Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I said something

call to order of the planning town of Rochester. you would uh join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Secretary of Chair Jones here. Member Nelson here. Member Roberts here. Member Duda here. Member Feran here. Member Farwell here. Member Pinsky is absent. Dave Gordon, Dave Church, myself and Greg. Okay.

First project is um first on the list is a public hearing for dignified dwellings are the uh the applicant along with the the applicant's representative here. So, um there's a map in the back for anybody who didn't get a chance to um look at it um or to find dwellings what we'll be talking about or what you'll be talking about if you're from the public and you wanted to comment. Just some um rules of the road. The uh we'd like to keep the comments as factual as as possible. We're looking for information from the public that we may have missed as a board um that we can add to our evaluation of the project. So, we're certainly looking for that kind of information. Um if you would like to talk, we'd appreciate it. There's a signin sheet there. Uh and if you haven't signed it, Stacy has the sheet, so we'd like you to sign in. And generally, we ask for you keep your comments to five to seven minutes. Um you can read them if you wish. you can hand in a a letter to us tonight. Um, what whatever the case may be, but um would like the comments are directed to the board, not to the applicant. So, please make sure you do that. And it's the policy of this board that we don't engage in a conversation during the public hearing with the public going back and forth either debating points or answering questions, whatever. Um, that's not the purpose. But later on the project later on as in perhaps oh an hour down the road dignified dwellings will be on the regular order portion of the of the agenda at which time we might talk about some of the comments that were made to ask the applicant to respond to them. There may be other things that the board wants to talk about with regards to the project. So, some of your questions, if you have some or comments, might be answered at

that time, but in order to facilitate the public hearing and let everybody make their comments, and we have three public hearings tonight. Um, we're just going to listen and then we'll talk about the project again, as I said, in about an hour as we get through all the other items that are on the agenda. So, with that, um, did I forget anything, board? Nope. Okay. Um, the first speaker is Dana. Donna, yes. How are you, Don? Donna. Donna or Donna, I'm sorry.

You have actually quite a list of of comments and some questions. But um first I just want to point out that and this is as far as my knowledge is the developer originally stated that they would only plan to build two houses on the property and then once they purchased the property they applied for four subdivisions which I find concerning. Um one of the I've walked down by the Well, if you're not familiar with this area, you wouldn't really understand what I'm saying, but um one of the proposed subdivisions is right next to the web that I um that I understand you are trying to another issue is that they put the road in before they even had a building. Um I did walk in that area and they are blocking or when they put it in they blocked off meaning road that should anything happen to block off Rosill road the residents on Frankle road let a forest fire or some sort of emergency situation they would not be able to leave because that bung road bung road is now blocked off and that's the only other way that um state um one of my other issues and this is really pertaining to my property since my property borders the property under development is that the two of the um of

the proposed houses are going to be built right in the property line right near the property line between us and the breakage view of my house which I think attacks our privacy.

Um and then I have a bunch of questions like when are they going to begin construction? What's their timeline? what's um what's going to uh what kind of protections are being put in place for any use of of landscaping pesticide fertilizer that would impact the wetlands. on. I also understand that they are um proposing to have their homeowners association be in charge of monitoring the conservation easement. And I feel that that seems a little disingenuous. Uh I or you know, maybe not just naive, but it seems like box guarding the hen house. Um what there's also which I was quite uh surprised by this but there's there's very rare endangered burn the activation shoestring burn on that property and my property and I'm wondering what precautions would be made to protect that it only um there are only two colonies in New York state and that is one of the colonies.

Um and and basically I feel that this development is going to change the whole character of the of the neighborhood as it is for I think most of the residents if not all um are there uh and enjoy their seclusion and their privacy and they're quiet. It's blissfully quiet and I can't, you know, I I am very concerned that there would be a lot of noise pollution, light pollution at night, especially, you know, and and you know, I admit especially impacting my property because I am the one who um and I also am concerned about the lack of transparency regarding this company. I um you know I've done a little bit of research. I could not find any information about them except for a company with the same name exact same name in Austin, Texas. Now I'm hoping that it's not the same company, but I don't know anything about them and they are impossible to get any information about, at least not publicly for me. I couldn't find it. And I think that's about it.

As a co-owner of of the house with this, I would like to add one more thing. Any um any buildings, like she said, pesticides, fertilizers, digging into the ground, cutting their own wells. I would worry about how that affects our wellwater, which is actually quite close to the property line right near our house. I mean, we're within, you know, 30 40 yards of our property line within the neighboring uh property. if they're getting up close to us and cutting a well in some spot that's close to us. I mean, we do have a deep well, but I would worry about how that affects, you know, maybe sulfur getting into our water, like cutting more holes into into the into the landscape and release other kinds of elements, gases, whatever. that that would severely impact the livability of our houses,

especially if and and I don't know how you would control this if if people use pesticides and you know and synthetic fertilizers, any kind of chemicals, which we don't, you know, we're very we're very conscious of the environment. And because this is going to be right next to our property and within eyesight of our house, it seems um it just seems like we're we're going to be more impacted than than we would like to be. Thank you. Um Bob Miller.

Good evening. My wife and I live at the 40 33 roads over there. And for those of you that haven't been up to that neighborhood, um I wish you would see the Rose Hill Road. I forwarded a couple of letters to the board. I hope hope road is that that points is a single lane road. Two cars can not not have seat in a couple of places. Well, Roso Road go for almost a mile. Roughly about half of it really has frontage in town Rochester, but it's a normal town road. So there there's a fairness issue here. Rochester is gaining a lot of yearly tax revenue and basically been chicken dinner for a dime and town residents got the headaches with that. So request there is to and I know this is difficult to do is to be be aware of that and we'd love to see more collaboration between the towns working together to make sure that this is a safe environment. The road is used by kids, people walking, dogs, bikers. Um so it's a it's a hazard now. It's just substandard map. Um so this development along with whatever happens in the future there's considerable amount of properties there that that is yet to be developed. Um considerations have to be taken to make sure safety is is paramount. I know it's difficult to put controls on your person with body does all the right stuff. You have to grant them permit. But somewhere

somewhere either now or in the future that bridge has to be addressed. But please be aware of that and um I'll let the rest of my my neighbors speak to the environmental concerns regarding. Thank you. Uh Susan Sacker.

Hi Susan. I moved to Rosville Road in November, so I've only had a couple months here. And it is the most idyllic beautiful place to live. Very quiet obviously with the smell of it. But there's a street really in front of my house. There's no easement. The street as you put it is substandard and width. And as I understand it, because I'm a renter, not buyer, and I will be relaying all the information to the owner, not buyer and a donor, that it could impact literally the property that she owns because as I understand it, she not only owns a house, a very old stone house on one side of the street, but a lake on the other. And I have watched for 2 and 1/2 months where I'm sure the traffic is less than it would be if the weather was better. Cars fell in front of a yellow sign right across from my house that says 15 miles an hour. Children at play. I don't think a car has gone 15 once. And we're not talking about cars. We're talking about crime trucks and oil delivery trucks and even those large trucks are not as large as the building trucks that we stone and lumber and everything else. So my main concern is really because the quality of the street isn't going to be able to handle that kind of weight and traffic. He's going to be responsible for the drainage on both sides. And of course at the end of the street I would hope that everybody's

been really vigilant about the things that were brought up earlier pesticides leeching into the ground water drainage because we are talking about it though. And again like everybody else I hope that everyone on drive up there and visit this street have better understand. Thank you. Uh, Dagan.

Yes. Um, I'd like to make a brief statement about the quality of life. Um, I'm assuming all of us here enjoy a pretty nice quality of life compared to other places in our world that are more filled out, more noisy, more polluting. And I think we all enjoy that. The decisions made this room affect our future. And I feel now is a time that we all need to think about the future for all of us because so much is at stake. So this might seem like one small decision to you but if we don't watch out we'll be surrounded with lights and danger and noise. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you James Frell.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I live at 31 Frankl. Um my name is James Frell. I'm speaking in regarding of application PD uh 2023 25 proposed four lot. I know they're only putting in three houses, but lot is what you guys said in the document you sent to us. Uh major subdivision at 174 Rose Hill Road. I apprec I appreciate the public hearing process, but my concern is that significant work appears to have already taken place on the property before this stage of the review. A road has been cut in. My main question tonight is simple. Was the road permitted and approved before the work could begin? My understanding is that major clearing earth or services are not supposed to be occurred uh before a preliminary uh subdivision approval. So the planning board and the public can review the project before major changes have happened to the land. In this case, the road appears to be cut through what our town considers protected stone walls. Large pine trees and other mature trees were removed and left alongside their road. Uh from a resident's perspective, uh this feels like a substantial sight disturbance, not a not including what happened on the other side of the property that I can see with my drone. Um this happened before the public had any chance to weigh in. Uh during the construction process, which was I can't tell you a definitive date when they were moving rocks, and I feel like it was at least two weeks I heard dump trucks going up and down our road. At least two weeks. Uh during that time, um I was I was out with my kids on the road. Um there were large rocks the size of soft balls all the way up and down Rose Hill Road. And I know what it was from. It was from the tires getting stuck in the wheels of the twin X in the rear between the two rear tires getting left as they the property. Um I went up spoke to the excavator that was doing it. I said, "Hey, you need to go clean this up." If I go, if my wife hits this and I have to go fix my car, it's not going to be a

happy experience for all of you. And I'm the type of guy that I stop my car in the middle of the road. We all live in a small place. Stop my car, put it in park, go pick up a tree, move it off the road. I'm not the kind of person that leaves stuff all over the road. Um, so my questions is if the road was permitted, uh, I would appreciate clarification on when and how that approve, uh, approval was granted. If it was not permitted, I would like to understand how the town plans to enforce this. I know we have some major issues with code enforcement and uh what corrective action will be required including restoration of disturbed areas and uh protected uh protection of our public roads. I think enforcement is important here because how this situation is handled sets a precedence for how the future projects will be treated and how residents trust this process. Thank you for your time. And the last thing I will say is the other properties that he has put in. Uh the lights are on all the time. Hardly anybody is ever there. And like it's so rad for my kids to walk out at night when I get home late at night after gymnastic practice with them. They can look up and see the stars. That's where we live. Completely pitch black all the time.

Thank you. Uh Jerry Fernino.

Thank you. Um, just as a brief introduction, for those who don't know me, most of the people who spoken know me because I've been back there for 52 years now. And um I live on both I own rather on both Deer Tale Trail, which is an extension off of Franco Road. Uh that was an issue that I brought up because the name of that road in all of my deeds going back 52 years is Whitaker Road. So some of you may recall it as that with the old Whitaker Farm at the end of the road. But be that as it may, Franco Road. Oh, by the way, I'm the superintendent of the highway known as Franco Road, which I don't know about I do know about. I've been there what's going on in Iran right now. But I think some of those bombs have been hitting Franklin Road because it is a disaster. So now anybody who's talking about putting a road in, I can tell you it's not a lot of fun being the sole person with equipment to take care of that road and what it costs.

But I'll say this, I was offered that property, that very piece of property by uh Bartwood Cop's daughter when it was left to her Andrew's death. I turned it down because I own as as I just said a number of the properties on both Frankl as well as Rose Hill Road. Part of that is in fact very much wetlands. So I understand what the issue is. I was looking at what is taking place there. Here's where I have to say and may not be in agreement with some of the previous speakers, but Robert L is selling a piece of property. That piece of property only has value when it's used for something. Now there lies a real issue that all of you and thank you very much have no desire beyond that thought with any of you because it is a very difficult job at your hands. But right now, this town, as all of you know, because you're members of this town, we're going through a very serious situation, a revaluation. And we just had a meeting that would not have been able to take place in this room because we had 189 people last night at the firehouse. All of them upset about finding out what the rebound was doing. My point in bringing that up, it is extremely expensive just got and it's going to get worse to have property because the number one issue and I know because I have some of that property on those uh both Franco Road and Rose Hill Road, if you don't have anything on it, the rebal is going to be even higher. So, that right there is saying you either better build it or sell it. And if you sell it, somebody else is going

to have to build it. That is a poor client. That is a problem. However, that's what your job is to do. So, I see it as uh Mr. Wells has purchased that piece of property and with all good intentions, yes, I see it's been dropping four to three lots and so forth. And I see it as as long as it is able to work out some of the issues that were brought up here, I see that as hey, the town of Rochester is looking for more tax revenue. What will those three buildings bring in? More tax revenue. And it's sad to say, but uh you look at what came in all of our mailboxes between Thursday and this past Saturday. That's what they're looking for. More tax revenue. So, I thank you for your time and I'm simply saying that man bought the property. The property was for sale. By the way, one of the other neighbors, I'll leave his name out of that. He's not here tonight. What are we to do? And I simply said, "Excuse me, you should have bought that property if you're concerned about what somebody else is going to do with it because it was offered to not just me, but to that person as well. And if you want to make the property, and by the way, that person has quite a bit of property. We're not talking about 50, 100 acres, multiple hundreds. Bottom line is, you want to protect something. I protect some of what I have for that reason because I enjoy using it, recreationing it, using firewood, hunting it, whatever. But that's my choice. And we need to and all of you need to remember that you have a lawful right, a lawful right to build or utilize that property as you see fit as long as within the parameters of what

codes and other things are and and other people's I get it are not affected that of a way. Last thing I'll put up, the infrastructure problem on Rose Hill Road and Frankle Road, as I just explained right away, Franco Road was a town road at one time and it now is not. It's the Jerry Fenino road because I'm the only one out there plowing, filling the holes, and doing uh this a lot of this maintenance work. And I'll tell you what, I'd be thrilled if the town or you guys could somehow squeeze Franklin Road in here and and include that, but I can tell you Mr. Wells is going to say, "Wait a how many roads am I fixing for this thing?" And that is a real problem. I understand. Thank you very much. And by the way, thank you for what you guys do. Um because I know this is not an easy job what you're doing.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. for me. Um, you sure you don't want to be on the fighting board here? Really?

