farm. All right. So on e triple I do I have a

yes we have a yes a moderate yeah I think it needs discussion. Okay there we go. So section 10 is a yes. Correct. Yes. Correct. The whole section is a yes. Impact on open space space and recreation. A proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions or ecosystem services provided by an undeveloped area. This is not in undeveloped. So no, we could. Yeah. Proposed action may result in a loss of a current or future recreation resource. No.

Proposed action may eliminate open space recreational resources. No. Proposed action may result in a loss of an area now used informally by the community. No. So this is a no. Number 11 is no. Y impact on critical environmental areas. There are no critical environmental. It's a list of pro properties with the New York State DC midday. So this is no but there aren't any in the town

that we don't have designated CAS. Number 13. Impact on transportation. Um projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. Well, no need to need discussion. I think it's discussion moderative. Yeah. Okay. Proposed action be resulting. Why is that? Why is that moderate? The the uh application will have no increase in population. So why they've got public testimony that there's traffic concerns or existing use not for today? Yes. But today,

but there no building. So we were not bringing on any new population for the build. This is the baseline problem. If there's an existing problem, this gets to the we have to establish when what you're comparing the new proposal to. This gets to the issue of the cumulative effects. We're looking at the cumulative effects of what's happened all along.

But all the questions are about proposed action. The proposed action building will do this. The proposed action will do that. and and you're talking about other things here, not the proposed action, but we don't have a data was going to be zero. It's all works nothing. So, we need to investigate. Well,

so I feel, if I may, I feel like the state environmental quality review requirements consider things like cumulative impacts, but they also talk about something called segmentation, which is where things change in a peacemeal way. And so sometimes things are segmented whether intentionally or unintentionally. And the idea of looking at cumulative impacts, part of the intent of that is to understand all of the changes taken together. And one of the questions on here where it asked if you could see something nearby is getting at the idea of a cumulative impact. So maybe and it doesn't apply necessarily to this case, but that's why it asks the question. It's it's trying to understand cumulative impact.

So you're suggesting and I'll come back to what Mr. Trent said, but your suggestion is that we're looking there's an existing problem that's existed that has been noted by the public and this this doesn't change what's happening right now, but what's happening right now is are complaints by the public that there's traffic issues. They may be intermittent traffic issues, but there are traffic issues. So well and this board has not reviewed the use of the site that's 770 people. So it would seem appropriate to understand how much more traffic what what the current use is. Can the roads I don't know the answer to that

maybe but you'd want to understand if the existing town roads are designed to accommodate traffic for well if I agree but maybe Greg can capacity is measured by the operational realities of the intersections. Yes. Um I don't A B C D we went through this with the proposed store. Um I don't know what the status is of your knowledge of if the intersection of Samsonville Road and Cherry Douts functional or not.

So So I think the community at this port I've heard from this board of Italy that traffic is quote unquote bad. Whatever that means. There's a lot of traffic at different times of the year. So, this question seems to get at the issue of what is the what are the traffic impacts and how can you mitigate them or if are there any potential traffic impacts? Yes. If and if there are I think the question

if I if I may for the applicant is what can you document to provide the board that there's going to be no increase of traffic? Well, but could I add beyond that was the site entrance designed for this capacity and is it a safe entry? Right? Because that would be one thing that a traffic analysis would want to understand is does the existing site and we wouldn't we don't we have no idea that it could be it may not be. So this again gets to the whole point of

I if I could I I I think that if there would be an increase of traffic as a result of this project, it would be how are you delivering your food product to to the place because there's no additional traffic as a result of having a dining room there. It's really just a question of the So, I I think that we will add information to our um our document that will show what the traffic flow is as a result of this building. Okay. So, you're agreeing that it's a yes. It requires additional information. So, so

they did present when it was our they you you presented you're going to shift the service, right? The truck service down the to a fuller access road with fuller turnaround on the right. Yes. Uh we haven't given it to you already, but we'll southwest of where the current one is, I think. Right. Okay. So number 13 Dave is going to be a yes. Okay.

Number 14, impact on energy. The proposed action will require new upgrade to existing substation. No. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of energy transmission. No. Proposed action may utilize more than 25 megawws. Megawatt hours per year. I would say that's no. Proposed action may involve heating or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when complete. No. So this is a no impact.

How do we know regard substation? No. As electrical engineers. So how do we know it's not going to affect that new building power demand station? Well, I look at the number 2500 megawatt hours. No, I'm talking about substation. I mean, I I had a job put in the substation. It's a lot of energy, right? Like a lot. So, you're an electrician. So, and I'm all right. So, impact on energy is enough. The requirement of 300 houses.

I did an electric study warehouse. So, that's what Okay. Are we okay with that being enough? Yes. Perfect. No, I don't. Want me to relieve you? Yes. Why did you do that? Noise and odor light. A proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. No more small. You've got your five and 10 decel above ambient at the property standard at the property. at the property line, which is right.

I know that there's been complaints from the public that we heard about noise. Um, you could be arguing it can't because your code requires that it doesn't,

right? And all of those situations, I think we decided those were police matters um in terms of the amount of noise they had to be referred to. There's a noise disturbance. I'm sorry, how to be referred to um to the uh to the Jean knobs. This refers to something's running permanently that exceeds what the town has as their um maximum sound and there's nothing. Oh, you know what? Wait a minute. Air conditioning. The air conditioning units and the refrigeration units. It's that and I think that we all agreed that there was not going to be any loudspeakers, right? So that would one you would want to flatten them as well that would like if he prop say that the outdoor event phenomena, right? If if you had an applicant in front of you that wanted an outdoor venue that would be amplified, they would confess that they were going to exceed that that five or 10 above ambient level, right? And they want

they want to vary. Nobody confesses to anything. They have to you would discover that they're not they're not proposing to do anything nor would you allow them to. Okay. So the one thing that does come to mind, we talked about air conditioning units. refrigeration units etc etc etc creating uh enough noise to be of a disturbance to the neighbors. So I would say that that's no or small impact or if you feel it's moderate. Uh I mean this category is going to be a yes because it has light. Well and I think for noise you would want a section talking about the spot site

about how they're going to handle the air conditioning units and all that which they've already told us they're going to put in the courtyard behind the building. But so why don't we tick off moderate and we'll deal with it in terms of how to mitigate that noise that's coming. And ultimately some of those uh representations from the applicant are are going to end up it's presumably the Ford accepts them as mitigations they're going to end up in site plan approval as conditions. So want to carry that information for you. We make sure it's valid. Okay. Because if because of for some reason it didn't work out right in terms of the condition being locked in or whatever it could cause it could increase the sound of the the property on any more than five or 10 dB. So we want to get it in there and then we'll get the mitigation you know laid out and then um you know we foundation.

So this is moderate have tendency to make announcement sort of the speaker posted on a on a on a on a post on a poll. We just talked about that. No no outdoor speaker. They're not going to have any speakers. Okay. So no no on the property. Well, that's what we talked about. We're not solving the problem now. We're pointing out how it might be a problem and then we need to talk about how it gets mitigated to monitor it. So, number So, we we did that as moderate. Okay. Thanks. B, the proposed action may result in blasting within

1500. There's no blasting proposed, right? But C, the proposed action may result in routine or odors for more than one hour per day. No. D. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. That's moderate. E. The proposed action may result in lighting and creating sky glow brighter than existing area exhibitions. And that's a moderate. So for this one, impact number 15, we're saying that that's a yes. Okay.

Impact on human health. Proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed, day center, daycare center, group home, nursing home, or retirement community. No. B. Sitive. The proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. No.

C. There is a completed emergency spill remediation or a completed environmental site remediation upon or adjacent to the site in post. No. No. B. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property that is an easement or deed restriction. No. E. The proposed action may institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure the site remains protective of the environment and human health. No.

F. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation treatment or andor disposal of hazardous waste will be protective of the No. G. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. No. H. Proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. No. A I the proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal or processing of solid waste. J. The proposed action may result in excavation and or disturbance within 2,000 ft of a site used for the disposal of waste. K. The proposed action may result in the mitigation of explosive gases from a landfill. No.