Um, so I'm going to break one of my rules. I'm going to quickly rattle off a couple of specific facts which um, they were misstated by the public, but I'm just going to clear up a few things rather than make you wait until another hour when hopefully the applicant would clear some of the stuff up. So, I'm just going to hit on it. Um, yeah. Yes, indeed. the applicant did um put in a road there illegally and a stop work order was um executed against uh against the work. This goes back at least two years. This project has be been before us for two years. Whatever happens in that case with something that's done like that is beyond the planning board's uh purview. So stop work order was uh put in place. I'm not even sure if there's fines that can be or that if they were if they actually were um exacted. So I just want to get that out of the work the way the board has visited the property. We we've walked not every inch of it but we're very much aware in fact that it butts up against the fly Pakama fly which is a um hopefully will be declared a critical environmental area. It's known to be critically uh important. Uh it's just not officially within the town of Rochester. I think they're working on that. Uh somebody mentioned the number of lots. It's down to three um at one time. Two of the lots, two of the four lots, the original lots, two of them were down in the down in the wetlands and would have involved crossing the wetlands to get to one of the properties and the other one would have drained into a significant portion of the wetlands at least in our experts view etc etc. So all the lots are now up on the plateau if you would not down in the pla v area and the wetlands area. All the wetlands that are on the property, whether they're at the beginning of the property closer to Rose Hill Road or all the way in the back, um there is a 200 a 100 foot buffer around them, uh in into

in which no development, literally nothing can happen except to stay exactly the way it is. The road that was put in from the top of the plateau going down that would have made a huge turn to go further down, that road is going to be restored. one of the conditions is to restore that area uh to whatever extent possible to the way it was. Um all of the so yeah it was environmentally very difficult and the reason it took two years is that we're trying to work with the applicant to get them to the point of moving the houses someplace where it wouldn't potentially damage the uh the environment. the we're aware of the Appalachian sho string fern and um we did have somebody look at that. It's there. It's down in the BL area what we've been told by a expert botist wetlands person. So we are aware of that the road is maintained by the town of Rochester. the whole road. They maintained that road. It's plowed by the town of Marbletown throughout between Rochester and Olive and Marble Town and other towns in the area. Gardener, there's frequently shared services for roads that go over multiple municipalities. Start in one and then end up on another one. Well, this is a good example of where the town, our town has agreed to take care of that road. not the new road that's going in, but to take care of Rose Hill Road and the plowing is done by Marble Town. That's all I can say about that. So, um, now there was a comment, what do we, if you live in Marble Town, what are we getting for it? Well, you're not getting the tax dollars, but the road is being maintained by the town of Rochester. Marble Town, I'm sure, is happy with that, and we're happy with the plowing on behalf of Rochester, our Rochesterians. That's done by Marble Town. So, I just wanted to m me mention

that the HOA was just so you know, we've been at it for two two years. This is not the preferred way to handle the area in the back. Having said that, there is an area in the back. It's on the map. It's marked in the map. Um, and it starts right near lot number three. And if you look at the map, it's a green line on the map. Everything from that line all the way back, I guess that would be to the west, um, is a conservation area. And it has to we prefer it to be a conservation subdivision area or a conservation have a conservation easement but we cannot force an easement on an applicant. Um and so they agreed to do a conservation area and there's a series of prohibitions of what can be done in that area that'll be added to the map. It'll be in the deeds etc etc etc. One of which is pestic no pesticides. There's a whole host of other things. Yes, you must have been listening to this board at one of the meetings. Many of us said, um, this is like potentially the fox watching the chicken coop.

I don't disagree. The preferred way is either an easement run out the uh conservancy or for the town to have some sort of involvement in it. The town will have enforcement ability. It'll be in the decision enforcement ability to enforce the cautisol in the conservation piece and then the HOA. So for example, will anybody in the HOA tell on somebody else doing something? I don't know. But if something was reported to the building department, um they'll have the ability to go in and say, "This is what the map says. You're not doing it." To what extent that will happen, I can't tell you. I can tell you that the new code enforcement officer that we have is in my view at least is is doing quite a a different job and taking care of a lot of things that haven't been taken care of. So, as I said, oh, and there'll be something there about dark sky compliant lighting with the houses, um, which is in the code, but the applicant will be reminded about that. Um, so I broke my own rule. I don't want any commentary back on that. And I want to get to the next unless somebody else wants to talk about it. Something else. Um, we need to move on to the next public hearing. So, is there anybody else who would like to speak on this project at this time?

Can I add one thing? Sure. Your name, please. Uh, can I have your name, please? Your name. Tim Yates. Okay. I'm in support of a project actually bringing houses into town Rochester. I don't like hearing other people trespass to find out things about the property. Just want that to be said. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Um I'm going to leave the public hearing open uh at this point. Um

if there's any written comments for if anybody has written comments they would like to leave with us, please do it u do so give it to Stacy. Um while we're still considering this project, we'll take written comments. We have a number of them. If you have your statements that you'd like to get to us, uh we'd be more than happy to accept them. Um at this time, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. All right. Um so, anybody else on this project? Okay. Good. We're done with the public hearing for tonight on this project. All right. Okay, the next um item on the agenda is a public hearing um by Lewis, the Lewis property.

You have maps. Uh everybody has maps at their place. Uh so this is Alice and Amy Lewis. So Daisy, would you see if there's a Yeah. Anybody who filled out um public hearing list? Is anybody here to talk about the Lewis project? She'll probably say yes.

Questions. There's somebody over there. There's somebody over here. And then Okay. Oh, no. No. No, I'm just Lewis. Pardon? I'm Amy Lewis. I'm fine. Yes, you don't want to talk. I can talk and we were just going to listen. Oh, then we have questions. Well, Stacy, can I see the sheet? Yeah, nobody's on it. Nobody's on it. So, who wants to speak on the Lewis project? don't really don't really know what the project after that's why we're here. We're kind of curious.

Well, I'll tell you what. Um, if you want to speak about it, you have, you know, some facts you want to bring to the table. Happy to hear from you. We're not going to go into the details of of the project. There's a map over there. But Bill, why don't you just summarize what the project is um for the to remind the board and maybe after you're finished, there might be somebody from the public who would like to speak about the project. And the lady who has who said she has some questions, if you have a statement about the project you want to give, be happy to take that or you can read that statement. So why don't you just sit tight, let Bill, who is the representative for the project, let him speak about it. Uh and let's see where that goes. Okay, that could build.

Yes. So, this is uh the property is 95 Lower Woodfield Road. This is uh just over 9 acres total and there's an existing house on the property. A driveway goes into the into the house and um with a fair amount of wet land just off of the road here. the driveway actually too and uh he's has wetlands on both sides of the road there. Um so what the proposal is here is to do a sub agent to create two long narrow parcels. The existing house is really up against the left side of the overall property. So, what we proposed is to uh put a another house up on the hill on the right side of the property going back and to use the same share driveway. The right of way is a shared driveway coming in to the existing house site and then splitting off to the right and going up the hill to a site up in the back there. And uh that's basically it I would say.

Okay. Okay. So, does anybody want to speak about this project?

I just wanted to know I just wanted to know what their intent was. It says prime farmland. I don't see where there's any prime farmland located on that piece of property. Neither do I. I've tried to garden it for 15 years. I haven't been able to grow tomato and I don't know why there's so I don't know. I've never been able to grow anything on my land. Strangely enough, it's the wetland is there's a lot of areas that are called on the soil maps are called a prime farmland if drained, but it's wetland. If we drained it, you'd be in big trouble. So, well, you can technically you could drain farmers can drain

you know. Yeah. Yeah.

So, for the lady in the back who asked what the intention is, the intention is there's a house there already. They were originally going to build two new houses, we we kind of sent it back to the applicants, surveyor, engineer, and said, "No, we don't think this is going to work." And in fact, it didn't work. So, they're building one more house. And you can see on the map in the back there, uh, where that house is going to be. As you go up to where the house is now, you come to a point where there'll be a driveway going up to the top and around to an area that's relatively flat. Okay. Anybody else want to speak on this? Is that helpful? Okay. Please stay for the rest of the night. It'll get interesting as we keep going.

Anybody else? Okay. So, um I think on this one I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing for the project. Um go first. Dave will make the motion. Who wants to second it? Hans. All in favor? I I six and one um absence. Okay. So, we're finished with the Lewis uh public hearing. Thank you, Bill. We we're going to discuss this probably briefly later as the next step. So, if you want to hang around, great. But we're now doing the Verizon public hearing. So, may you want to go out for a coffee and then come back?

Okay. Um, so the next public hearing uh is for the is for Verizon. It's a continuation of an existing um of an existing public hearing that has been going on since Augustish. So, if you want to speak at the meeting, please be so kind as to sign your name. Here comes Stacy.

Thank you. Thank you. For those who may not have been here before on this project, we're at the point we're coming to a conclusion on this project. Um we've completed many of the steps necessary to get to a decision. Most importantly in the recent past few loop meetings we've been major seekers seeker steps. Seeker is state environmental quality review act and we're at the point of doing what's called um the part three um which then leads to um a determination of significance within within seeker. So that in a nutshell is pretty much where we are. And tonight is a continuation of the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing for tonight. We're not closing it permanently tonight, but we'll close it for tonight. Um I would ask whoever wants to speak to keep it to five minutes.

We've heard quite a number of um we've had quite a number of public hearings on this. So let's try to keep it at five minutes. And then uh after that, we're going to go into uh regular order. with two lot lines, two of the projects that have been here already at Buffalo, and then we'll finish up the night talking through um Verizon, their part three um as well as some other matters having to do with the project. So, um first on the list is Michelle Herz.

Thank you. On May 28th, 2025, in the middle of the day, Troy Harrison and I began a bird identification project at Verizon's proposed cell tower site. Within minutes of arriving there, we identified the following New York State protected birds. Goldfinch, Baltimore oral, brownheaded cowbirds, grale, American robin, red belly belly woodpecker, house friend, pine warbler, American red star, great crested fly catcher, blue gray nat catcher, and redo. On May 30th, 2025, in the morning at the same location, Troy identified the following protected birds. Chipping sparrow, redeyed furio, American red star, eastern wood pee, rose breasted gross bee, blue gray nap catcher, catb bird, redbellied woodpecker, liiated woodpecker, houseer ren, and goldfish. On May 21, 2025 in the morning at the same rotation, Troy identified the following protected birds. American robin, pine warbler, gray cat bird, house ren, redeyed burrio, American red start, goldfinch, blue j, cuffed tit mouse, cardinal, yellow warbler, house ren, yellow bellyied woodpecker, cedar wax wing, western wood peeweee, downey woodpecker, and common yellow throat. On June 1st, 2025, in the morning at the same location, Troy identified the following protected birds. House sparrow, cardinal, tufted tip mouse, eastern kiwi, redeyed vario, American robin, oven bird, ground nesting by the way, blue jay, common yellow throat, great crested fly catcher, eastern wood pee-wee, house ren, grale, rose breasted grows beak, red belly woodpecker, dark eyed junko, American red start, and

cedar waxwing. On June 6, 2025, at the same location, Troy identified the following protected birds: yellowthroated vario, house finch, eastern wood peeweee, cedar waxwing, ovenbird, American robin, white breasted nut hatch, downey woodpecker, Canada oose, redbellied woodpecker, American goldfinch, blue gray nut catcher, wood thrush, great crested fly catcher, hued tip mouse, northern cardinal, and houser house friend. These are not birds that I see ever anywhere and I know birds. Planning board has dismissively labeled our bird report, our experts report and community comments as generic and generalized. We are not generic and generalized. We are your neighbors and we are this community. To add insult to injury, Dave Church copied word for word large parts of Verizon secret part three review. And that is what the board is using to make its secret determination. The board should have already done so, but should change its determination to a positive declaration. approving a cell tower and then pretending that it is not there by requiring Verizon to cover it up with hundreds of pounds of tight toxic microlastics is not an answer. It won't change that it is dangerously close to housing that is some of the most affordable in town and to wetlands and fragile and protected wildlands full of birds. It is memorable and hard to believe that after a full year of so-called study, multiple public hearings, dozens of written comments,

and heartfelt testimonies of your neighbors and residents of this town, almost all in opposition to this unnecessary teller. This board has ignored the public entirely. Thank you, Michelle. Larry Freeman by time server. Ice seated by time server. Okay. Fred HS.

Thank you for letting me speak again. So after the last meeting um I was here on the cell tower proposals and I and after reading most of the part three secret well reading all of it um I just want to share with you all how I'm feeling because this has been really challenging. This has been a tough year on this topic. I feel sad. I feel disappointed. I feel confused, insulted and dismayed. I feel sad because it sounds like you guys are leaning towards granting a special use permit to allow a cell tower to be built in a place where no one needs it and almost everyone in the town doesn't want it. The process has been depressing as Verizon's desire to make money at our expense um has been prioritized over the voices of hundreds of local residents who have shown up, signed petitions, spoken to you. Nobody likes to public speak. We've come out here, winter, fall, beautiful weather. Um, and it feels like our genuine concerns about this tower have been ignored. The town of Rochester has been a respit from ugly. We've talked about ugly. I've talked about ugly. Building a cell tower in this location, which is central to our town, is a puncture in that special bubble of beauty that we all have worked so hard to protect. You may not all know the history of the protection we've done around here and the parks and how they are here and why they're here, but all of us have been a part of that since we've lived here. I feel disappointed because of the shift I've noticed since the early meetings of this proposal when I felt grateful that the planning board was listening to us and representing the citizens of this community. Now it feels like the planning board is representing Verizon. I don't know what's caused this shift, but that's how it feels from my perspective sitting out here. Um, there

have been comments about the noise as no big deal. And when comments like that are heard from the audience, it feels like um it appears as if the board is no longer concerned about the residents potent potentially living under this looming and unsightly structure as a not in our backyard kind of attitude. I don't think that's the attitude this board wants to sound like they have, but that's what it sounds like. It feels like, well, it's not. I'm not going to hear those noises, so it's no big deal. But is it a big deal for the people who live there? I mean, I'm not speaking for other people, but I know what the noise around me feels like when it's pierces the peace and quiet where I live. Um, we have all fought to keep our t town safe, rural, and beautiful. This tower in the middle of a community is a slap in the face of all those efforts. I feel confused. Mitigation, mitigate this, mitigate that. I appreciate that these mitigations may be in part inspired by public comment so that we've sort of been heard, but at what point are all these mitigations an indicator that the tower should not be built in the first place? Because it's a lot of mitigation. And also is there data to prove that these mitigation techniques will actually protect you know want data for everything will it really protect the environment will it really protect the birds it doesn't protect the viewshed I mean the microlastic green thing does that really protect the viewshed I don't know um it definitely doesn't protect the community character and does it protect it in the long in the long term and for future generations um I feel insulted Because I feel like the dismissal of public comments and efforts about our concerns and things that we've seen with our own eyes. For example, I know that birds nest in these because I've seen it with my own eyes. I know what I see. We did the balloon

test. We followed the directions that the town gave us. Our photos were dismissed as not important. But you guys um with your own photographers admitted that there were uh sorry uh let's see your own documents you admit that the terror will pierce the viewshed and more than half of the photos. But isn't it one photo that pierces the viewshed a problem? It didn't say how many viewsheds had to be destroyed. If there's one, isn't that a problem? Um, the comment about the purple bergamont being protected, being unnecessary since there's so much is disappointing and insulting because it shows a lack of acknowledgment of the importance of biodiversity and environmental protection and fragility. And I really don't believe the members of this board don't understand biodiversity. I can't imagine that that's possible. I'm dismayed that we are still here defending against a damaging outsider who could care less about this community and our needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Toby Stove. Good evening.

Um, I've said this before and before I I prepare something to read. If you allow this cell tower to come in to our town, that will be an open door to endless other requests non-stop in our area. We have enough. It's not enough. We need another one. Another one. It's going to be non-stop. So, this is the turning point right now. If you say yes and you allow this, we don't get to say no again. Okay? And I know it's a tough job. I thank you all for being here. I know you volunteered to do this, but um you have to tell the truth. At this moment in time, the community does not know the exact status or potential outcome of the proposed cell tower application. Although it looks like from what people are saying that it's may go through. From our standpoint, it is not acceptable to ignore the wishes of town residents and the facts submitted by extremely qualified experts who have raised real questions about safety and the need for a fourth mega cell tower within our community and around our properties. At the last meeting, planning board members accepted most of Dave Church's draft of part three of SEPRA review. Mr. church copied as Michelle said every word much all of the actually the whole thing of the draft including the typos from Verizon's recommendations for part three of SECRA secret this is unacceptable at this time following Verizon's lead the board's draft part three of supra calls for a negative declaration with conditions

this means that the board agrees with Verizon that a cell tower in the middle of our community will not have a significant adverse impact on us or the environment including plants and wildlife, the viewshed or the character of the community. Given the facts, the board should flat out deny this application. At the very least, the board should be issuing a positive declaration, and this would require a full and complete environmental review of the proposal. To date, the board has been relying on industry influenced environmental contractors from Verizon to make its decisions about this cell tower. The board must not ignore reliable scientific facts showing that cell towers and cell tower radiation negatively affect Laura Bana human well-being and property values. Throughout this proceeding and for over a year now, it seems to us that the board has dismissed and ignored community comments, photos of the balloon test taken by members of the community showing a giant cell tower looming over the landscape, and independent expert reports. With each of these dismissals, it would appear that the board finds a reason that the community has no value. If the town of Rochester planning board approves the new cell tower construction, they will be sacrificing our neighborhood and the environment benefiting Verizon, not us. We will not accept this, especially in

view of the fact that Verizon has not proven that the new cell tower is needed. the burden of proof is still on them. Therefore, the town planning board must not and cannot cave to outside pressure because their sworn duty is to the welfare of our town whose residents overwhelmingly object to this tower. The board must not ignore the sentiments and wishes of our people. I remind the board that it is their sworn duty to represent the residents of the town of Rochester, not the financial interests of Verizon.

Julia, and I can't make out the last name.

Uh, hi. I spoke a couple times. Um, so I just wanted to add my voice again to the fact that I think Verizon deserves a positive declaration and that uh the job of the planning board is not to to mitigate for Verizon and move forward, but as people said to hear the concerns and take into account the uh code. Um Verizon still can't prove that they need this tower. There's already three towers in this area. Uh there are no other semi-ural towns of our population density that has this many towers. Uh also we live in an area where our tourist industry depends on its viewshed in Minaska State Park alone over 500,000 people come every year. Um and so even making the tower 120 ft all the same issues that residents have made continue. Um, and using kind of fake plastic to camouflage it doesn't really change a thing. I mean, you could still spot those. I mean, you can tell when you see a cell tower that has fake uh, you know, fake branches on it. U, you know, this will be also irreparable to the harm of our community character. Uh so many of us that aren't tourists but live here because of the views, because of um the natural beauty are going to have to see this thing over and over again for the rest of our lives, you know. And again, as everyone said, they don't even they're not even they don't feel like you guys deserve uh or we deserve an explanation as to why they even need this tower. So it's literally there's so many issues that come before the planning board where you have to deal with the developers and the land use and some members of the community are sometimes for it, others are against it. I mean this is really just the

entire community is against it. the applicant can't prove that they even need the cell tower other than to make more money and potentially do other things with it, uh, including 5G and potentially some live streaming services. You know, whatever they have in store that they're not telling us because there is a reason they're doing cell power to make money, but it's not to meet any of the needs that the community has. Um, and so, you know, I know that there's still 30-day public comment period. Obviously, there's a handful of people here, but there are many people that have come that are aware of what's going on and are watching. Um, and so I just ask that you really keep an open mind as a board to vote for a positive declaration. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this project? Michelle,

I'm sorry I left out a paragraph and um I want to make it very clear um again that um we are not generic and we are not generalized. Instead of hiring a local expert on flora and fauna for this property that is very near wetlands and fragile wildlands, the board has made a decision that there is no impact on the environment. This decision is based on a generic report from Verizon's wildlife contractor from Texas and a general no response from the fed federal department of fish and wildlife. If that's not generic and generalizing, I don't know what is. Thank you.

Anybody else on this project? Okay, we're going to pick up um the Verizon project later on tonight, probably in a half hour, 45 minutes to go through um if the board wants to make any comments of their own um at this time or later, but we'll go through continue the review of the project uh when we get to it probably in 45 minutes if anybody wants to uh stay for that. Um, so Scott, I'm going to ask you to take a seat in the badge again. Got it.

Um, okay. So, the next item on the agenda is spirit circle and this is uh just an administrative um task. We sent out um we circulated for lead agency for spirit circle um and the 30 days

was up as of today or as of yesterday actually. So we give in the document it indicated that we give the um the involved agencies 30 days to reply as to whether or not they want to um they want to challenge our lead agency declaration. we and we receive no notice of that, Stacy. So, it's our responsibility uh after the 30 days to actually declare lead agency status. So, I'll make a motion um that the um planning board having received no commentary from any of the involved entities um is declaring itself lead agency uh for the spirit circle um project.

Make a motion. I make a motion. You made the motion. I made the motion. Second. Second. Alina seconds. All in favor? Anybody opposed? Chair votes I. So two zero and one absence. Dave, I have a question for you. Are we We obviously sent the notice out. I think it was 17 different agencies we sent it to. Do we have to renotice those agencies that we've declared? We're done with the notifications. We don't have to post it to the DEC website. No. Okay. So, we're done with all that. Okay. Good. You actually didn't even have to do resolution. I know

because you are a lead agency unless they someone disputed it. That's why you probably got up and left. Um, okay. Next, next project. Um, Diane Lammon Monica. Who's representing Diane Lmon Monica? on George. You came all the way up from Garden City. Pardon? You came all the way up from Garden City. Is just came from Liberty. Oh, okay. Yeah. Still a drive forward. The applicant is from Lauren. Is that it? Yeah. So, M and your name is

George. George Bankston. George, you want to tell us? There's a map for everybody to take a look at. You want to tell us what you're trying to accomplish? Well, basically the overing the two blocks. It's this map, Paulina. Hang on a second, George. It's okay. Got it.

I already looked at it online. Sorry. uh anyway they own two last uh combined they're roughly five acres going over and what we're looking to do is is eliminate the common boundary. Uh part of the reasoning is besides set back to the the common boundary really reduces the flexibility to rotate the house, you know, doing what they want there. Uh it was really a challenge getting the septic system in for the for the the project. Uh we got health department approval for raid system and as you can see we got prime area is basically on one lot the reserve area ends up being over the other a lot of big trees big rocks lousy soil it's it just makes a better project.

Okay. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Bank? Okay. which will be the on the map is the never mind existing wells on another property as well as the the existing well uh is well it's on the property that uh that they own and with the where the house you know so there's two wells that I think what um I just show two wells for some You're not using those wells for your long favors

and the onab it looks like u according to the map um and and also the inset on your map the it looks like it's in an L there but that in front of it is actual Brown's rose Brown drive Brown's drive is yeah it shows private road as Mimi collab it looks like there's a a space between the um between the road and the property uh on the MUN collab map uh not excuse me on the county parcel viewer map it looks like there's this L that goes around the property and that the property doesn't hit the road that's the way it is on parcel viewer so I just wanted to

oh far as I know the uh we didn't change the prop the outbounds of anything so so access will be directly outs drive yeah yeah you come up Ka Kaiser and actually the driveway goes straight in from Okay. Uh yeah, right now from Kaiser you don't turn their wings into their house, right? It's just I just wanted to clarify that because it's a little misleading on the parts will be the map show. Yeah. With that private road designation in there and property lines basically don't aren't accurate on tax, right? with that's that's why I asked

Sure. And but there dean restrictions and that really deed restrictions no pig farm. Is that what the It could be. I was doing with the septic system that that's what was on the application. So that was a it was a strange it was a funny little deed restriction. No pig farm had something. I don't know what they got against bacon. How many how many farms are in this town? I'm a farm boy myself. Anything else?

Um yeah, on the um I think on the EAF mapper there was uh the the with the application it was filled out that there were were wetlands, but I didn't find any I didn't see any I didn't see any. It hits a stream in the back there. Yeah, but it's the back line and I but it didn't indicate on any of the parts that I had seen any well, you know, if there is any, you know, lands that are wet, let's put it that way, they down. Yeah, I looked for them and I didn't see it was on the application. So, yeah, no reason to be down there. Yeah. Dave, do you have a comment about that? Um, we've I didn't look at it.

Okay, that's fine. But I I assume it's because the creek's in the back and there's this generic statement now in the in the parcel viewer that there's with the e I'm sorry with the EAF automatically filling out. Yeah. And the new wetland regulations that I assume just because of proximity to the creek there's it flags some you need to look kind of thing that would probably show up the national wetlands register you know. Yeah. No, I don't didn't know. Peter did. It didn't. No, it didn't show up as either state or federal wetlands. It usually is an indication of cross patch on the map. It was indicated that there was one, but then I didn't see one. So, I just wanted to ask. Yeah. No, I I'm not.

Okay. Given the slopes that are there, I'd be surprised. Anybody else? Um, I just have one more question. So, you're just going to tear down one of the houses and put up a new one? Yeah, it's it's basically a a a hunting camp the twobedroom and yeah, that's going to be removed and that'll be the new house will be put in the same locations right next to it. Right next to it. Yeah, they uh they're trying to get the orientation on it for which this will help get this through the so they can get a view of the mountain.

Yeah. Busy watching the bear up there to look at the mountains. The applicant knows we're just if we approve this, we're just approving the lot line, taking the lot line out. Yes. Anything else you go to building department for? Yeah. Somebody else is. Anyone else on this one? Down the road. It's beautiful. It is. Yeah. It's called So, I think um I don't see anything that else on this map. Dave, would you um for the next meeting for the 30th, would you do a a lot line? Yeah, it's approval. It's type two and it's it's type two by virtue of being being a lot line.

Public hearing is optional. We don't need to do a public hearing. We don't need a write up. We just need the uh decision. So, uh we don't do a decision. We're not doing a decision tonight. We'll do it at the next meeting, which is the 30th. We'll have a decision. There's some notes that'll need to be put on the map. Standard notes that we have that'll be provided in the um in the decision. So, you can put them on the map and then u the board will vote on that decision and it sounds like everybody's okay with this. And then we just need a final map from you that I can sign. But I don't need it for the next meeting. It'll be after that next meeting. You need me here for the next meeting.

You don't have to be here. would appreciate it if you were, but uh you don't have to be. It's the 30th. We could put you on. We'll try to put you on first. Make note of that. 6:30 on the 30th. It is the 30th, right? Yes. Okay. Do we need as we pay decision? Um Dave is going to be doing the decision. So, we need $150 in escrow to pay for whatever we don't use. Um, you get back. I'll entertain a motion to ask for $150 in escrow. Peter, I'll I'll make the motion. Peter makes a motion. Jennifer, all in favor?

Anybody opposed? I for me. Okay. So, we'll see you the 30th. Okay. A and I haven't been doing a mine in 40 years. But this escro does something. So the escrow pays for a professional. I can email her. He wants to know how to Oh, how to do it. How does he do it? Email her. Let her know how to do it. Bless you. I screw it up. Welcome back. We missed you. The hairs getting gray. Tell me about them.

I don't have any anymore. Um so we'll see you let us know uh on the 30th we'll wrap it all up and then the only other thing that needs to be done this has to be filed with the county so on and so forth as long as we get the information. Okay. You'll get a notice from Stacy as to the meeting and what where you are in the meeting agenda. Yeah. Okay. That's it. Yeah. Thank you. Drive. Okay. The next item on the agenda is a lot line elimination for Ravi Shanker. Is Mr. Shanker here or his representative?

For those of you who are too young to remember, Ravi Shanker, is it the same one? Is Come on. Yes. He'd be 100 years old by now. But the Beatles did an whole album with Ravi Shanker and I think Ravi Shanker was at Woodstock. Yeah. He did the zit spelled differently. What? The last name. It's an Indian name. Shanker. It's a different ethnicity. Um, but we don't have to we don't have to worry about that. Are you sure? I knew you would spoil my fun. He's watching us. So that before

Okay. And I apologize for getting the ethnicity wrong if anybody's offended by that. Yes. I also I have to recuse myself from the decision because Ma is doing a renovation for us. Okay. So she's your architect or something. Okay. So, I caught uh Marica early in the meeting because you have three maps and I needed an explanation for each of the maps. So, the map that I'd like to work off of for tonight, although there's two is the one from that one is the one from Bill Acres.