No. I l Sorry. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated le shift. No. Does everybody agree that this is a no? Agree. I believe and 17. Consistency with community plans. A proposed actions land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to the surrounding land use pattern. Yes. Yes. Moderate. The proposed action will I'll pick it up.

Okay. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of city, town, and village uh to grow more than 5%. No. Proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. No. Proposed action is inconsistent with any county plans or other regional No. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. Dave Gordon, help me with this one.

Well, what they're looking for here primarily is whether or not this is going to overload existing infrastructure. Now, what does Selena say? Well, that's bingo. Typically, this would mean public infrastructure. Here, they're proposing to reuse an existing septic system. Oh, it says public infrastructure. No, wait, there's ENF. They say different things. E is existing infrastructure.

F says public infrastructure which will be he's just he doesn't say public. So let's um there's variety of legal cannons of legal construction that say we can assume it's something else. So private infrastructure and that tends to push in a particular direction here, right? Well, the the act the active phrase is will it cause a change in the density of development may cause a change then you're back to your base that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from

yeah but is it going to may it cause a change in density? You know, here's my thought. Everything that DEEC does with these forms, they they do their best, but it doesn't it's not meant to fit every particular situation and needs to be adapted. And this particular form, you know, like I said, if we were to choose moderate to large, it means we're going to develop information. So, the question really for the board, look, you know, we can parse the words, you know, till god knows what hour tonight. Um but is this an area where the board is interested in further information as to whether a change in the density of development and again the baseline here is um whatever it is we and we don't we haven't nailed it down yet is it that's not supported it's not supported by existing infrastructure and so it's up to the board to determine whether we want to hear more about this particular issue. I personally think we we should figure that out that she

so infrastructure referred to water and septic I think you could assume the septic system is existing electric I think you already have water and sewer under a different section so you don't really need it here the title here is consistent with community plans right so it suggests public well yeah but F says public yeah and then distant from existing infrastructure would be distant from our own infrastructure so I distance from water and sewer in communities.

So in my experience a lot of times if you have a yes in a different category area over just to ensure that you're doing apples to apples so that you're what you say in one place is consistent with what you say in another place. Um so in the other place we said moderate. So for example, if we say yes maybe traffic, yes maybe um water and sewer, then you might talk about those findings in this section to the extent that it's relevant for community.

I mean the other point is it's this is primarily to extend we're talking about this septic system. It's of course primarily a groundwater protection issue and council's point that it's in community plans. I I don't think this is all about developing more information. So we're dancing on the head of a pen a little bit. It's up to the board. Jennifer's got a good point that you want to carry these issues forward. You know, the information may develop that this has nothing to do with community plans, but it may have to do with um you know, groundwater issues. So, so it's you know, it's really up to you. Again, these you know, DC's tried to do the best job they can anticipating the variety of impacts and it's going to hit each project differently and um you know, I don't think we need to debate it at full. We're going to I think we're going to look at this particular issue. All right. So, what's the context?

Moderate. Not proposed action is located in an area characterized by lowdensity development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. There is going to be no new public infrastructure sewer or the proposed action may induce secondary development impacts. opposed to action may induce I don't know means if you're building a huge subdivision you're likely to get more retail downtown sort of thing.

So I think this one is yes to think this is a yes and then the last one um consistency with community character. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facility structures or areas. Uh, no. Pros action may create a demand for additional community services, eg schools, police, and fire. No. Pros action may displace affordable or low-income housing uh in an area where there is a shortage. No. Pros action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. No. Proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. I think that's monitor.

That's monitored. Yeah. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. No. Where? So this has Yeah. I want to take you back to and it's actually Peter P. Where are you? I don't really fire fire. It's going to cause a demand for additional community services in terms of fire. 770 people on the side. Fire department ready to to save them if something happens there. That's what we're dealing with now. What does that mean? Means it's unknown.

What does it mean you're dealing with it now? Population now is is what it is. Is are there is there inducement of fire services now? Has it been once? Does the fire department have to have to slow down there? We have had to go. Yeah, we have. Um, so you're capable to the management to send you the test, but I seen this is what Well, I think part of the until we see a final plan, it's hard for me to know. It's hard for everybody. So, we need more information. We're going to need more information. Is that correct?

Fire safety. The bottom line is though, bu building this building will uh make the facility far safer in terms of what you're using now for kitchens. You're going to have a state-of-the-art kitchen in this building. So, it actually is is uh small, but you'd also have more people in one area one time, which is a bigger challenge. And the building is bigger than the existing building or potentially. Yeah. So, Zorian, what number was that under 18? All right. So, we're changing that to moderate. Does everybody agree? Yeah.

And another point, uh, David H in his comments that the comments from the town historic preservation committee, right? Uh, and and other other public hearing comments. Can you can you promise on this? I'm sorry. What? In your comments to 18, you mentioned several different points and and you mentioned from from your perspective, it might be a yes. You talking about a bunch 18. Yeah.

Well, it says replace the verbs are replace or eliminate. I I refer to what I quote here. So my point being I think you need to look at E that not A or B E the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character and that's where we got the letter from the town preservation I'm corrected it's E yeah you wrote it right yes so we you referred this to the historic preservation committee and commented on the neighborhood character issue, right?

Yes, they did. So, and number So, E is clearly moderate to large. I just want to All right. So, number 18 is a yes. So, you got that. Yes. Okay. I would suggest that the board pass a resolution authorizing your consultant planner to prepare a part three that analyzes these issues. I make a motion. I second it. Can you say that one more time? You can't make the motion. Hans, are you making the motion?

And would you repeat the motion? The motion is to uh to employ our consultant Dave Church to prepare part three part three and add to that with the assistance of at least two or three other people who I know have been looking at this. Well, I'll may I note on the uh on three and four I'll need help if possible from the town engineer. Yes. Yes.

I'll expand the resolutions to say such help as he may need to complete part three will be made available. All right. So, Hans, you made that resolution. I made the resolution. You made the second. Yes, I seconded. All in favor? I I Anybody opposed? Okay. So, council, our next step is for us to develop the part three. I don't expect that that's going to be done much before launch 9th. Dave, today February 9th, be a month from now. A month? You need a month. You need two weeks. What do you need?

Yeah. Can you want to get it a week before that? We'd like it a week before that so we can Yeah. Um Yeah, I'll do the best I can. Panicking. I think anyone else in the room panicking that has volunteered been volunteered to help. I I can help you. I can help you. Didn't I already Felina and Greg were in office, right? All right. So, we'll work we'll work that out. So May 9th of May 9th March 9th if if I help you one time. Excellent. And we need to get that a week ahead of time so we can distribute it to the applicant.

The applicant's aware of where we entered. Yes. So uh it would be of assistance to provide additional information. Then that's a good point. If you can provide additional information, gentlemen, if you if your clients can get us more information, we could point this into that, right? And I can go to Jeff. Any information that uh comes from from you all to us should go to myself and Dave.

Well, she didn't go to Stacy. Yeah, Stacy. Yes. To Stacy. She'll distribute it. I state Stacy, when do you think you can get the rough minutes to them? Tomorrow. The post meeting letter. I can at least get a post meeting letter tomorrow. Sure. Oh, yes. Okay. So, Jeff, you can have her minutes or draft minutes on this minutes by the end of the week, but post meeting letter I can do tomorrow. Oh, okay. Okay. I They're basically done now, but Oh, is it great to have an administrative assistant? Yes, it is.

All right. Does the applicant have any questions for us or comments?

You want to reopen the public hearing? Okay. You're going to reopen the public hearing for the March meeting. I believe there's no need to knock this into April. meeting.