Bill Acres did the uh did the survey work. You have it in front of you. was the one with color. You have one? No, I have one. I have a smaller version of it. Um, and then the other two maps I talked to Marie about and we came to understanding that we can't deal with remaps and we need one map. One map. And the reason maps is just because um I was showing you what is there now and what we would like. So, it's existing versus proposed, but we're make sure it's one map.

So, we just hit one map. Um, and I told you all about we need a legend on here. So any of the good things that Mr. Baxter had on his map, we'd like to see on this map on the way out and he is ready. He doesn't know. Okay. And the um what's happening here? The houses that you see on on this map. Um they began to build they own both properties. They began to build a garage or something else on the other lot. and they have a stop work order because um well I forget exactly yes

there was no primary structure on it so you can't build an accessory structure I had to think for a minute so what they decided to do is just eliminate the lot line and make it all one parcel which makes sense but right now uh whatever it was they were building the accessory structure garage two car garage whatever um there's a stop work order on it so it's just a simple um but Marie needs to do some work on the map. Yes. So, does anybody have any questions on this? And I didn't see any restrictions, Peter, at this time about pig farms. Did you? No, I did not. Okay. I I didn't think u I think something showed up on Shipo. Is that correct, Am

um maybe EIF uh recused? But archaeological sensitivity. Yeah, I think it was, if I remember correctly, I made a note to myself that um it was flagged at the Shivo, but I may be um and there's a wetlands on this property, correct? And just want to confirm no work is being done in the wetlands area, the buffer area. Not at all. There's a there's a creek down there, but it's very good. Okay. So, could you get the creek on the map? It uh I don't see it on Bill's map. There's BL Creek. Is that the one?

Fly Brook by Flybrook. Yeah, it's labeled as Fly Creek. It's on there. Forget it. Fly Brook. The other is BL Creek. Um and then the other thing I had was or there I believe there was the easements or covenants was not checked on there. Are there any easements or covenants that anybody's aware of? Okay. And we'll confirm that with Bill, but no, but he did the original survey, too. Okay.

Let me just see if I can find an effort. Yeah, there was uh there was something that was flagged in the EF mapper about a archaeological site. So, uh, you need to be in touch with the Chipo about that and get a letter from them saying that there's no, you know, it's just the no archaeological site or

historic something there that we need to know because it flagged on EA. You're right. I have a Well, I have a question for Dave on that. Yeah. If they were doing a subdivision, that would be true, but they're just eliminate a lot line, but they're doing construction on the other side, right? That's something actually the building department should have asked for. Yeah. Dave, can you give us any guidance here?

Well, it's a type two under seeker, so you're essential gun if that's your justification. Um, if you're concerned about construction, it's it's a fairly simple process. You can go online and they request a review memo from the state historic preservation office. I you can Google that or your state historic preservation office. Okay. Um or contact Stacy or get me and I can show you how to do it. It's

it'll take might take a while. I don't know what they're going to say. I their their responsibility which is true in every state is to is to report back if there's any na any features that are on the national or state register of historic places that might be affected by what's proposed or if there's anything that's archaeologically sensitive you know in the ground on the ground um structural for example um then the board can consider that I mean it's just flagged on the map or that's why I brought it up. Yeah. So I not

any disturbance on that property before what was going on. No, I mean we we've built a house. The reason I'm involved is we built a house on this property few years ago on the 5.6 acres on the whole on the total property. Okay. Um and so we that didn't come up at that time. Um but obviously you've got the map. Um but is there any fresh to start? Are you what work you're going to do is on land it was already built on? It was already built on. There was a house saw there that had definite you're going to put the house where the house was essentially. It's very close. I don't know. It's your I mean when I when I was reviewing this I was the the action that we're reviewing is the lot line. Yeah.

Change which does not result in any impact to the store resources. So, I didn't review it as part of it because it's just the lot lines, right? The only only reason I'm bringing it up is that that the lot line improvement also is the part that is being they're building on the other part of the property, which is I mean that was But that's not part of our review, is it? Are we also approving? The reason they're here is because they started it

they started to build on another lot that didn't have it was an accessory structure. They didn't get anything from the building department. So, the combination of not having a permit from the building department as I understand it and putting an accessory structure up on a lot that doesn't have a primary structure for use for a house on a different lot. All of that resulted in you can't do that until you get a permit. you get a permit or you or you figure out how you want to deal with two lots. We did get a permit. So, building. Sorry, I can't hear you. We did get a permit before building. And why did they stop?

Well, it then became uh the neighbor the neighbor came over and basically uh was unhappy and called the town. And I guess um you got a building permit. We got a building permit for the for the garage. For the garage we did. Was it rescended? We basically Yes. We got a we got a stop work order and it's because of the the lot line and that's on me. I put it there without the lot line. So that's not but we did get a promise. We didn't I just it doesn't mean we have it and we can build. It means um we didn't just start building without Okay. So you got a building permit. They didn't realize I guess I don't know the whole story. They didn't realize that it was two lots.

They didn't realize it was two separate lots. To have a garage an accessory use, you need to have a primary use. you had no primary use on that lot. So that was the reason I assume that they stopped Yes. the work. That's exactly correct. Okay. I think Jennifer is correct that, you know, we're just looking at the lot line. Yeah. Um, for better or for worse, I hate to say it, but there's a lot of things that the building department if whenever they give a building permit out, if it's on a lot where there's some archaeological artifacts, they don't necessarily track it, unfortunately.

Yeah. I mean, I I only mention it because it showed up. Again, if it was a subdivision, okay, but I think I'm going to wave I think I'm going to wave the need to do the shipo the shipo referral. It's a separate issue as to what should the building department be doing in those these cases. Um, right. But and so I understand assuming we vote and we approve this then a building permit would still be required. So yeah, well they have one. He'll lift the the stop work order. Right. Right.

All right. So you your your job in the next week and a half to be able to come back on the 30th is you got to get me a map that complies with what with what we need, right? We talked about that. Y Dave, can we go ahead decision? Yep. On the creek. Uh good point. Yes. around any water body or code is around any water body, creek, drainage, uh, river, stream, pond. We need a buffer zone

of 100 ft. If you go back to Bill Ares to have this redone, which you said you were going to do, he knows about that. So around the fly, you need 100 foot buffer. All right. So stay in touch with Stacy. and let her know when we're going to get the the new information. Certainly at least a week, a week and a half before the next meeting. Bill, I promised you by a week. And Dave, I need a decision. No problem. How does that happen? Escrow. Escrow $150. I make a motion that we set the escrow at $150. Second. Okay, you got that knife. Followed by Dave Roberts. Yes. All in favor? I.

Anybody opposed? Abstain. And um abstain. All right. Did I forget anything else? Okay, we're good. So, you got some work to do? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I just take note that um an is back at the table. He never left, but he's he's back at the waiting for table. Thank you. All right. Um, dignified dwellings, you want to come back?

So, um, did anybody from dignified dwellings that commented on it? Did anybody stay? Is Jar's not his wife. Okay. So, um, N, why don't you just I think I hit on on the highlights of some things. Um, but I know there's probably some items that the board might still be concerned with. I know Dave Robins has been insistent on uh reeding and re restoring that road that goes down. Yeah.

So, maybe you could talk about that. Update us on um the business with Marble Town and the letters that have gone back and forth with them with the town supervisor. So why don't you just spend 10 to 15 minutes and then we'll talk about next steps.

Sure. So did it um you know what were the major topics you know that did you know make site visits uh you touched on the HOA which you know we've talked about it many times you talked about the conservation easement and the protection notes for fertilizers and that uh you did touch on the restoration which so we kind of did a um I guess unofficial revision to the plan had submitted it based on the comments in the last meeting. So that included the the notes from the mention notations. It included changing the graves on the driveway that went a lot um remember what else included. It included some topics that we had um and that was resubmitted. I do know that Ray looked at will be submitted for the road and that was the driveway that was acceptable to him that that plan got circulated to the highway department and um Rochester accepted what was done on the with private road uh details. So, um, we may not have the updated notes, but we did update them and I we're waiting kind of for see if there were any more comments or any changes before we made copies and uploaded it to the um meeting of the lab, but uh we did incorporate those. So, I'll make sure that that gets circulated with the PDF and and uploaded. Um some of the other comments um a lot of them did focus on Rosville Road itself and the layer of tear and the existing traffic and their

existing concerns over the the width and the condition of the road. Um we looked at the written comments that were submitted. We've had several conversations. We've had um written and verbal correspondence with the town of Marvel Town Board, the supervisor in particular, the town of Marbletown Highway uh superintendent um on several hands both actually the previous one and the acting one. Um any of the consensus is that obviously this property has frontage on two verses. It has frontage on Rosel Road and it has um frontage on um Frankle Road. So we all know that um along Fat Franle Road there is extensive federal wetlands. So, um, feasibilitywise and environmental protection wise, it was more feasible to just come off of Rose Hill Road. So, that's what was circulated to the town. The town was obviously their position of the town, Marble Town was, you know, we're not going to deny access to a piece of property just because the road was, you know, from our town. And we also did have um conversations about shared services and It means the general compensation of uh several roads that you had mentioned that start in one town and either end of the town would access other properties or go into the next town and for a short distance and um and it is our understanding that the town it's believed that part of Roseville Road is actually owned the town of Rochester or owned by town of Rochester. So town of Rochester does um regular maintenance and the town of

Marble Town does the seasonal snow removal type. So, so I think that's been covered. I think that's been covered under review circulation was covered with additional circulation to the towns. um conversations I've had about the culde sack at the end of road don't know don't fully um conversations that I've had that either town has received any complaints over the road condition or traffic on the road ever I want to say so I you know I definitely could watch to their attention that the residents have existing concerns. Um so, um I would also like to point out as just a little bit of history on the property at the very end of Rose Hill Road where we park when we go there. Um there's evidence of a chimney there. There used to be a house that was in front of this parcel and um it burnt down. So there was as part of this parcel a home there. So, this subdivision is really, although that house was pointed down a bit ago, this subdivision is only creating four homes. There was already a home existing. I think that kind of covers uh the road. One of the comments um Donna made, I'm sorry, I don't remember her last name. She had mentioned that there was some sort of blockage of egress um on the property somehow and um there there really isn't. The Frankle Drive has a right of way that goes over this property right along uh that that southern border. There's nothing done

there that there's nothing blocking that right away. Um that's still there. none of the other paths or woods roads through the property um have any rightways over them at all. So, I don't know if that was something that they had utilized at any point, but there is no official rightways and anywhere else in the property that this project's blocking. So, we just want to clarify that. um well distance from the properties. I mean I know that um the closest one to this house is well over 200 feet from the edge of the property.

How many feet? It's over 200. Um they don't have a scale of exactly telling you but um I didn't Yes, it is compliant with health regulations and I didn't hear anybody say tonight that their well they have problems with their wells. So no, somebody did mention that they're concerned about drilling on the other property. They did well. Yeah, they told the new well they were aware that a new well

Yeah. So the the closest house site to that property will be the lot two house site and that well is um significantly through the center of that lot. It's not close to the property line. Yes. Um two but greater than 200. Yes. I know glasses inal.

Yeah. Yeah. Maybe 240 ft away from the property line. And they said that their well was did they say 30 yards? They said 50t 50t they said. I thought he said 30 yards 90 ft. So let's say 50. So this well is about 300 ft from their well. Well, you know well well out of comp.

So I have a couple of things while you're looking um that would suggest need to get into the HOA document. Um, before you do, could I question nine? Now that we're talking about this on lot three, the re one of the preceptic fields is pretty close to the property line. Look like it's been 50 ft. Uh, is that close to anything on their property? It is not. So, do you know where their well is? You know, their their home site. So, on this plan, you can see where it's labeled garage. It's closer to lot, too. on the neighboring property. I understand.

Let me come show you because that's the general house. You're talking about this. Yeah. I mean, as as long as it's okay, then septics really only have to be the property line about 100 ft from Okay. So, yeah. So, this is the garage and their house is in this general location and their wells in this general location. Nothing's up here. Nothing. Nope. That's so um they mentioned about pesticides that that is one of the prohibitions for the conservation area. That's it is no and that whole conservation area all those lists of prohibitions will wind up in the HOA document as well as in the deeds. Correct.

Okay. The one thing that I wasn't I don't remember um in terms of prohibitions, it needs something in there if it's not there that all the houses need to adopt uh dark sky compliant lighting. Um so that would be in the conservation easement, right? That no, it would be part of the HOA note in the Oh, HOA. In the HOA. Yeah. And then also condition of approval, right, Peter? Yeah, that'll be part on it on the map. Yeah, put it on the map and put it in the It's directly It's not part not even a down. Yeah, that's down down like

all the prohibitions need to go on the map. Yeah. Okay. So, that's just another prohibition. It has to do complaint, right? So, I there's some standard uh town of Rochester notes. So, the conservation area prohibitions and then there's the town of notes. However you split them up, I'll add it on there. Okay. Um, let me just see. Did the board pick up on anything else? Yes, I I have a comment and I might be missing it. So, on your plan notes, is there anything that spec that address specifically addresses the reclamation of the road? Yes. And the biggest plans that we have?

No. maybe updated because of the whole top soil. I saw top soil but not mentioning landscaping. Landscap is in yard. Yeah. So, let me just tell us which map it's on because then I'm going to have a suggestion. Okay. So um sheet three um it talks about this one.

Okay. So on sheet four stabilize the served lane and agreement native vegetation see no sheet five in sheet five we do have we don't know right here it talked about some vegetation things but we we stated the now we would like to believe because it was a word that you know adding just and things like that instead of top soil but we've added some descriptions about top soil in Okay. Okay. I would make a suggestion. I don't know quite if it should be a plan note. Um because this is kind of hidden under native vegetation. People we've received comments uh from the public about you starting the road. They the public's asked to road speed. We claim we've asked for the road speed was done. And I think like either you give it a little or you either give us a section that this is I'm just throwing this out a section that just is for that for the rec you know road reclamation and I would also I mean you're saying stabilize but and I can't I haven't been out there since last year but you might want to say you want to rip it first because you have to scarify it if you want anything to grow on it if it's a road and it's it's been packed. Okay,

then I'm just saying just put those in your notes that and and and highlight that this is, you know, reclamation of the road. So sheet two because sheet two is site plan as well. So we can add that on and point out we can find you know um because it was kind of hard to find. It wasn't you know there was the native landscaping. It wasn't sure if that was around the houses. I mean you had ugly landscaping notes. So I think it it it should be brought up it should be um identified as the recognition of that road. Absolutely. Um that will refer to the more detailed information on the other sheet which is okay. But all right.

Yeah. Because that would you know a lot of people are going to look for that. You want you want it to be readily accessible. And then I thought you had some ferns in there. Um any other yeah I don't I don't have that one to find but there are there are talks about different other CNC things like well you know I mean

basing mix is a good one to start with and then you can augment with the others. Yeah, I mean I had been out there before it snowed and because the area I mean it it was cleared and you know it was it was rough but it was so low soil there you know there was no gravel on it and um the the slopes and the area had you know a lot of vegetation already established on it. So, you know, um, you know, I guess that's that's a fortunate thing, but Well, depends on the vegetation. The problem is as soon as you rip up something and you leave it open, the invasives do come in. Yeah. So, you know, that's why

you take a look at it, you know, because we're going to have to go out there in the middle of spring. Anyway, I do some other things up. So yeah, we'll be taking a peek at this, you know, but we'll definitely make it very clear on the plan so that it's it's more obvious. So I mean I know where everything is. Anybody else? Right. But you know it is a public comment and it has been a absolutely comment from the planning board. So it should be addressed. Yeah. So I'll I'll clarify that on the ones that I I resubmit. Anybody else have any comments based on the public hearing? I have a question for you. Do you have any recommendations as far as the seating for the reclamation in that area?

And I say that she has a density for the you know sading. Well, that was for the landscaping I think. Was there a we do talk about you know because this is a it's not a a lawn. So a lot more kind of you know spread in these areas and you know Yeah. And like I said I did update it anyway. So what you have in front of you is not the the most current. I didn't satisfy the Okay. Anybody else? All right. So

I had to just one note. I was reviewing it again the other day. This is I took to the North Countryological Services about bat habitat listing. Um so as said the species review and CSA um did document suitable roosting and foraging habitat to avoid you know so I just want to bring that up that uh tree clearing issue which one restrictions I mean I

you talked about that restrictions on when you can do construction. No on sheet one stand.

No no no report species protection. I'll add that one because Rochester was a standard milk for that. Okay. And this is actually near a hibernac for longer bats. So it is actually sometimes people are like oh I don't know about that but this is actually you could end up with the endangered species. So the prohibition on the construction.

All right. Um so there are um want to close the public hearing. I think that's appropriate. Um but I also like and we'll get to that in a second if the board agrees. Um, and I'm going to ask Dave to start putting together the decision, but I don't think we're going to be able to have it ready until the first meeting of April given what I know is on our agenda for the next month and a half. All right. I'll have to check. But Dave, is that doable with everything else? I don't know what everything else is, but

Verizon March me. Yeah. So tenatively I'll talk more datable the first meeting of April which is April 13th. Okay. Um that would be for the uh secret determination and the regular decision. Yeah, you do them together, right? Uh well we I'm sorry I had it. Yes, we do them together. I think we talked about that last time.

Um so we have to we'll do that together. Um the HOA document I'm willing to if the board is okay I'm willing to put a condition in there that I won't sign the maps until the HOA doc this is a subdivision. You've got to have a public hearing after this after the declaration. If you do if the board did an egg deck, you'd have to have a public hearing. All right. So I got to leave the public hearing open. Yeah. The um the Kitridge decision as it's been as it's come down. Yeah. I'm familiar with it. Yeah. So, we got to have a public hearing after the uh if there were an egg deck, for example, that would need we'd have to have a public hearing.

So, if you continue it to the April meeting and close it, you do the negative declaration, you close. We'd have to have a public hearing after the deck after. Yes. Can you explain that to No, but but you can continue. We talked about this last meeting. You you can have the public hearing continue. You can make the negative declaration and then continue the public hearing after you make the negative declaration. The way we've been doing Oh, okay. At the same meeting. Yeah. Yeah. I've seen that done. All right. If you say so good project. Well, otherwise we're just, you know. Okay. Wait, hang on a second. That's the way we've been doing it.

Okay. We we go through, we make the declaration and we continue. We identify that the public hearing is still open after the uh declaration. Uh and if there's no comments, then we close the public hearing. I aired by saying that we would close it today. Okay. I mean, that's if you think that that's u Yeah. Okay.

I I I think it's defensible. I I I think I mean, I don't know if you're in a position to do the review the part two to make it. Just to be clear for the board, the court's, as I read it, the court's decision in Kits was based on the idea, right, wrong, good, bad, or otherwise that when the public comes to the public hearing, the public should have the benefit of a declaration of significance. Some people might look at that as backwards, but um that's what the that's what the court was thinking as I read it. You can correct me if I'm wrong on that. So you guys can make some judgments yourselves if essentially doing a neck deck at the beginning of a meeting and then holding the public hearing open after the meeting fulfills that um concept that I I believe the third department had.

I I think it does and it also addresses the balance of allowing the public to hear the hear it and comment on it before they close the public hearing. So like I I I feel I've seen that done in other places and I think it's okay. I think I think the chair's right to but it's just hitting me and well I think we talked about this at the last meeting and I I thought we had agreed to that but because or else you wouldn't have set the public hearing without the All right. I I feel comfortable with that. Just speak for the applicant. So what you feel comfortable with is the public hearing will still be open at the next meeting. Yes. And then you can do your

we'll do the determination significance. You can do the review and the determination and then we close the public hearing after that. Yeah. If that's and then you can make a decision. That's what we'll that's what we'll do. I aired by saying we're going to close the public hearing. Yeah. I think based on the the turnout of people here, we we would be I think it'd be good to keep the public hearing open because more people here than Well, we have we have to hope we have to keep it open until after the declaration of significance. That that is yeah whether it's that's sufficient to do it later in in the same session and see what happens. So Dave will be working on the decision over the next month.

Okay. One of the items that I'm willing to do if the board is okay with it is simply say that the HOA document I won't sign the maps until the HOA document is delivered reviewed by our attorney is satisfactory and then um I'll sign the maps or we just don't proceed with the final decision until I get the HOA document. Dave reviews it the board has an opportunity to comment on it. So either which way

we have I mean I'm happy to look at it. We this is again this is not a conservation subdivision. So um it's a you know the board has limited jurisdiction over it. It's you know we can do it. It's part of mitigation. So we can look at it but it's not the same it's not the same animal as when we have approval over a conservation subdivision and that's part of that's part of you know regulatory scheme that we that we are charged with with applying. But there are two items that we do have jurisdiction over and we want to make sure it's in the HOA document. The RMA,

yeah, road maintenance agreement and that has to be in there as a section in the HOA and also these prohibitions in the conservation area that needs to be brought. So for that reason, I want you to look I want the Yes, agree. I want to be clear that's fine. The prohibitions, as you're putting it, the conditions, the environmental conditions need to be part of whether they're in the any HOA documents or not. They need to be part of the um of conditions of approval. They need to be on the map. They need to be to make them enforceable. I mean, the HOA can say that it's enforceable by the building inspector. That's great. But, um, much better is if it's basically it's gonna be on the map. It's going to be in the deeds,

right? Okay. So, so I would something out. If we render a decision and then finalize the HOA, you could end up in a situation where the language used on the maps and in the final decision is different from what's in the HOA. And that can cause problems in administering whatever it is you're saying we're supposed to do. Um, so it's kind of an observation that I've been on the other end of that where you're like years down the road and you're trying to figure out what's going on and you have conflicting documents and it can cause problems later on. So you're saying we should put those things side by side

possibly at least a draft maybe of the HOA agreement sure that like the language matches because sometimes it's a comma and an and or one minus could mean everything legally in terms of like enforcability and like that. So okay so let's let's go even a step further. There's three or four things that are still necessary. It's the HOA document, the RMA, the provisions. The last two will be part of the HOA. Then we need the site. We need to agree uh as to the escrow for the site plan. We need to agree to that. So right we have to do the engineers estimate submit that and get the bond that will be conditioned.

That all needs to be done. Conditions can also be you know if um health department approval we need a lot. So um one of the conditions can be you know any minor changes that are done to the plan you know to coordinate these things but it's not going to be any significant change like you said it may be you know a comment just make sure language is correct but it's not there's nothing that is going to you know see lots in a row we're not seeing a conservation a we're not changing you know the concept of a plan you approve this. No, I realize that a couple of those documents need to be approved by the town board as well.

Correct. The RMA needs to be approved by them. The bonding needs to be approved by them. HOA does not.

So, I think we need all these thing things in. We can have the decision, but I don't believe we should at this point I don't think we should vote on the decision until all these things are resolved. They're in and approved. approved by the town board. I'm thinking the last project that had this many things it was meta and what we did with meta is that everything well we kind of we still have one thing that's pending for them. It's quite a few months later, but we got a lot of those things out of the way with the town board and then we voted on it.

That we typically a conditional condition on meta was that we reviewed the HOA and that we approved it before the RMA was approved but it was conditional upon RA approval at the town board because that's out of my view. We can't right. So I think that we reviewed my recollection is that we reviewed and approved what's under our purview and then the things that aren't our purview was conditional like does that make sense? An RMA perfect. No because we can't do the RMA. So it was like but we haven't do we have been looking at RMAs. Sure. But I think that we voted and made decisions before the RMA is approved by the town to work.

Right. I do recall that. I do recall So, I don't think we waited for the town to approve the RMA before we made a decision. But I do think we reviewed the HOA as you review those. I think we've reviewed those before we vote, but that's that's for conservation subdivision when we have approval. the HOA we have but we're we're doing it for the I know it's not I know I recognize it's not

I want I my own what I'm more concerned about are restrictions and the RMA because we that that's what we that's what we typically do the mechan the internal mechanisms of the HOA here which we would do for conservation subdivision because you want to make sure it's alive and functional um you know I can look at it but we have no too you have a suggestion?

Well, you know, I just want to say that, you know, I do this all over the Hudson Valley. Uh, typically these things are conditions of approval that have to be presented to the town attorney and signed off on. And and these conditions will be on the plat on the map. they'll be in the resolution of approval so that once these documents are generated as conditions of approval, they can't deviate from that if you draft the resolution properly. So, there's no danger of us coming in and doing something underhanded later on because you're not going to sign the plat. It's not going to be recorded in the Ster County Clerk's office unless it's compliant with the resolution and all the notes are.

What the board typically does is when when we're confronted with a project that has an RMA because shared driveway or share, right?

We look at that even though the town board approves it, we that's something that's the planning board does that as part of subdivision approval. Um similarly, in a situation like this where there are um conservation restrictions, we're going to we're going to look at that. um it's just part of what we're doing. It's part of the mitigation. Um so that is going to come before the that I am going to take a look at that. The question here is whether in addition to us me looking at those two things we need to get involved in the nuts and bolts of the HOA as in we're going to have votes you know when you meet when you the bylaws I don't see why you would need to look at that.

Well if it was a because in the board's DNA we have conservation subdivisions. do look at it. It's a requirement of sub of of the subdivision approval that so we do look at that when it's when it's when it's in the code. Right. The point in this case is that the HOA is not in the code, right? It's a it's a conventional subdivision where we're voluntarily agreeing to put these conservation areas on the property and you're going to put them in. We're still going to look at the the town board would still, I believe, rely on us to give the opinion as to the restrictions and also certainly the RNA. Okay, that's something that's a matter of

All right, so let's have our marching orders clear. You want us to draft an RMA for the next meeting before you act? Yes. And what else? The reason is the escrow estimate. Cycling escrow estimate. Okay. And get us restrictions. The restrictions. Well, well, what what not sure? I'm not sure I understand. The restrictions are are on the plans. They're codified. I I put them in my letter.

We said we would agree to have them on the plans. We talked about, you know, because people were concerned about an HOA that the town's going to have enforcement authority over them. What else do you need from us if the borders have with restrictions? Nothing. They provided the restrictions. I I took the example. Right. Right. We mentioned one or two at least one tonight that's well we can add those but what I'm saying is like once we do that what else do you need from us to act the bonding we to we said that's the site site plan bond okay the site plan bond the RMA we need the both of those it has been our habit in the past for you to look at the HOA

that's the board ones that's what I'll do so we want to see the HOA do you have that from the state yet the HOA agreement I don't think so, do we? No. I mean, again, we've pretty much just kind of settled on some of these things in the last two months. So the documents do have to be

the vehicle for making sure that the restrictions are enforced if you want to use that word or the HOA is we need to see the HOA document that has both the RMA as one of the sections and the restrictions as one of the sections. All the material about voting and how many people constitutes a majority all that we don't care about. But the H and this should be a simple HOA because you're talking about three houses, right? um we want to see in the HOA the RMA embedded in there as well as the restrictions embedded in there. So again it's been our habit to look at the HOA before we go ahead with the approval but do you give that to

we don't to recommend that to you or does the entire board read the docs? Yeah, I mean that it's available. It's available for the board to take a look at like we did with DeJaker.

Well, could you make it a condition of approval and that before Dave signs off on it if the board gets to see it one more time or whatever you want to do? I mean, this is different from what I'm I've seen before because usually it's approved with these as conditions and they defer to the town attorney to sign off on uh the legal instruments as conditions of final approval which has to be done before the chairman of the planning board signs the plat. So actually here what we do I rely on Dave and the town's attorney for the RMA. Okay.