Um, the question is, do we are we going to open up the public hearing for March 9th? I think on March 9th, we're going to be going through three. The public will see it because we'll post it ahead of time. I have no problem opening up the public hearing at that time. Certainly not. And then you know what we usually do public hearing happens up front whatever other public hearings we have and then later on in the agenda we discuss uh either the public hearing or appropriately the material that's been developed. So we will have the public hearing on the 9th continue continuation making continuation of the public hearing on the 9th.

Yes. Also, depending on the outcome of the part three, your decision on what to do with it, you may be required to have a 30-day comment period. Yes. Let's leave that alone until you and Dave. Okay. Let's leave that alone until you, Dave, myself walk through the various steps from part two to part three. This is a whole bunch of steps. It's the first time. throws up the first time, but the complexity of this is much more than we've done before. So, you're right. We may have to go with that.

So, if you can provide documentation about how you're going to address these or or go on record to say you're going to address certain things, we can incorporate that into the into the response to the board. Right. Yeah. Jeeoff, you know what? during the course as you're thinking through what we did tonight. If if you need further information, more technical information, you're free to call um my father over here. Dave Church. Dave Church. Thank you. Or even Greg. Um that's what happens.

There's a chronology works for me in your father. It's the other way. It's the other way around. Hang on one second. Or uh hang on one second. Or Greg, our engineering. Sorry, hold on. Jeff, Mr. Kaplan mentioned uh that the project has been scaled down to 19,000 square feet, one floor, basement vacant. Do we have those plans? No. Yes. What the question was, do we have the plans that reflect the new Do we have those? I don't know. I had not I don't I don't the latest plan that we have

that's the latest that we have whatever that that's the latest I have please

and this dining facility there's no elevations so it's different than what Jeff mentioned We'll update it. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. You're welcome. Six copies. I mean, we do, Jeff. We do have lots of plans. 30day comment period. You have the same plans. If you have something and we just said, "Oh, this is quite old." Give us some. This one, the one we have here is 22,000 ft taken off another

and dates the date the revisions. Date the revision

and also on this there's an overall site survey. I don't think the are they I don't think the sheets are No, the sheets aren't uh numbered either, but the site survey is no information. It has lots of shapes and stuff, but it doesn't have any information. So, you know what? Um Dave brings up a good point at we do have some plans, but they're quite old. Go back to April or May and there were multiple sheets. They're like 16 different sheets, 14 different sheets. First page was X. Second page was Y. All sorts of sheets, but they're old. And we also had sheets of the layout, the interior layout.

So why don't you get us a whole new plan set, the latest and greatest plan set. We've talked about that before. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're not going back to DC tonight, are you? I'm going to see my mom in Jersey. Oh, good. Washington enjoy our weather. Uh, we're going to take a 10-minute break. The next project is

for I know but it just me

anyway part of the reason why the courts How many five?

I don't know. I thought now I bought I was thinking letter

governor wants for housing. Well, see that?

Well, there the outing of many people including certainly just Yeah, I've got do a lot more. I don't think Well, I'm looking around the date.

Okay. They're they're of the mind that it's everything's fine, right?

Well, no, they're not saying I make a better They don't change any numbers who all the same thing. Okay. about the capacity.

Yeah, this is what I've got.

Do it as we go. We had a secretary at the DC. Yeah. No, but I can't talk in time. How are you? I don't. How are you? I don't I mean even some incredible resemb down here.

Huh? You record I don't know where the line goes starting to build a chronology. I don't know if you know this only came up with buried in the older early.

That was a submitted permit. The speedy's permitted to do things that just came out they got a temporary

but I don't recall It was just whatever sent you camp which is now expired. Well, the camp is expired. Well, the camper I think is I've never done that. So, they would get it. That has a

I'm pretty sure that has enough time that I don't Well, and I'll have to give myself.

Yeah, I think you Jennifer Greg and I was last fully. We don't know.

But that doesn't make up the that number. All they have is a they got the speed permit transferred over the branch, right?

Well, anyway, this is all right. Well, I have to tell you every time I go over there and every 2450 per

chain they have throat or something. I I was this part of Saturday afternoon outside.

Hey, we get the chance to repeat something more. have to figure out how to

watch. Okay, let's go. Okay. What happened? You know the populist that's a good Wow. Scott has never happened before. Okay. All right. So, I wear him down even. All right. So, Verizon is back. Um, good evening.

Yeah. Um, so what I want to do, what we want to do tonight, we tried to do this, I think we supposed to do it the night of the snowstorm, but we put it in. Yeah. And we want to do the part two also for Verizon. But before we do that, I would like Dave, this Dave to address again um with Scott here uh the whole issue of the uh the variety of documents that found their way to us over the last month. a variety of documents. That's that's a pretty Scott narrows it down as requested as requested having to do with the height of the tower. Yeah.

So, Scott, um the board has had some advice from our attorney, but I'm not going to go into it. I'd rather have our attorney describe publicly which would mean then that your letter will then be released okay to the public but I'd like you to describe again so the board can react if there's any other reaction to what told us before describe to us again how we should be handling this request for a different look at the height and then a withdrawal of that request in terms of the height

right well the board will remember that in December, Verizon uh made a couple of submittals which suggested that the height of the surrounding trees that we previously understood to be approximately 45 ft was incorrect and uh the one number that I that that strikes me the most was in one I think in Scott's letter of December 19th was was really 100 feet which would and the suggestion was that would substantially change the zoning height criterion and at the January meeting. I advise for the applicant and publicist here that if they want to go ahead and revisit the zoning criterion that that is really a matter for the CEO and in particular the way I looked at it, the CEO would be making two determinations. One would be interpreting what was meant by the exact verbiage of the zoning code which I think it said something like the I think the nearest tree correctly. And the second would be having established what that verbiage means in this case, how high is it the actual and that they had provided drone footage. Um I also advised everybody that they that going for the CEO would also engender the possibility and in fact in my view the likelihood of an ultimate appeal of that determination to the ZBA because somebody was going to be upset by it. um likely and um that that is a process that could take uh several more months. And I asked Scott in light of that what he wanted to do. And the next month they they produced a um a proposal uh which I think was dated January 16th. January 12th 16th

16th

16th that they wanted to withdraw their request for a waiver and in so doing that that would imply that we don't need to worry about the the zoning issue anymore. Um and the question was what do we do about that? because it the zoning request not only was in black and white but it also came with um substantial amount of uh evidence and I thought about this a lot and I ultimately split the baby on this um recommended that and that um zoning is and I I cited a couple I didn't during the during the meeting in January I did not site any cases um but they are in this in the memo there there are two there are more than two cases but two cases that just flat out say that the board does not have authority to interpret the zoning law and and to and to make rulings like that and that specifically it is the CEO and and with a opportunity for kill to the ZBA. And so, um, the question as to what the applicant, as to whether we should let the applicant withdraw the request for a, um, for the zoning interpretation, when I thought about it in some detail, um, there's a couple of factors that, um, are not necessarily typical, uh, but, um, that that's that would, um, sway us to allow the applicant to withdraw their request. First of all, the withdrawal of the request is against their substantive interest. And I use that word throughout the memo. And for you people who are lucky enough not to be lawyers, let me explain what I mean by that. Most legal proceedings have two categories of rules and things to deal with. Substance is the actual rules that govern something like what an engineer would apply like no more than five gallons per minute. That sort of that sort of thing. no more than 100 ft high. Procedure lawyers can have these

procedure is how do we get there? What sort of hearing do we need? What sort of briefs are we going to write? What's what sort of evidence do we need to put in? Those are all procedural rules. They they they would apply to whatever the question is. And and they're generally agnostic on on on the substance. And so when I say the substant of interest is what is the zoning height that they have to deal with. And when he was withdraws his request for the reszoning, he's basically saying, "We're going to stick with that 45 ft height for the purpose of the zoning, which is bad for them. It means that they they've got a 95 ft zoning requirement. Their original proposal would have been in their substantive interest. Um, but withdrawing it is not because it means that they're going to be stuck with that lower height standard, which obviously they cannot meet, which means that they need either a variance or a waiver from us. and they've already and they're withdrawing the request for a waiver. So they're going to go ahead and get that variance. So this is against their subs. So the answer the question is so why are they doing it? Why are they doing the withdrawal? And the answer is because it would have taken a lot of time and so that's a procedural thing. They don't want to waste three or four months. Okay. Well, do they have that right to give themselves that procedural quote unquote advantage and at a cost of a substantive disadvantage? And ultimately the answer here is yeah and unique among all the what we're seeing here both with this application and with Verizon with and with Rava and I actually said it today with respect to Rupa is that one way to think of it because you know our our our constituents and we want to use our authority to do what we think is necessary. But there are times when outside laws constrain our authority much to our disappointment because we want to be able to do things and somebody some some legislature somewhere whether it's in Washington or in Albany comes along and tells us well you can't do that here and it's not a happy situation for us but we need to respect