Dave makes sure that the RMA that that goes to the town's attorney is in a form that that the town board likes if you would. So he checks that and the same for the escrow. It's been our habit here that Greg actually looks at the escrow amount says it's fine and Dave really doesn't get involved in that and then that goes if possible with the RMA to the town's attorney and the town attorney says okay and in that submission to them our attorney has looked at the RMA our engineer has looked at the uh the escrow amount that then goes to Mary Lou the town's attorney and the town board votes on both at the same time So maybe what the only item that we're quivaling, if you want to call it that, is the actual HOA document that you need approved by the state's what is the attorney general? Um,

did they approve it before the They don't approve it. We've always looked at it, but just to make sure it's in place, right before the And I'm not going to sign the map. I'll tell you what. How about for that one the HOA if the board is okay I don't sign the map until we have an HOA that Dave has said okay this includes everything that's necessary in the HOA we did that for meta that makes sense and so the key uh components of that your RMA and the ability for the town uh to have enforcement authority That's got to be part of the initial, right? Yeah, I like that.

Okay, that sounds reasonable. All right, so Dave, did you catch that in terms of composing? I don't think that's much different from what you're doing with other places. I I I agree. Um, so you said something about I think you cited other examples. Do you have road maintenance agreements that you've approved in the past? I might be able to Stacy, you have a couple If you can't find them, I have them. I think I actually know where they are. Okay. You actually know where they are? Good. I might We'll get you a sample road maintenance agreements. I just want to point out the road maintenance agreements and uh brother it's um different configurations

uh may end up having different considerations. What we want to see is basically a responsibility for who is doing it uh in terms of paying for it, who's who's doing it, what the what the process is, and also if it's if it's important. Um if they're if it's not going to if everybody's not going to share one-third for example, which they may not want because some people are going to are going to have a much deeper reliance on it in terms of fee like what the specific numbers are, what the you know, just it's got to be in one. It's got to be enforcable by somebody walking in from the outside to understand who's supposed to do what and those specifics will change depending on the configuration. So, we'll give them size samples of the RNA.

Yeah, I I think it probably will be one/3, but it'll come right up. I understand that any sample you send to me might be different from ours. I'm not going to take it, but I just want to get a flavor for what what you've approved before. So my experience with the town attorney, the biggest thing that they're looking for is equity, quote unquote, but you guys determine what equity is, but also that the town is held harmless from any kind of maintenance requirements on the town. Those are the biggest things. All right. So she wants equity. Does she want like oneird if they have like 1,000 feet up? As long as responsibility, as long as there's a rationale, she's not going to get hung up on because it's up to the applicant. Um,

yeah, they all have, you know, there's the turnaround at the end and all the driveways come off of that turnaround. So, they'd all go right to the end to get to their driveways. So, it actually works very 1/3 makes sense. Yes. Very nicely for this as opposed to Okay. Yeah. All right. The indemnification language, whatever samples are precedent you have, it's all in there. Yeah. If you can send it to me. Okay. Good. Okay. Thank you. Um, so let's just review that. No, I'm not going to review it. I think we got it. Yeah. So the RMA um the site plan as the added notes that we talked about tonight, right? Dark sky bad note clarifying on the restoration

stuff. Nine, do we trade drafts on an RMA for de Jagger? That's a good question. I think we did and that was pretty complicated because you had two different roads. That was a Yes. So that should be also another data point. Look at that. Yeah, that was a long time ago, too. I think that was three years ago. I think we have some easier examples of Yeah. Good.

All right. So, D, we can still work on on on a decision and then we can fine-tune. Um, at what point do we do the approval and at what point what do you want to give me to worry about to to accomplish and not sign the map until those things are done? And what it's been in the past generally is the stuff that has to go to the town board, you give me the authority to make sure it gets happens and I don't sign anything until that happens. Yeah, Peter, you wanted to make Yeah, this about the conservation area. Did Did we ever talk about signs? Do we want those? We did talk about signs. Signs for the Oh, right. Detail.

Yes, we need to put that on. But we we put we put note about signs, right? That was a we gave I thought we gave we sent you check on that and I'll make sure that that is on the on the one I sent and the last So we sample those signs. We have a a tear sheet and you should include them in the map the map said. Oh, you have ones that you want. Yes. I don't think anybody sent those to me. You still have those? I know nothing about them. They were nothing about them. I know. Not Ganford. Yeah, we can we can provide you with this. We'll get you the uh the signs.

And then there was a note a letter um from uh from Greg about the road and the fire from the CEO about the restrictions on the road for turnouts or fire apparatus and all that. I just want to make sure you saw all that.

Yes. So, um, when Greg did his review, and we could definitely speak to that, he identified a couple things with the fire code. One, he had concern about that first sharp turn. So, we looked at that and and we're providing widening of the road in that location. Plus, we do show a turnout um further up the road. So, um, and I believe that there were other items that he brought up that were not in accordance with code with. one was the slopes that we addressed, but I believe everything else was in accordance with the code um okay code enforcement officer

because our new code enforcement officer is very specific about the what was it 51 that's called section 51 state fire and I think that in given the sensitivity of the public comment tonight about the size of that road all that stuff is really important for you You know, if there is an event up there because it is a narrow road and uh it would be a mess if there is an incident up there because of the size and there was no place for Roseville Road. You mean on Rose Hill Road? Yeah. Right. So, yes. Yeah. This this is going to be like a super highway from going up. I don't know about that, but it's going to be

compound and Yes. Yes. And then we'll have a we'll have a turnout and it is a full round in accordance with the code because originally we had kind of a Y there and then we changed it so it would be in compliance and he did say that he's consolation our CEO so yes yes I have met Keith very nice guy okay thank you yeah we require turn turnouts for the uh for the private Yes, we did add one out and it was kind of small. No, it's fine.

Okay, we did add one. Yes. So, after you make that sharp return going up, there is a a list. All right. Anything else? No. So, we're good. Thank you. When is the next? Oh, so you want us back on April 13th? April 13th. Okay, great. public hearing will be continued at that time and then we'll do the determination. If you have any questions or need anything from me while you're preparing seeker or the conditional approval, please not hesitate to reach out. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Have a good uh let's take a uh 10 minute break. My goodness. Say you're sitting right here next to me.

Continue. Yeah.

The problem is they the whole thing is that the public just beware that HOA by itself just a bunch of it's up to me. Don't worry about it. That's we should look at that's on the HOA.

We all going to look at that. But that has to be embedded through the HOA. It has to be a section of the HOA. That could that could be what he was driving first and then he does my ha that's okay.

So but the other things the other side Okay.

And then Sunday. shapes. Fire. Okay. Ready. I do know. So,

yeah. Well, it's original water. That's the question. Sorry. So if this house at least

fingerprints. You will everything we asked for yours White House. Yeah.

I just got this. I said first Right. That's part of it. Just keep it. What if the boys accept cheese. Yeah. They ask

shapes, right? Sure. Amazon side is still question. Reopen reopen it. Ask if there are any additional.

Okay, we're back in session. I closed the door. So, I'm going to hold it. next month. We're not going to do the continuation of the public hearing next time to think about it and they'll have the negative but that's what the court wants. else.

All right, Bill, we have the public hearing for the for Lewis. You any comments that you want to share with the board from the public hearing that nobody commented on? Well, nice lady who asked what's going on and we've told her and

neighbor. So, what I'm going to do um on the advice advice of council because we forgot to take a step is I'm going to actually continue the public hearing until the next meeting um because we didn't do the determination of significance and the law, you heard a little bit of it before. The law requires us to have a public hearing after the determination of significance. So, since there was nobody who um said anything, I sped it up and closed it. So, we're going to continue the public hearing from the at the next meeting, the meeting of the 30th.

All right. We'll do the we'll do the determination of significance at that time and then we'll close the public hearing at that meeting of the 30th. We won't get the decision until the sement until April to the April meeting. Do you need to reopen it? So, we're going to reopen the public hearing at the meeting of the 30th. We will since I closed it, we're going to have to send out another notice, public notice in the newspaper. No, you don't. No, you don't. No, you open it now. We're going to open We're going to reopen the public hearing on the 30th.

Okay. that literally if public hearing is typically open by um it's set by motion you really should have a motion to close it. So you didn't really close it there motions to go back. There you go. Hold on. Okay. So we're just continuing the public and we'll do the determination of significance at the next meeting. Then we can close the public hearing by motion and then at the following meeting of the 13th, April 13th, we'll have the decision assuming that we don't have any issues brought up at the next meeting.

Okay. And we don't have to send out another newspaper notice. So, did you catch all that? Yes. Open, close, close, open, open, close, see you next month. Candle back. We're getting there. Do I keep it in the Okay. Okay, Bill, get done for the night. Been here for an hour and a half. Thank you.

Thank you. Opening took place. Opening. Horizon.

So the um we're at the point of going through the u the part three that was compiled by Dave Church. Uh we reviewed and drafted this at the last meeting. Dave made additional changes to it. Other members of the board added some um comments of one sort or another. A Gordon um Dave Gordon gave the comments. I gave these comments. So we had lots of different comments from different people. So, the last document that you have um was distributed to you uh yesterday 38 at 11:52. That's the the document that we're working off of if you're on plan. So, I have some additional comments to make. Um small items. So, Dave, I' I'd like to do those right now. Uh no, you know what? Let me uh turn to the board because some of the board members had comments. Why don't we start? Peter, do you want to start?

Yeah, I think um I think we ought to revisit this and continue to work on it for another um session. I just feel like there's enough uncertainty in the grass related that I think we ought to I think you can refine it more. Okay. All right.

All right. So, um, one of we had planned on possibly finishing the bot three tonight and then passing uh with some adjustments and then passing the uh the resolution that Dave had prepared for us tonight um which would um do the determination of significance. It was the resolution on the determination of significance. So what I'm hearing is the board wants to delay that and go through other adjustments to the document. So when we do that, which means the U determination of significance won't happen tonight. It'll happen perhaps at the next meeting which would be the 30th. So what I want to do tonight is to go through whatever comments to the document that you received yesterday in the morning as a result of our meeting of a week ago. If you have any comments on that document, let's go through that right now. So, Peter, thank you for that. Do you have any other comments?

I know. I think there are a couple of um No, I I just think we need to figure let's look at it. Okay. Are there any particular areas you want to take a closer look at that? Uh, no. I I just I felt like it was a little rushed quite honestly and I just went I think we would all benefit from taking a as they say in Austria put a sticky beak on it and u just take a take a deeper look at it. Okay. I had a formatting comment just make sure the font and font size is consistent throughout the document.

Okay. Yeah. There was a as as comments came in from members of the board, it was cut and paste in some cases. So you have different for a final we're going to have the final document. Okay. So I have a comment Dave um and the board public comments on page 12 of the document. Dave, you want to get there? Sure. I know when you're there.

I'm there. Okay. So in the first is it the second paragraph it said Mr. Allen and the applicant found and the planning board agrees take that and planning board agrees out go and the reason for that this is a document of statement of facts. It's actually the resolution that we're not going to get to to today. It's the resolution that then ties the board to agreeing what is in the part three. It's not appropriate to put in the part three that the board agrees. We would have to do that for each of the items that are in here. We shouldn't be doing that. That's the function of the of the resolution. So, it's a small matter, but it I want to try to be consistent with the rest of the document. Um,

you want me? You want me? Oh, you still got more? I still have more. And these are questions for the board because I heard from different board members. There was a comment by one board member about traffic that he thought he read. Hans, I think it was you, that you thought you read a document. So, I think Zoron made a comment and I I disagreed to it and you picked up on it. Yeah, I picked up on it. Okay. So Dave the what was said by Zorian and I hope I portray it.

Zorian asked for well he did make a series of comments which is what one of them was about was Granite Road should granite road be explained in a certain way which pans responded to but it wasn't part of the document was it unless you no remember and agree to put it in there. Okay. As a reminder I was just compiling information. So this is a document you have to the board has to approve. Um and I see and this it has been addressed in in this in this draft here. So Zorian requested more information about the uh the bird strike issue.

Okay. Do you remember what he said? Well uh we had that conversation I missed a meeting. Um uh we had the conversation about the debird data the online data as well as the information that verbally from uh in Minowas the Sam's Point staff at Minowasco who are tracking bird strikes on facilities in the park as well as in Mohawk. Um he thought that should be elaborated in this document. And so do we have that in writing or is that an interview?

Well, debird is a database online. So any I could anyone could summarize the uh incidents of birds being hitting structures um in the region. It's it's a voluntary thing that's reported. It does it makes no representation of being representing every strike in the region, right? It's voluntary.

Okay. So it's uh it's anecdotal information I guess you could but mostly professionals close there. So for example all this all the data that's in the on the state properties actually being coordinated and tracked by this one educator at Sam's Point. Um the other was their anecdotal her anecdotal reporting with a manager at Sam's Point who conferred in Menowaska um of what kind of strikes they're seeing on in in the parks which which I could get them if you want me to try to get them to say it officially. How does a I mean council does that

it was just a it was uh it's related to the fact if people don't know the property Sam's point which I'm super familiar with um skied there three days this weekend um has six towers towers no it has all kinds of towers has corporate communication towers it's got 911 right um I think there's one cell tower tower up there. Uh uh there's a bunch there's a radio. I think there's a FM radio. The issue with the issue with towers, the thing that Soran brought up was bird strikes, but it's bird strikes in the Sam's Point area. Well, that's where all the towers are.

Okay. So, that has nothing to do with the potential of bird strikes in this area. It's it's evidence of whether the qu the question that Zoran was leading to if could you look at incidents related to other towers in the region and see if it's frequent or not. Okay. Would that be valuable information to put in there if Dave was to in terms of the part three?

I think it's it's helpful but there's there's um there's layers of questions that that that would need that need to be evaluated. Number one is to what extent would the experience either at Sam's point or at the other areas that have been reported be reflective here based on things like the size of the tower and also types of perhaps the types of birds that are flying through and secondly if it is let's say then what does it mean let's suppose we able to reduce it to like a number of expected strikes in a year a 100 or something like that whatever what does that mean in terms of significant impact at some level It's too small to be a significant impact probably and at some level it is. And so what does it mean in terms of an impact on these these um you know the these resources these these animals? What you know I'm not saying it's unimportant. I think I think it is. But the question is does the board or do do we have access to people that have the ability to evaluate the data so that we can know whether it's something that's significant or something that is incidental. I I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not going to say that these these um these facts are unimportant, but also not not sure that we would know what to do with it if we got it. We could report it, but how do we how do we evaluate it? What what's what's the upshot? And I'm not dismissing it. And I'm just saying what do we do with it?

What I'm asking is is it useful in that document? But I'm not I understand that what are we doing?