it because they make the laws for us and in this case the telecommunications act gives us a shot clock and the shot clock there both specific there's specifics to the shot clock and there are generalities to it and the specifics are we have 150 days from a complete application to rent to give them a decision and the generality is the message that we get on the shot clock which is the tele communications act as as interpreted by the FCC is that they have a right and the feds have an interest in a speedy resolution. we don't waste time. And that's one of the things that I told Verizon at the beginning of this process is that we're not going to waste your time. Um, we're going to move quickly on it. Now, it's taken quite a bit of time, but we've put in a lot of work and they've had given us the courtesy of extending the shot clock deadlines because they see the work we're putting in on the complexity. But with respect to the referral to the CEO with right of appeal to the ZBA, a process that can take several months, they're basically telling us they don't want to do that, right? They don't want to do that. And specifically, they're telling us they don't want to do that because of the expense of time, and they're willing to sacrifice a substantive a potential substantive advantage, meaning uh a better zone better zoning classification, a better um height standard for them to avoid that expenditure of time that they're that's what that means. And the Telecommunications Act is telling us we have to be very very sensitive to their time needs. And in particular, if we were to have gone there over their objections, they would then start to say that they would view that as having um we're that that further expenditure of time is not uh in their interest and it's not what they want and we're not doing it correctly and therefore they're not going to extend the shot clock and that point we end up at loggerheads. And

so the judgment that I made is that because of the Telecommunications Act, because this operates against their substantive interest, i.e. they're sticking with a tougher zoning requirement and then they have to go get a variance no matter what we approve if we approve a tower. They're going to have to get a variance unless we go down to 95 ft which um I don't think is likely number one and number two our RF advisor has basically told us that that's not going to solve any problems. So um my advice was in this particular case we ought to not burden the process any further with the reasonzoning procedure. Having said that and I actually raised the um the uh verbiage whether we can quote unquote unsee their submittal and the answer is we don't we would they'll withdraw the zoning submitt but the the but the tectonic drone footage we don't have to unsee it. It's there. It's a fact. And the good news is we contrary to what the citizens said, we don't need a zoning criterion in order to do a seeker review. And in particular here, I'm talking about a declaration of significance as to whether the visual impact uh is a has the potential to to um cause a a a significant adverse environmental impact on the visual impact. It helps to have the zoning and we have the zoning code and we have the all the data and we can use all the data. We are a data processing agency. We're not a zoning agency. And the other fact here to this people because they're obviously related but one way to think of zoning functionally is that zoning is acts acts as a preclusion to the board. When the CEO makes a zoning interpretation of an application that comes in, what he's really saying is, is this consistent with the zoning so it can go to the

board, let's say, for a site plan, or is it inconsistent with the zoning, so it can't go to the planning board. It's got to go to the ZBA for variance. That's a routing thing, and I could call that a preclusive thing. They can't come to us until they straighten out their zoning in this case. And the third factor here is that as important as this height standard is, it was specifically written in my view not to be proclusive. In other words, it says tree line plus 50 ft. But in the very next sentence, in the exact same paragraph, it says but the planning board can wave it. Not that they need to go to the ZBA, although they've chosen to. They can come here and say, we know that we got this zoning. And that's what they did that they we got the zoning standard but you can wave it and we want you to. So ultimately the way the town board drew this up rightly, wrongly or otherwise is that the zoning is that the the zoning and the analysis of height comes down to this board's basically um assessment of the of the environmental impact particularly visually. I know we've had a lot of other arguments about critters and things like that, but in reality, the basic seeker impact of a cell tower is visual from the height. And the town board has told us we don't like it if it's more than 50 feet above the trees. But that's up to you to figure out the whole thing. So, as I read that, I mean, if and you guys know, we've had a very, very substantial secret review. We've had balloon tests. We've had analyses. We've had an expert. We we have a lot of stuff to figure out whether this is a significant adverse environmental impact and and the town board has told us we're telling you what we what we don't like as an initial matter, but you guys figure it out and if you think it deserves a waiver, go ahead and give it to them. So, the point is that this is not a preclusive. It's not like saying if somebody we have a 35 foot height standard and somebody comes

in with a 45 foot building, that's got to go to the ZBA. We don't v we can't vary it. we can't wave it. This one we can and is fairly unique among the substantive rules of the co and just to go back to substantive and procedural again. The board has the town board has given us very wide latitude to wave procedures to wave submittals from from from the applicant. We if we don't if we think a report is unnecessary, we can wave it. That's pretty both in the in the zoning code but all in the subdivision code, right? We can't wave substantive standards. That's what that's for the ZBA. we if it comes in it's going to be 35 ft. That's what we imply. This one we are specifically allowed to wave. So it's not preclusive. It's just you we think they're telling us what they think is important, but we go ahead and crunch it. So the point is we're here for that. We're here to crunch it. We can take whatever evidence they submitted, including the um the drones. We are not going to get a revision to the zoning because if we did, they would have a right to complain procedurally because of the telecommunications act and we would be on much um much more precarious ground than we are now. Um in fact, they just renewed the um the agreement with us to extend the shot clock and my guess is if we had if if two months from now if we were over at the uh at the CEO of the ZBA, we would not get that renewal. And Scott has also made clear in the past that his principles are very concerned about that that they want to see that this is being negotiated that this is being moved. So all those factors together um induced me to opine that um that this exercise of going to the the CEO which we would have done if they had stuck with their request if they're requesting a benefit to themselves on the zoning. we're going to bring that to the CEO particularly because there was an interpretation involved and I provided the and people

can disagree lawyers disagree all the time but that's that that's where I was going having withdrawn it I think it's just it's just we're we are where we are and I think you know the another the final thing here is that we got a letter from the citizens essentially telling us that he can't withdraw that can't do secret without it and I want everybody to understand and I don't I don't mean any disrespect here, but the just the the dose of cynicism that's involved here, these citizens are arguing that they have to go ahead and go through with resoning that's going to help their application in the long run because it has a substantial chance of raising the height standard from let's say 95 ft something up approach between that and 150. I don't know where it would come out, but it would clearly make any variance, any waiver easier. And they're arguing for that. And so that is also a signal that what's really at stake here is the procedural aspects, the the time involved and that it's in there because they don't want they do they would probably go to and again I don't mean any disrespect. It's what people do tactically, but they would probably having argued that it needs to go over there, they would probably go to that CBA hearing. they probably they probably appeal to the ZBA. It didn't come out their way. They'd go to the hearing and they try to get it denied having argued that that's where we need to go. So, it's pretty opportunistic in my view. Um, and that is a signal I think to us what it's all about. Um, you guys may have a completely different impression and and this could have gone a different way and I did kind it's not easy for people to understand since since the zoning is defined a certain way how we can do that. But I think what it is is an appreciation of what zoning actually means in terms of a preclusion and and a and a referral to a different part here. And we don't need to deal with that. And the only the only violation of zoning here to the extent that the height is a violation, they've

told us they're going to go to the CBA and get that variance. And so that variance application will actually depend on our seeker review because we're the lead agency. And so the point is to move forward with it. Now, I also told Scott when I talked to him about this before I wrote that memo. I said, "I don't want to be in your shoes explaining to the ZBA what the hell happened with respect to the zoning here." Um, because if I'm on the ZBA, I'm not a happy camper that they had one standard and they applied for they wanted they wanted to go and get a different one and now they don't. Now they're just applying for the variance. CBA is going to want to know what are we giving a variance from? and he's going to have to make that explanation and they're going to be a lot less understanding of this than I am because um zoning essentially is their business and they're they're not going to be happy. But that's I told them I I I'm willing to exceed to this but that's your problem and you know that's what you want to do. That's what you want to do. Now, I will also tell you that one other signal here in terms of what I'm calling the preclusive aspects of zoning is that under state law, as well as arguably the telecommunications act, but especially under state law, there is a vastly reduced standard to get a again because it's a utility and the state has told the courts, we do not want zoning to preclude utilities. Now if seeker if we do a finding here that you know the utility has too much of an impact that's that's another thing and we have a right to deny an application based on too much of an impact under secret and that and including visual but what they're saying is we don't want it zoned out as as a as an a priority preclusion and now the little trick here is that that was really more for use variances as you know again you zone it residential it's a commercial activity they're building telephone poles or stringing wires,

commercial activity. Obviously, you'd be zoning out service of electricity to houses and so we're not going to do that. There is an actually open question how much it extends to area variances which are much less proclusive because the ZBA can grant that pretty easily. Um there's a case or two out there and Scott and I have we've had some conversations here. In general though, there is case law that it does also extend to area ranges. So, the short message is the state's telling us that as well as what the town board told us, which is that the zoning restrictions here, they're in place. You can read them. We can take them to heart as to what they mean, but we're not going to allow we're not going to say that town zoning is going to preclude a utility application. So, we're getting signals from the feds as to the shot clock and and some of the other substantive rules on on the telecommunications act about not denying um sell service. We're getting clear signals from the state as to utilities and we got a signal from the town board as to that we can grant the waiver. So, this whole idea of a zoning preclusion is not does not exist here. It's it's it's a very flexible thing and therefore the idea that this is not worth that extra couple of months is is under the tele under the shot clock is frankly um persuasive at least it was persuasive to me. uh Scott may have something to add and you guys may have questions which I I'm happy to answer but that was the meaning of that memo and um again it could have come down differently that certainly the citizens wanted to but they were obviously coming from a place where they did not want they would have they would have argued against that application over at the over the CEO and the ZBA they would they were looking for the exact delay in time that Verizon want to go through in now obviously I'm reading a lot into everybody's motives uh in terms of what they want but frankly it's it's not that it wasn't

that hard to do. Anybody have any questions? Yeah. Uh so in either way it goes most likely from practical point of view of applicant we will go they will ask for variation variance either variance either from us or from not from us they've drawn that right so I'm not clear how much it's going to save the time instead of hiring professional company measuring the trees and produce concrete numbers. They could have That's a good point. They could have, and I think I mentioned this, Scott,

because we created an environment for argumentation.

They could have just gone to the CEO, squeezed out an a a a decision one way or the other on both the interpretation and the height, and then whoever applies to the to the um to the uh ZBA, they could have combined it with their application for variance. they've chosen not to number one and number two there's the mechanism there also has delay because if they got an interpretation from the CEO to their advantage let's just say the new zoning is 130 ft if the citizen the citizens have the right to appeal that to the ZBA but they have 60 days to do it so right there you're already up to 3 months or so into the process when it gets to the because they can do it on the 59th day. I forget what the number is, but it's usually 60 days. So, they can wait the 59th day to appeal it after the CEO makes his decision, which could take a few weeks. So, we're already up to three months in, and that's when it goes to the ZBA for the hearing, etc. So, you we can ask Scott why, but your point is well taken. You can just load the whole thing up to the to the ZBA, but it's still as a practical matter would have cost a few months. And they don't they again the message that we're getting is they don't want to do that.

But conducting measurements and all the process and reporting it's simple months. That's the answer.

And I and I agree with you and that was what we intended to do with our December 19th submission. We gave you what I thought was data and I argued that this board has that we gave you drone footage and we had measurements and it was something that you know a surveyor engineer could look at just like if we provided measurements on a plan. I didn't think that needed to go to the CEO and so I the withdrawal of the waiverss primarily because I don't we couldn't waste that time. We would have ended up in a lawsuit on the shot clock because what would have happened is just like Dave said C I don't even know if your CEO is working right now. Maybe he or she is or isn't. But let's just say a minimum of 30 days before we got something back from that person if not longer. Then there is two months that the neighbors most likely would have sued. So um then that goes to the ZBA. Then the ZBA has to have a hearing probably another two months. So I'm looking at at right there math is right five months. If I get a decision in five months well if it's a decision in my favor I'm pretty sure neighbors are going to now do an article 78. That doesn't preclude us from doing this. That's another eight months 12 months. I don't think

what I gave to this board and this is where I think my disagreement is with Dave. I wasn't looking for a zoning interpretation. In fact, I I think we we already have a CEO determin determination. Now, I don't think it's a very good one, but no one challenged it. I mean, he didn't even he or she I'm not trying to throw that person under the bus, but it is what it is. It's a very limited determination that simply says you violate the 35 foot height height limit. It's like, well, the 35 foot height load doesn't even apply, but we all know we need variance. That's why we actually applied for the variance over a year ago. So,

I thought you I thought you explicitly asked for a um a zoning um adjustment in your December um 19th letter. I got to look at that. I would be shocked if I did that Yeah. No, he wanted us to do it, but he wanted us to do a zoning a zoning adjustment, which again is the CEO's That's the CEO's barely. What I wanted to do was just say that

because of this new information that is factual. Whether or not it's, you know, accurate, that's up for the board to determine, but I just said it's out there. I, you know, if you want to unsee it, I I don't care. But the fact of the matter is there are trees out there that are 100 feet tall that are very close to the compound. You may not agree with me, but it's a fact. And maybe it's not 100 feet. Maybe it's 99 feet. Maybe it's 105 feet. But those trees are there. Mr. Church acknowledged that a couple months ago saying, "Hey, that 45 foot and that's our bad. That's our that's our mistake. I, you know, I regretted it. Now that that's I sourced the material, but came from us."

Well, there are trees out there like that. So, we just gave you the data that I thought I want, let's be clear on this. This is page two of your December 19th letter, your second paragraph in in item number two, reading it verbatim. As a result of this new information, the proposed 145 ft tower is compliant with the code requirement that the maximum height shall not exceed the height that is equivalent to 50 ft above the height of the surrounding trees. Therefore, neither a variance nor a waiver of this requirement of this of this requirement required. So to me, that looks like you're asking for a readjustment of the zoning preclusive aspect of the based on the data. I hear what you're saying. Never my intention whatsoever.

But you could see what I'm reading that as you're looking for. Yeah, but I but I don't agree with it. Complant with is compliant with the code requirement is exact is your exact right. But there are things like you know but this board has the right to look at the plans and say okay. Oh, so you just meant that as a seeker. Um I meant that as a this is just a factual statement. Okay. And that that's I believe me because I would never want to go back to the CEO after we have a decision from that person that wasn't appealed. But you could see why that verbiage just I could see why that created the confusing zoning readjustment. I can see why that created the confusion, but it never my intent.