The question is is it use is this information useful for the board to to determine the sign the significance of the project in terms of a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. If it is should go in the document. If it's not, then it either shouldn't it either shouldn't or we should explain why it's not that useful to us. I mean, I I again, I'm not familiar enough. There are there are certain technical issues that I've learned enough over the years to kind of get an instinct for how to what the significance might be like a slope or something like that or runoff. I just don't know how many birds something has to impede before it becomes a significant adverse environmental impact. I I do not have traction on that. Okay. So, it's up to it's up to the combined intelligence of the board to figure out how useful this is. I don't know the answer, but just Rick so for clarity, um the staffer at Mowaska that's tracking bird strikes at her time here, which is always certain over years, uh has had no incident of strikes on either the towers um length

at Sam's Point or anywhere. How tall are the towers? Are they as tall as this would be? I they're pretty tall. Some of them if I I would I know them. I we could find out. I don't know, Peter, if you know. I don't know. Um and uh uh they do report incidents. They actually, she says they've had a lot of incidents hitting both visitor centers. They bang into the windows. So, so you come in a a structure that's what 15t high. Well, whatever. It's probably 35, right? Ina story building. Yeah. Yeah. one story building 35 ft but the but on on a high point okay but the suggestion for what you're saying is that the

the Sam's point visitor center is not on a high point it's in the woods very low but to extra to extrapolate from what you're saying which may or may not be correct is that essentially when you're dealing with birds hitting structures a 35 foot height structure is potentially as especially one that's solid and you know has a has a solid width is potentially as problematic as something that goes 100 ft higher, more it's very very narrow, etc. She said big windows. Yeah, the windows would flip. I was surprised they but this is all anecdotal. That's the So that's the point being Zorian would like to see it in there. Uh the best we could do is you know my inclination

anecdotal information from professionals, but that's why do you say it's anecdotal if it's from professionals? They're professionals are reporting it debert. So it's more than anecdotal. It's they have a report one way but it's not I use anecdotal and it's not a comprehensive review of bird strikes in the region. More than that it's anecdotal because there's no pathway to determine how significant these reported incidents are as an overall impact on on on the species. We don't know how to relate that information to we don't know how to that's part orate that information to the

in that sense we're getting meaning the anecdotes are presumably accurate because you have professionals doing it but how does that how do we react as a policym and as a permitting board and one that's doing an environmental review to those reports I don't know how to pro there may be biologists that do but I I certainly don't all right so I'm going to recommend that we we not include anything in report on that. But anybody else have anything? Sorry, Larry. No, I have some minor comments. I don't necessarily need to bring them up here, but um is there a way for us to review this document collectively so that version control isn't so much of an issue? Say that a little bit. We do it how

is there a way for us to review this as a planning board collectively so that there aren't version control issues? because I started a review and then revised one came out then I had to go back and start again. So is there a way for us to review this over the next week like we post it's very very valuable for us to be reviewing the same document obviously we don't want confusion but to the word collectively is a concern because um under the open meetings law um we're doing it collectively we should do it here in this room if we're doing it offline we can certainly do that but if we start trading ideas in real time it becomes a problem with the open meetings law so that's what collectively can we establish a due date for all of our comments So I thought we did that already. Why

we did I mean granted it was a short period of time. We reviewed it last week collectively that document and then I asked I mention anybody have other comments get the comments into a combination of Dave, myself and Stacy and I got some comments. Um I think it was quite Friday also and some changes were made to the document by Dave. Um and they were highlighted in in the um I think they were highlighted in what came out to the board. So we did do that. Yeah, I have that. If you wanted she makes a point as as Rick and I know on the weekend we discovered some people had marked up different versions of the document

and so we had to scramble over the weekend to try to figure out how to merge all this of the in a you know around a weekend calendar. Um so it's a legitimate point. I I think it's aggravated. I whatever you think of Munich collabs benefits um it retains all the versions. So it's unless you're being attentive. Yes. You just grab the first one you see. Yes. It might not be the right one that's actually the most up to date. So we if we could manage getting the right version up because I uh my task was to get you a draft that you could

review and mark up. The right version the correct version the right version is now up. Okay. So, since we're not going to move on to the determination of significance tonight, how about another week of review by the board to get to myself, to the two Daves, and to Stacy. Um, and I don't have a problem if you share it with the rest of the board, but I don't want any conversation between the board members. You can send it out, copy the other members of the board so they see it and they can begin to consider it, but I don't want it back and forth. We've been really rigorous with that. No back and forth over the email system.

And do you want it in an email or would we like to do like a like a tracking log? No. No. Well, you could if it's do track does Stacy they could do track changes, right? not track changes but like log it in a list so that everyone's comments are in one place so that when he goes to make final edits he has everything in one trying to find emails who's going to moni who's going to maintain that tracking list no it's like an Excel spreadsheet you just all go in and add our comments oh you use it on on the uh as a shared document yeah just drop your comments in an Excel that was part of the problem with what uh we tried to do David and I tried to do over the weekend people were picking up the wrong document.

So you could

it's worth a try if you wanted I mean my that's my perspective if you wanted to try to start the do start a shared document. So when we are reviewing uh documents with multiple reviewers at in my day job especially when it's a lot of different people we'll ask everyone rather than commenting in the document we'll ask people to put it in an Excel spreadsheet that way and then we have a stop date so you can put your comments on this list until this date and then you can look at everything together and you can identify did did I say one thing and somebody else conflicts with that and then you know oh we have to like these are two people saying two different things. Sometimes you might find three people saying the same thing or, you know, whatever. Um, and then that also maintains version control with the the draft that's going around so that everyone's reviewing the same document, no markups, you know, or maybe it does have markup.

Basically, can you set up an Excel spreadsheet like that? Yes, but I can't promise to monitor it when I'm away. That's right. I think it needs to be monitored though because you're just adding information, you know. You're not changing anything. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, if three people have a comment on a certain bar on a paragraph, they're just adding and then it's up to the editor the final, you know, Dave to to say, "Oh, this same thing." And I can give you a template if you want. I would definitely appreciate having the extra time to review. Totally agree.

All right. Is a week from today, well, is Friday of this week doable by everybody to get all their comments in? Yeah, because then Dave and I and the other Dave, we need to go through all these, get them integrated into the document, make sure that where we have conflicts, not we've been doing this for a long time and we shouldn't there's no sense in rushing this final part. Okay, should do it right. So, we'll try that. And I I'll get you, Stacey, I'll get you a template that you Excel spreadsheet.

And if you can just make it editable. so that we can all add our stuff in. And you'll you guys will see there's like a column for your name. So you put your name in, you put in where the comment goes. So it's in the section that talks about whatever. And then you just add in you can just type in I think you should talk about this more or take that out or you know whatever it is. Okay. Yeah. All right. We'll give it a shot. Yeah. Okay. I I could just suggest you could do till end of the day Sunday. I'm not sure what I we're going to do with it on a Friday evening unless you we want to reass. Okay. So, that would be that I would appreciate that.

Yes. What was a suggestion for make it I was proposing Sunday and Sunday avoid the Sunday, you know, waiting for Friday afternoon to get started. What's the matter, Dave? If you get No, he's going to be skiing. I had two hours. No, I had two hours before my granddaughter's birthday to do something on Saturday. I could tell that in your voice. Something was going on. Uh, okay. Sunday. Um, can I make one suggestion, too? Can you what? Can we upload things as new versions? Did I upload something as an old version? Is that what you Well, so,

but Staca, you're the only one doing new doing any uploading. So yes, I uploaded something but it was in Didn't I do a new version? Well, you put final draft revised as the new title, but we could have just put it as the a new version so that it says one thing. Oh, and then you can click select this. Guilty is choice. I uploaded this first. I uploaded this as a new version. In order to view the old one, you have to click prior version. I got it. And take the extra step. I won't touch. I'll try not to touch it. I mean, I'm glad you did it over the weekend because I couldn't, but Okay. Show me at least to you.

And this spreadsheet date would be uploaded to uh what we need to upload is the document that we review here in this room in front of the public. The public has the right to see the document that we are going to be discussing in this room. um uploading other things can be can cause confusion for everybody. So um I you don't want to be not sharing information but at some point it's it's it's not useful to share. So also not a discussion. What's it?

It's not a discussion. It's a red line version. What what we will ultimately be producing for Sunday is not a discussion between us. No. Well, it can't be a it's a series of comments, but I'm I'm Are we expecting to come in on Monday with the spreadsheet or with uh a document that is updated in light of the spreadsheet? That's I guess what I'm What I'm expecting will happen at Sunday night at midnight, everybody will have their comments on this Excel spreadsheet and then Dave and I for starters will take a look at that and make the adjustments and point them out.

You're not answering the question. When we come in on Monday, are we going to be looking at an updated draft three weeks from now? We come in Monday. Is that what you're saying asking? The next time we meet here. Okay. Are we coming in with an updated draft part three? Yes. Hopefully redlined. Or are we coming in with the spread? We're coming in with the updated. Well, it's not going to be discussed in the spreadsheet that we don't have to upload it.

What we what the public has a right to see is the document that we are discussing here. As long as in as long as when we're offline that we're not having a discussion including a quorum of the board. That's what we can't have. And so we have to be very careful about more than four me four four members of the board in a real- time discussion including emails to the extent that the emails are real time. That's it's that's what the open meetings law is all about. So offline we can get our comments in. You want to put them in a spreadsheet fine. If we're discussing the spreadsheet it should be uploaded. If we're if we're going the spreadsheet's going to be reduced to a document we come in and discuss that should be uploaded.

You look very in trouble. No, I buy I just I find that bread. Can we agree on the naming convention? Well, you know convention fees. What a naming convention for the for the different versions. So, but how about with somebody's initial and the date of their of their It doesn't matter. We have date and right we have naming conventions for the Mun collab uploads. Hang on.

Stacey's aware of her. Hey, just a a point of a little bit of being picked. We had the whole week to make comments and now we want to have another week of comments, which is fine. And we're going to do it on an Excel spreadsheet. Okay. And and that's it. I don't like it. I'd much rather have the comments here of the meeting in front of the public. Not in the discussion with the public, but in front of the public. and the document that we came in with and that's what I was trying to prompt before is anybody have any comments and so far none and then I hear that there's a whole bunch of comments I mean I'm sorry we had a week to get comments in so

some of us were away working like myself I was away all week and I had limited time to look at it so okay all right so we're gonna do it again and we're going to do it through an Excel spreadsheet I don't understand the need for naming conventions. Just put your comments on the Excel spreadsheet. Okay. It's okay. The Excel spreadsheet will have a place for someone's names, right? First column. I put a comment in just now so you can see what it looks like when it's filled out. Um, it's only like it's like five columns. It's not

All right. It's the Stacy. You one of us can remind every if you need it remind you which version you're you reviewing. It's the version I'll send it to everybody. It was posted yesterday. Okay. I'll send a direct link in it to an email with everybody that has a spreadsheet, too.

All right. Thank you. And I apologize. I know people had a lot of things going on this week, but it's uh I did get some comments from some people. No problem. Um, all right. So, the next thing we need to talk about is um there was a an error made um by u one of our consultants in one of the documents going back to February. the manner in which he described uh the minimum height of the tower in order to get the same effect of transmission on Verizon. And the way he had described it was something called AGL which is the at ground level. So

above ground level

above above ground level which would be the tip of the of the pole if you live. Um, and he described that as being 120 ft and he said it was AGL. It turns out that he he he made a mistake. It's 120 ACL which means at the center line. So what what that means is there's presumed to be um antenna below above and below that 120 ft. That's why they call it uh at center line. So in discussing that with Scott, um I asked him, we discussed that told him that yeah, we made a mistake or consultant made a mistake and we were going off of that information and I asked him provide to provide us with uh diagrams, possible diagrams of using that information, what this tower, what the options might be for us. um looking at the minimum level or the minimal height of the tower. Stacy passed that way this way. So he did that. I'll wait for that to go around

and everybody have it.

Yes. So the first page is drawn such that the ACL at 120 is the midpoint of those antenna arrays that you see at the top of the tower which makes the tip of the pole of the monopine 125 AGL. So that's the first diagram. The second diagram shows an ACL of 120 with a top of the pole or AGL of 135. I'm sorry, 130. Yeah.

And the reason that he that that was done in Verizon's view is it gives better coverage of the tip of the pole with more um fake greenery if you would, but more of the pine greenery uh at the top. If you look at the first page, the antenna are mixed in at the top with the the green um foliage. Whereas the second page, it's below the tip where there's considerable amount of greenage at the top. The problem with in my mind, at least for the second one, is that the top of the pole is now would now be at 30. And then let's not forget the um lightning rod, which in any case is another four or five feet. Is it four or five? Well, well, it's 4 feet, but under the 135 foot tree tower, it would be totally concealed because it would extend from the top of the steel, which is 130 ft.

So, so you wouldn't see the lightning rod, the tip of the lightning rod would be at 135. 134. Okay. Yes. Whereas the other one, the lightning rod, again, it's not very visible comparative, but that would stick 4 feet above the top of the tree tower at 125.

Right. So the the notion of 120 being the top of the tower is not viable is an incorrect assumption on the part of our engineer mis misprint. Whatever ACL is 120, but it has to be higher. The top of the tower has to be higher. So, I'd like to kick around with the board which which one you prefer. Well, before we do it, I I just want to ask, Scott, why in the one with the with the tree cone, does the towel itself have to be raised as well as the cone? And why why is one of them 124T tower plus the um 100 12? Yeah. 124 125T tower plus the lightning rod. The other one's 130 foot tower plus the lightning rod. Why does a cone require another 5T on the actual pallet?

I don't know the answer to that. Our engineer put it together. I'll ask him that question. I'm assuming it has something to do with the cone, but I It does that supports the cone that extra couple of feet. I I will ask him. That's significant. Yeah. I mean, you're not going to see it even. No, but it raises the height.

No, it wouldn't because So, and let me just explain and again, it's your preference, whatever you want to do. But what we always come in if the tree tower is going to be required or if we were to propose one, we always propose the top of the branch to be about 14 feet higher than the antenna ACL just so you could have symmetry. Now that doesn't mean that you might not be okay with the 125 ft tree tower. It just means that the antennas are going to be closer to the top. So they could be it could look a little different like almost a truncated a little bit. um like it shows you here. But but that's what we proposed. It's what it's your preference.