So that's why so that's why Zoran we submitted the data and I thought that this board could look at it. Um,

so the good news is we have more data. We've got in terms of zoning, we have the same requirement, but the preclude he's looking to overcome the preclusion with the variance from the ZBA. It's the ZBA's problem and his problem to figure out what the hell to do about all that. We have our seeker review to do. That's where I came out on this. And if we hadn't, we would have a shot clock issue. And that frankly there'd be no way to I don't think there'd be any way to explain to a federal judge why we dragged them off to the this the CEO and the ZBA to deal with the zoning issue that um is going to get that is almost certainly going to get varied and that works that and that where the withdrawal works against them. why we're forcing them to go through with a zoning a zoning um procedure that would work in their favor when they decided they don't want to and they they want to move it more quickly and the shot clock says they have right to do that. I I if I was a federal judge listening to us say that it would sound absurd and that's and again the opponents are in that position and that's what it would start to look like. Why would you be dragging them to through that procedure when they don't want it and staying where they are works against their substantive interest? And I how the hell do you answer that question, your honor? Well, we we we had to do it, you know, because they said that they they withdrew it. Well, that what do you do there? That's where we're at. It's a little bit admittedly it it relies on the ability of lawyers to to think three um two or three things that are contrary to each other all at the same time and not worry about and still sleep at night. Something lawyers are actually quite good at as well as obviously people read read about in the news. Um and that's where we're at. So

So um any other questions? Let's go to let's go to the part two. So, in my mind, we're using we're back where we started at the beginning of December. We're going to do the part two and basically the same process as Raft. Hopefully, it won't take as long because I think there's some things that are pretty obvious. And thank you, ma'am. And where we are at is to come up with a part three. Again, we'll be looking to Dave Church and myself and and Dave Gordon. Are there any special DEC forms for because of the visual right? Um there's a special visual EAF, right?

I believe there is. Is it a include a part two? The visual addendum we refer. Yeah, we I think that's they handed that in. We have that. Okay. gives you kind of a big list of all the potential resual visual stuff. Yes. You want to No, you don't. Rick, do you want to go my item or you want to shortcut? Let's try to do Let's try to shortcut. How about I try shortcuting? You want me to shortcut it? I'll shortcut it. Okay. And you tell me where I'm off. All right. So, I'm We're leaping to three. You want either of these passed out surface water.

All right. So number one is a no. Does everybody agree? We're not going to go through each item in number one is number one at the summary level a no. Number two geologic features is a no. Surface water. The only issue is if you in the context of where we may be headed here, if you want to move the compound over and back, are you getting into the W buffer? I don't know, Greg. It's a question. I think this 100 foot buffer around the map weapon is required by town code.

That's town code. I don't it's my question I don't know and you haven't decided to move it back yet. So it's not much that would be when we based on the graphic that Greg produced you have very little room to move. Yeah. I and the only surface water issue would be uh would you have to modify the buffer if you were to move it so southeast. So the way that the project is being proposed this question asked the way it's being proposed currently there's no impact there's no impact if in fact for whatever reason we have to condition

then that's something else we have to deal with and don't forget we could vary the buffer correct okay so I'm a no unless you unless unless you decide to move the compound but that would be in the med mitigation section and the only reason Does everybody know where we're headed here or? Yeah, we're headed to a conditional negative debt, right? So, if a condition were be on aesthetics to reduce the visual impact on the local neighborhood, right, to move it back a little bit. Do we have room? Are you getting in? That's my It's a question. So, we're not there yet. Yeah, Dave, we're not there yet. Understood.

Okay. So, let's wait till we get there. This is a no unless we get there. Right. Right. Right. Threes and 0. Sorry. Threes and 0. Yes. And thank you. Impact on ground water. No. Flooding. No air. No. Ants. Plants and animals. Seven. Dave. Is is there an air issue when they run their generator? No. No. Yeah, honey. Um, plants and animals, the Bigfoot is is is there a presumption of reaction on this issue?

Well, um, yes and no. Um, with respect to RF, I've I've made my point relatively clear and some of the citizens have protested, but I think that the RF conclusion is is pretty clear in the Telecommunications Act. However, as we know, there are allegations of impacts on animals that are not RF that have to do with the fact that we have a hundred and whatever foot structure that birds are going to impale themselves on or nest in because it's either a terrible thing that they're going to fly into and kill themselves or it's a attractive thing that they're going to use to establish their their abode and and thereby run into an RF issue. So, I'll turn this back to the experts, but um uh we have to consider non RF impacts from a tower going into the sky that is going to affect flying

birds. Majority birds. Let's go through each Let's go through each one of these subcategories then. Under seven, the first one is the proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species. No. No. No. Eagles are going to fly into this thing. We don't know that for sure. Well, I heard somebody saying no. And we can I do have our NEPA report that says there will be no taking of any species. Yeah. It's part of the NEPA submission. Yeah. Wild, right? Fish and wildlife. Yes.

But New York State lists bald eagles as threatened as in danger even though the federal government does not. Right. Federal government doesn't list bald eagles as No, they're no longer No, they've been delisted, but New York State has not. That's great. Yeah. Okay. New York State has not delisted them. I I think it's a yes only because we need to say all of that that we looked at it. Okay. Yes. And then we'll write it up in a part three. And there's another yes. Dave, remember we got that report back from that subsection of a DEC and they came back and they gave us a whole report that said that there was a plant name escaping right now that is endangered that they believe might be in this area.

Yes. I thought you two opined on the fact that it's prevalent in the area but what we do it was the u what was it? Oh, the um uh calula. What? No, bergamont. Wild bergamont. Bergammont. But not Berg. Bergammont. The purple burger. Yeah. Well, it's going to cause a loss in population to the wild burger. No. The thing is the the ground disturbance is inconsequential. So, we mention to Jennifer's point, we should mention it as having been mentioned by this DEC group. And here's the mitigation or it's snow or small. Well, there's no smoke. We don't mention f it doesn't show,

but the reading of the I mean, I'm not an expert remotely uh on plants and animals, but my reading of the scholarly works is that it's the light that's the attractive nuisance. Plant on the tower if they're lit to a bird. To a bird. Oh, yeah. Tower is not But the tower is not there. No. No. No. Lady, and while we're Can I just ask you one question? Yeah. Does Verizon or any other companies that you represent, do they put anything on these uh towers to dissuade nesting birds?

It's a good question because owls would do that and I have only one experience where we had a tower. It was in a parking lot and there was a lot of birds that would land on it and they would basically defecate on cars. So, whatever happened, I think Verizon had contracted with Lamar because there was an advertising board not too far away. They put an owl on it, fake one of course, and it seemed to work. But I I'll ask the department because, you know, there's for construction of commercial buildings, they have uh spikes and things to dissuade pigeons. You know, there are things that um have been employed on building. So, it's just

I would recommend on number seven that we check off the the summary category of yes and we go through it and we tell we go through how it's going to be mitigated. You know why that's a good idea because citizens have mentioned it at length and they've they've been you know they mentioned other things as well. Well, not only that, but this wild burger we have a group from the DEC Dave what's the name of it? The wildlife group that came back and gave us the report. Huh? heritage heritage program the natural heritage they came back they came back and gave you and said that this plant is endangered and it's near to this site so we have to answer that the way that we answered so in previous jobs that I've had you just answered

where we've had um endangered plants flag yeah we uh I'd have somebody whenever they there's usually a time of year but we'd have somebody go out that's an expert and they'd walk the site that's marked for disturbance and they'd see if they see it and if they don't see it, then you don't do anything. Um, and if they do see it, then you can replant it. So, it doesn't mean that you can't do the action. You just have to like So, let's mark it. Yes. And we'll deal with it and and then I'll tell you that's a good signal that we're we're taking it seriously dealing with answer for the plant and migratory birds. Yes.

For the whole category, Dave, we're going to hit yes. No, I'm getting at the So, if we're going to write up the condition negoti

endangered species individuals, yes. Okay, that's moderate. And B is degradation of habitat for endangered. That's a yes, too. Okay. Proposed ash coast reduction plan. That's a yes. What's different between A and C? And then so that's the migratory bird treaty act stuff and um I recognize that NEPA said NEPA just didn't respond right. They said if we don't respond in 30 days or did they send you Oh, they responded. They gave a letter that said no impact. I thought there was something wild. Oh, it was fish and wild. Okay. Fishing wild. Sorry. Okay. D then migratory bird reduction of habitat.

All right. of a D. It's a yes or moderate rather. Everybody okay with that? I don't think so. E. Proposed action may diminish the capacity. I don't agree on that. You don't agree on that one? What is it? Is it 100 by 100? I mean, the lease is 100 by 100. It's 50 by 50. So, it's 50 by 50 and of area of an area. I wouldn't say that that area next to the apartment building is habitat that's used by all eagles. Talk about the burger. That's uh what is that like third? That's third or fourth growth. Uh scrub woods, right?

Okay. It's a no. It's I mean it's a no. Let's go to uh let's go to 7E. Proposed action may diminish the capacity. There are no national natural landmarks anywhere near here. Okay. So that's a no. The proposation may result in removal of significant natural community significant that would be your plant again, right? I don't know. I don't think I think when they talk about significant natural communities, it's not one species. More like a like a park or something like that.

Suppose action may substantially interfere with nesting, breeding, foraging, or overwintering. to the predominant species. So I guess the nesting of the breeding interfere with we can mark it as yes and explain okay what's going on. H the proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10. No no I proposed action involves no no okay impact on agricultural resources. No no let's just can we pause for a moment here just so I understand what we're going to do with this. Sure. So we're going to answer that. What conditions? Yeah. So the write up and then ultimately with conditions we have CND which as you told me

a condition would be we'd have a professional go out there before. Oh, it might be we might write it up to say I mean that that's possible or we might write it up to simply say it's our experience that this this plant is wild in the entire area. There's any number of ways we can. So there is no condition but there's an explanation of why it's not significant enough to rise to the level of okay

I also want to be clear when I suggested a CND the the condition I had in mind for the board to really focus on was that we would um designate the height of the the allowed height of the facility although the applicant may not agree with us. This would be the mechanism by which we could do that and then that would be carried forward into the but there's going to be there will be other conditions. So for example we need to discuss whether it's a monopole or a frighten but they'll agree with a lot of those I think but I'm just saying it's not just the height the law but that's the one that we are interested that's why the mechanism is there with golden difficulty because it allows us to make that decision based on our secret.

Okay. There's nothing with agricultural related to this profitable number. So you're at nine which is the form one obviously. Yes. So that's a yes. Number nine. Everybody I think you need to go through item by item on nine. Okay. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal state or local. That's moderate. That's yeah. What? moderate or minor because the proposed action memories we have a pile of data that would be wasted if we didn't say yes and put it in part three and and develop it over wherever we're going right we want

we want to use that data that's going to explain in our part three the proposed action may result in the obstruction elimination or significant screening of one or more designated no proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points moderate. Yes. Yeah. This is this is the non park thing, but like the the granite granite road for example and other you know just a road that's not necessarily a park or you know 209 is the um byway. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is routine travel by residents including travel to and from work. Moderate. Yeah. Yeah.

Recreation or tourism based moderate. A proposed action may cause a diminishment of public enjoyment or appreciation the designated aesthetic resource. So we're talking about here like Minowasco by the way your expert says no. Okay. Is everybody in agreement with that? Yes. There are several the inventoried resource that there are several projects visible. Uh no. So only got five miles. Oh, there's plenty of towers within five miles of there. Five plus. So, yeah, there's six of them at Sam's Point. At Sam's Point. Yeah. I There's one.

Okay. It's a moderate. I was really thinking town would be such you answer that then. Is Sam's point as close as there are similar, but it's not asking for a yes or no. But I don't know what I I've never understood what the point of this. Yeah, it almost it almost doubles back against kind of rhetorical, but I Yeah, I hear you. Answer it. Yes. Yeah. I'm with Dave. Don't drill too deep into the form. The form the form is actually pretty terrible. Yeah, I it's I I for the day when you didn't have to use it. Here we go. Number 10. Impact on historic and archaeological resources. No, this is I think you can go to uh I've got you going next 15. Noise odor. Let's

So 10 is no 11. I mean it's just a proposal is no. Talk to me. 10 is no. You're proposing proposing nose all the way to 15. 12 is no. Why? 15's the generator. 13 is no. 14 is no. 15 noise generator. Odor and light. So, no light, right? No light. 15A, not on the tower, just the light within the compounds. Let's go through each one, guys. 15A. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regula regulations. No, there is the answer to that is no. It can't. We don't know. Can't. You don't allow it to.

No, but this goes back to like you have to explain it. So you have to say I did the noise. The study is there. Yeah. So you have to you say moderate whatever and then you have five 5dB delta at the property line. How can the Well, I think Jennifer's right. This is the gen generator discussion. Yeah, you have to. We already analyzed it. It's fine, but we have to we want to put it in. But that's not what it says, right? It says proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established. It doesn't go above the noise levels. No, but that's because with studies mitigating it with a with a series of things. Yes. Moderate. Sorry. Proposed action may result in blasting. No.

Proposed action may result in routine notice. No. Uh proposed action may result in light shining. No. Proposed action may result in lightning lighting creating. No. Sky. So this Oh, we probably should just under this since we're gonna be discussing this item, right? We shouldn't we we could add it explain what we're doing about lights. Well, there's no lights, right? Just a light on the H frame itself, which is within the compound. The H frame is and it's a switch operated except that it's it's automatically turns off in case the the operator of the technician forgets to turn it off. So like it goes off after an hour. Can I go back to order?

Hang on one second. I just want to All right. Go ahead. Be diesel or or propane. General most likely diesel. Smell. Exhaust. Cars smell on the road. Exhaust. Scott, I think the problem with diesel is going to be I was assuming you're going to go with propane. I thought we talked about this for two reasons. the smell and also if there's a spill. There's no spills because how do you know that for sure?

Yeah. 50k watt because it's got tertiary. No, it's got at least not tertiary necessarily. It's got it's a double double walled belly tank on the bottom about 225 gallons. So there's it's double wall. So if it gets through the first one, there's a second one and then concrete foundation. When we did the noise study, was it based upon a diesel generator or propane? That was that was the diesel generator was what they correct on. Okay. The noise. So, correct me if I'm wrong. Did I say something runs with the engine then it smells the diesel or not? Exhaust. Sorry. How often is it going to go off? Uh, it's more than one hour per day.

20 minutes. 20 to 30 minutes bi-weekly. Yeah. No, here it says on Oh, I'm sorry. That's a near Yeah. Yeah. But that's what it is. We just run it toain unless it needs to go. You know, if if the power is out, yes, it's going to go uh until the power restored. All right. So, for number 15, it's a yes. Overall, it's a yes. And it's a yes because of the noise, the noise levels. And then we have a study that talks about the noise level. We're gonna forget about odor. Sorry. All right. 16. We've got the Mr. Gordon's discussion of preeemption.

Well, again, that's for the RA. I don't We're not We're not going to even the even the citizens agree to that. We're not going to do RF impacts on human health, but if there's something else somehow, okay, you want to go through these or there's nothing here, but it's up to you. You want me to whip through? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. A is is located within 1500 ft of a school hospital. No. Is the site proposed undergoing remediation? No. Is there completed emergency spill remediation or completed? No. It it wasn't a it's not a site that had to be remediated ever. Is the site an act of the action subject to an institutional control limiting use? No.

Like a deed restriction. Institutional control is like that's when DEEC cleans up a site. They they required certain things that the IBM plant at Kingston it's under consent decree right um yes the uh is e is the proposed action affect institutional control measures that were put in place no uh if does the proposed action have adequate control measures in place do again this doesn't uh

g action proposed Proposed action involves construction modification of a solid waste management facility. No. H. Proposed action may result in unearthing solid. Uh I proposed action may result in increase in rate of disposal or processing solid waste. J. Proposed action may result in excavation or disturbance with 2,000 ft of a site used for disposal. No. K. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site. Uh L the proposed action may result in release of contaminated leech. So that's a no 17 but important to note in the minutes we went through.

Okay. Number 17. 17 is the consistency with community plans. So myself, Peter, Helina, and Hans went collectively went through all the plans we could find find and there's absolutely no references to this neighborhood. Nothing. Well, then is it is it consistent with the zoning other than not the height? Consistent with something that doesn't speak about it. It's fine. No, it's not inconsistent. Not inconsistent. 18.

18. Consistency with community character. I think you have to go through this one because this is the this is the local aesthetic question. Yeah, go for it. A. Proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance? No. B. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services. No. C. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing. No. D. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. No. Everybody okay with that?

In the neighborhood. They're not the enjoyment of the scenic byway. Um well that our consultant told us well our consultant told us in his opinion no but we have to make that determination. You have to make that determination. Don't say no. You're making it right now. The town code is the code town code says you have to I forgot have the minimum effect on the visual character of the neighborhood. Right. Why don't we acknowledge the possibility they're proposing 150 foot tower. Why don't we acknowledge the possibility that it could and then part of our this A and B will be dealing with that? Well, I think you can get it at E and F.

Okay, fair enough. Want me to read them? E, the proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character and F the proposed actions inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. Yeah. Okay. So, if you do E and F, do you buy that? Yes. So D is no but E and F is yes or mod write it up and so this whole category is a yes. What is the architectural scale of character

means if if if you have a a community where the buildings are 20 feet high and you build something 100 feet high that's out of scale. If you have a community where the buildings are 100 feet high and you build build a building that's 100 feet high it's not out of scale. So you got 150 foot tower here in a place where the buildings are whatever they are and and not necessarily close by. So it's really the it comes back to the trees actually, right? Um so that's what it means is are you doing something that's going to look different and and out of place in the place where it is. I read architectural and I I read it. So um well you want to talk about what you're going to do about this. So

then the landscape is right landscape is f architecture would be building. So you got f there's a natural landscape and and and e is the building the architectural landscape. So should we talk a little bit about conditions for the purpose of writing up at least I don't know what we could it's 10:30 why don't you and I work on the conditions to deal with these things. Okay. Or that come out of these things and then bring it back to the sentence of the board. Okay. Unless we want to talk about it now. Well, we'll need a part three anyway. Right.

So, your proposal is we'll write up a draft part three and share it. That sounds like you want the conditions to how we're going to I mean the conditions here are the everything from the tree to the color of the tower to the height issue draft the part I would suggest draft a part three draft the CND we'll come and deal with it CND will have the condition that's just dependent with conditions the part three is the explanation why you yes right

so again I Yeah. Yes. To what you said, Dave and I had a long discussion today about how to get this to many steps and so the three of us need to talk about how to get this to the next steps. Right now, let's make a motion to get them drafting a part three. And can can I make one comment motion is ju just on B and um you think we do we decide no on that because that would public resources would be the road wouldn't it? Yes. Yeah. So that should be a moderate. Okay. Just to make a note of that on. Okay. Okay. Yeah. The question is is it full officially recognized or designated? Yeah. as a public place.

The byway is the byway for sure. Oh, yeah. I had this one. Guess what? It doesn't, you know. Yeah, why not? It helps us. It's already Yes. It helps us recognize it, then we can deal with it in the because, you know, you looked on 209, there are places that it was definitely seen. Yeah. So, downside, I'd say if we if we just blow it off here, people are going to get upset that they've done all this. They drove around. They took the pictures and they just kind of would do a post meeting letter. The applicant will see on the items we're focusing on. Yes. So we can so we could encourage we could encourage input from the applicant. Yep. It's listening. All right. But we need we need a resolution. I make a motion.

Dave Robins beat you to it. I make a motion that we I thought was volunteering to do this. The resolution is to authorize him to authorize Dave to do second by harms. Yeah. All in favor. Do we need any additional resources in that motion? What at this point? Any additional resource that we should include that? We should include the resolution should include any additional resources including same verbiage as before. Okay. Very good.

How you doing? Stay seeing up. because it's a moving target. So you should you should consider that as part of writing up to part three you can suggest through the board you can draft draft an act draft a CND for the board's consideration that as your judgments what we're supposed to do and you know the board's interested in that

and you know what um to help Dave and I and whoever else if the board wants to send me some send us some conditions that you think need to be put in here let's do that the next couple of I think we copy the whole board, but please don't respond as if we're in a meeting back and forth. So, just list the conditions that you think should be considered. I think we have a motion on the floor, right? What's it? We have a motion hasn't been voted on on the floor. Oh, we didn't vote. Yes, we did. No, we didn't. No, we didn't vote. We didn't vote. Okay. I call a vote to the motion on the floor is moved by Dave and it was seconded by Big Hans. Yeah, that is in five minutes. Motion for approval.

I I Anybody opposed? And I I just want to point out to the board uh that Dave reminded me a little bit earlier in the meeting. Um if we were to be interested in a CND and we would uh uh move to adopt it by motion at the next meeting along with the part three, we would then put it up for public hearing for a month. It so literally gets run up the flag call for a month. will have a public hearing on it the next month. That uh right you have to have a public comment period. They think the hearings of

the seeker regulations say public comment period but almost everywhere in SEAR where there's a public comment period particularly on um scoping documents and also PEIS's public hearing is very natural and I can't imagine nobody would um not do that here. So question about the hearing. Sure. Is it like you know, more formal environmental reviews where we have two responses to comments.

There's nothing that I've seen that indicates that we need a responsiveness summary. We should interpret responsiveness summaries as DEEC um regulations for DECU under DEC UPA procedures and not for seeker. The only time you have to do responsiveness um in seeker is on a DEIS. Okay. Gotcha. Scope draft scope of work. Alina, am I right? Yes.

Declaration was the define heights of the town. In my mind, what I said earlier is that's the reason why we're doing it because that's the one condition that the applicant is not going to settle on a case that be acceptable to us and it may not be acceptable to the applicant. No, that's what I understand. the other stuff the minor pine and everything they would they would probably exceed to that but they basically signaled they want 150 feet 145 feet and so if we don't this is the mechanism by which we would regulate affirmatively otherwise because it's their application and like I said they're going to agree to whatever you know whatever paint job

they indicated it's not okay 100 point I think

we can discuss that when we when we circle back and there'll be a public hearing on at least public comment period public hearing. So, we're going to this is going to be fully vetted among everybody. The applicant will be able to say what they want. The public will be able to say what they want. We can make our own decision and that will be bad. That's and then we'll get to you know site plan approval. But that will rely on those on the conditions that we lay otherwise we if we negative we could not do that because it's their application. If they say they want 150 then that's their application. If what we will say as a matter of seeker review is that you get a ne deck and it's 120 or whatever number we come up with not to prejudge anything and if you want to insist on 150 we're going to that's that's a positive that that's the way it works.

Says the 30 days start when you put it in the EMB. Ah we've got to publish in the ENB. Yes. Environmental noticeable for those of you who aren't seek nerds. Um, it's a publication of the DEEC detailing all of the major seeker actions all around the state by region. So, we Okay, Dave, I think everybody's looking at each other and they're saying we want to go home. You don't want to hear more. We want to go home. I do need to come out for the park and you go rest about lost hyphens, right?

But we do need we do need suggestions on what conditions you want. Yes, because that has to go into I have about So if you have any, shoot them, Rick or me or Peter. Okay. Entertain a motion to uh Oh, I have I do have one more thing real quick. Sorry.

We'll handle it next at the next meeting on the 23rd. We have a situation with Meadow Lakes where if you remember when we do subdivisions, the last next to last paragraph says you have a 180 days to get all of the conditions completed and to submit them to the board to the chair in order for the board of for the chair to sign the maps. They suddenly realized that they were beyond 180 days. Um I realized they would be on 180 days and I called and I said you know you guys would be on 180 days. So there is a provision in the decision that say two 90-day extensions. So, what I told them I would ask the board to do on March on um February 23rd is to simply take the day when they were supposed to come to us, the end of the 180 days, and start the first 90-day extension and also to give them the second 90day extension so this doesn't happen again.

So, we're going to propose that on the 23rd. And they said, "Well, what happens if we don't get it done at the end of the year?" I said or you don't want to know what I said but it was something but so I just want you to think about that and we'll vote on that on the 23rd. I'll have a resolution to that effect. And there was a good reason why they missed it and they have to deal with well there's no good reason for missing something like that but it it's taken them they still don't have approval seven months to get the department of health to approve their septic. That's what they told me. I believe it.