I'm not sure I understand the concept about symmetry. Well, the it's it's because the top of a tree trying to cover the actual antenna orientation. So what he's saying is that or it would go higher because then if the antenna's here it gradually comes to a peak as opposed to the antenna here and then it goes like that. But it almost gets maybe it's just me but assuming it's going to come to this level. Let's say let's call that 120. What 120? Yeah. What? Why then do I need more pole to Why do I need more pole if I'm going to put a tree cone on top of it?

Well, I mean, I guess what we're hearing is that it might support the national that would be an answer, but Scott was not the difference here is that, you know, it's actually 10 ft more of of greenery. Yeah. And I my opinion is that the fake greenery looks like fake. So take what? So you know 10 more feet of it is that's right. There's there's there's a if we're doing I mean especially if we have to raise the pole there's a significant cost to this in terms of height. Yes. Yeah. So and I Yeah. I don't think anyone else think this is going to be

but I I'll have an answer for you on why the 130 poll was put there. I'll have that tomorrow for you. Um but I don't think it changes the overall height of the tree tower. Well, it's just going to mean the tower will be 125 ft. And assuming they can attach the cone to that would they it would still be that's structural for the for the for the cone that but that all makes a lot of sense. If it if it's not raises all kinds of question I think it is but again I don't want to confirm because I don't know 100%. Yeah. Do you have any Yeah. Just make sure we know that the your guy wasn't very happy with it with where we were going with this. So was

so he doesn't like it. That's but that's but you know listen you understand where the board's coming from. I'll leave it at that. Are there any real world real world photos that we could look at? Because I can see it on the drawing and I think I understand what it looks like but it'd be helpful. Are you looking at photos of other facilities or simulations of this one? Either just so I can get a better sense of like what this actually looks like. Google modifying cell power the height difference where it's the init I don't want to make it taller just to cover it up I have it here I only have one copy but oh

this is close to you road and then the next one should be 135 but this where is the antenna on this it'll be towards top it'll be it's going to be reflecting this yeah so So it reflects that. Yes. Okay. You want to see what it looks like? What's the first page? No. First page. Just want the first page. What you see there is the same as the first page. Yeah. Then the second page, the page after that would be the 135 power. That is that one you you guys have done before.

It's a simulation. Yes. That's what we typically do. Are there any real world images of ones that you've done? Oh, yeah. I mean, I sure can find them. Um, I can ask about 125 ft train tower. Usually that is getting pretty high for a tree tower. So, we usually don't do them over that height. But this you're in a valley, so it may be a little different. Not that we like treat towers. I think it's more visible personally, but that's your fault. But if we do a lower one. No, because any work. Yeah, 12 foot one. Yeah,

that's perfect. Yeah,

I see some difference, but one is square. You mentioned one is square at the top, the other one is more conical. And that's because at the top, you have to remember the antennas do come out a bit. They're not at the top attached to the pole. So they have, you know, come out 8 feet booms or so, give or take. So you know, you can't have the top of a pine tree with 15 foot trees. That would look ridiculous. I want to throw something else out. I know we've we sort of bought into the monop. Is everybody still convinced of a monop versus just a pole monop? Generally, I did some research in the rural state and especially in rural areas. Mono pine seems to be the least intrusive

option and there pine trees right there. that of well you're aided a little bit by the topography behind this comm also mentioned modifying is say that again executive director layer in his letter mentioned modifying something worth considering right was that in the same letter where he agreed that there was no significant impact. Well, he agreed and said there wasn't at those three vantage points so far. Okay.

So, do you want to have some time to think about these diagrams?

I like the lower one. The shorter the better. The one the shorter better. Agree. So, monop with a flat top. Yeah. All right. So why don't we include that? If you have other thoughts about include that in the Excel spreadsheet. All right. If if Scott has some be helpful. Thanks. Sorry. Has some real world square. You're you're set on a 10 foot high um antenna. No, I mean so the antenna is different sizes based on what frequency using the tallest antenna would be 8 feet tall. 8 is the tallest. Yes. So the maximum of AC the maximum above ACL is 4T not 5T

right and might be less it will yes there will be smaller not as tall as um then we have we have them in here I could certainly get you those but some of them are four feet um and some of them are even two feet or so depends on the frequency. One thing that we need then is we need this thing expressed in terms of ACL and not AGL. Mhm. So not 125 ft. You mean your code relates to ground length.

So you're going to HDL as I understand it, Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, is a metric used to design the features on the tower. It's not used to measure height. It's we needed we if we're if we use the height here the total height we're we're losing we're losing at least a put. Well, you have to my point is you have to whatever it is you have to you should convert it. I my recommendation is the metric needs to be converted to above ground number.

Why can't we wait why can't we use you made a statement why can't we use both? They're different numbers. Just give both numbers.

Fine. The critical number here in my view given what Scott just said is the fact that what we're looking at the board was to go in the direction of the proposed um um uh CND is that the center point of the of the um antenna is 120 ft above ground level. Because what he's saying is that there not he's not using 5 ft antennas. He's using at most 4T antennas and maybe less. And so if you start talking about 125 ft AGL, which is I think what you wrote, you're you're you're making it higher than the board intended and higher than actually um um u our RF engineer um specified.

Our RF engineer specified 120, right? Agl that was well, but he's but he he had that. It should have been 120 ACL, right? That's my which is 125 ACL. Well, from from mechanics though, I agree with you, chairman. If we're putting in 120 ft ACL, we're using that as the basis for our needs. The tower is going to be 125 ft. Oh, you mean the physical tower? The top of steel, not including lightning rod, will be 125 ft. Why?

Again, you want Well, you want to first of all, we that's typical. even if it's not a tree tower, but you want to you got to attach the branches to something. So, if you want branches on the top, unless you just want the antennas to stick out with no branches, you know, there might be some gaps. Okay? So, you need you need as high as well, but they design a tower. They have to design something. Let's suppose let's suppose you have um a 7 foot antenna, right? Right. So, you got 120 ft is your center point. That's what we've agreed on. So now you got three and a half feet above that is is the top of the antenna, right? How high does the tower have to go? We 120 for especially for a tree tower 125. So the

because you would have if under your scenario at 120 ACL if the tower was 120 ft. We're not going to have 120 two foot tower. They they're not built that way. Um it's going to be based on either you know 10 foot or five foot increments. So that's the answer. You have five foot increments basically. Yeah. You know, we don't sit there and say, "Hey, build us 122 foot tall." That's the answer. So, we're going to have two numbers in there. We limit it to 120 ACL, better known as Scott. Scott just gave another data point that gets rid of the Scott foot instead. Thank you.

And you and you want the steel to actually accept the branches at the top part of the tower to do the best he can to conceal it. Okay. Anybody? Um, there's one more item that we probably should talk about tonight, which is the um the breakpoint technology. Um, where is the break point on 120 ACL and 125 AGL? If that's that sounds like what we're going with, but where would the break point be?

It's it's it's shown on here. So basically about half the height give or take is 62.5 ft AGL is the break point. They call it a hint point here. So uh Greg 62.5 break point. Does that meet the setback requirement?

Absolutely. the cuz the 62.5 would only be what 70 um 70 ft basic because it's one 100 110% of the height and if the break point is 62.5 it be less than 17 what so we don't have to move we don't have to change uh and move around the u footprint correct Okay. Yeah, you need to check that for me.

I may look at doing that just because as I was listening to the other meetings knowing that the board seems to be inclined to reduce the tower height. Well, that changes then the setback requirements.

Correct. Right. So, I think right I don't have in front of me but I think the closest setback is from Granite Road. It's 124 feet from the compound. So at 125 ft tower, we need 137.5T if my math is correct. And if that's the case, I might be able to move the compound back slightly to get 137ish and then still make it 155 at the back. I can tell the uh my engineer. All right. So, if the board comes out agreeing that the first one is what we'd like to see, yeah,

you need between you and Greg, you need to determine are we okay with the setback or when we get to the site plan pieces, we have to move the compound. And you know and just thinking about having said that I didn't maybe open up a can of worms here but if the code does allow the planning board to consider the breakpoint technology when it has to do with the setback right and so if the breakpoint is 62 1/2 ft you add 10% so you know more than 70 feet you could say that the setback is 70 ft and then we meet it at all all sides. I think the board has that authority on

it's in the it's in the code it says doesn't say you doesn't actually say the board can do a waiver of variance it says you can take it into consideration right when determining that just the intent is for us to be able to do it yeah so so let me look at that also tomorrow so I made some notes just well make you know make

if this board is willing to consider the breakpoint and you have a definition of breakpoint in your code. Uh as it relates to the setback and it specifically says you have that authority to do that. I would say we don't have to move the compound. I think that if the board was willing they could say the breakpoint technology and here it's done by an engineer and we feel that the setbacks are compliant. I think you have absolutely that right authority. Well, I'll wait for my turn. I would expect that. So also and that and that's what I I thought I sent it but um that's what I had put together on

um if you if you look at that 50 ft plus the setback area the um you could have 141 ft to both property lines. So that would give you a tower of um 130 something. So that's beyond at the 125 that's 137.5 ft is 110%. So the 137.5 setback can be met at the um what we've been talking about

with the 50oot compound. It can fit within that setback requirement and but it would have to be moved a little bit further to the south. Okay. Away from Grand. Yeah. Both the back end of the property. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because we have 155 ft there. So yeah, I did the the math and I thought, well, I might just be able to get one at 125. You can. That's why I was having a hard time answering the question earlier because I didn't know what final decision was on the bike. Right. Until you do that, you don't you can't make that decision, right?

But I I'm going to have my uh engineer mess around with that tomorrow and see because if you can avoid that decision, you don't need the varian. So you don't need the your consideration on that issue. Right. So okay. Anything else? I think she's bearable. Okay, I think we're done for tonight. Should I summarize where we're at? Sure. Um, yes.

We're going to we're going to do an Excel spreadsheet. Rick, if you one one other thing that I want the board to convey to the applicant is that the planning board, it's my understanding also wants that same setback from the apartment because the apartment is on the property. So if you look at the set back from the apartment, they they put a tower right next to the apartment because it's not but it's my understanding planning board wants that same 110%. So 100 from the apartment we're like 174 feet from that and we don't plan on changing the tower is the I'm sorry the tower

but the compound is not but but it doesn't move that far. But I think the the planning The planning board only concerned about the tower. They concerned about the compound compound needing the same setback as the property lines from the apartment. The apartment would building would be treated as a property line.

So if and Dave is is that consideration in the code in terms of the setback from the apartment and it's if it's a property line what I would suggest is that becomes a secret consideration then for safety. You're talking about a setback for safety. If it's not strictly in the code and the board wants it, the reason the board wants it is because it's safety and that's a secret consideration and so we ought to we ought to throw that into the part three, right? Yeah. Does that make sense? Because it's Yeah. It's not it's not it's not in the code that they have to but I was just trying to that's why I wanted it. The reason why the reason why the board wants it then is because we want the same safety consideration from the apartment as we do from random. Absolutely right. Absolutely.

That makes it seeker. It's not a code enforcement thing. That needs to be wanted in part three. Yes. Right. All right. So, um by Sunday, uh we'll have the Excel spreadsheet out hopefully tomorrow. You also send out the uh the latest and greatest version of this document, part three. And hopefully everybody can get comments in by Sunday. Next week, you and I will work on compiling those, give them to you, Dave, to see whether or not you have to change any of the resolutions, any of the items in the resolution.

The res well the resolution was basically adopting the part three as a statement of findings. So, you can work on the part three. May you may want to do things in the resolution also, but it's it's much resolution had to list all the conditions. So, there might be a change in the conditions. That's what I mean by that. So, we're going to get it to you for you to give it a review. Hang on. I'm not finished.

Um, and then when we come back on the 30th, we should have and we'll get a new document out before the 30th so everybody can see it and also put it on Uni Collab. I'd like to get it out there at least a week ahead of time. So, we got a week, you and I got a week to go through all the comments. Should be able to do it in one day and then we'll get everything out to the board and to the public. Go ahead. No, I think that um the revised document is that going to be in red line. Yeah, my preference would be red line so they can see where the change it is when we come in here next week and debate it. The public will be able to see it as well. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Can I note one thing that there was some confusion I think uh towards the end the last day or two on the burm versus fencing versus where the where the burm and fencing is it the old enclosure um if you're going to go that route with the condition negative declaration. We need to we need to sort out that uh if you're still so inclined to go that way. um what what what you want and what what would be needed versus redundant versus So let me tell you what I thought the board said last Monday. I know you

I wasn't here. So I thought what we said is forget about the burm. Can you we're not we don't want a burm. And I thought what we also said and maybe it wasn't maybe I misunderstood. Probably did the fencing the the brown or the whatever color fencing solid fencing was not going to go around the 50 50 by 50. It was going to go around the generator and the chain link question mark was going to go around the 50 by 50 or was it the other way around that the solid fence was around the whole 50 by 50? I thought it was close around the whole thing on the whole thing. I I raised it because you make sure to give us your comments on this issue

by Sunday. Right. All right. So what what and and I think the plan board may want to consider two different things is is one the enclosure providing sound attenuation that would be more beneficial to be closed around the generator. Yes. But the because there was discussion about a vinyl fence and then there was discussion about a sound attenuating vinyl fence.

Okay. I think the sound attenuating vinyl fence would just be around the generator to have a a addition additional sound attenuation around the generator. If there another applicant comes in with another generator, it would be around that because as you as you're moving away from the generator towards the fence, sound's going to go over the fence. It doesn't mitigate sound when you start moving away from the generating it. Yeah, but then the fence, the plane board may still want a solid fence simply for

for the visual. So the solid fence would provide visual screening the sound attenuating fence around the generator will provide the okay does that sound the sound attenuating fence around the generator. Then you start putting fences around there. from underground utilities. Um, and quite frankly, again, I I'll make the argument, you can decide what you're going to decide. I don't think there's any nexus to requiring sound attenuation. We've proven we are fully compliant with your code. Um, but having said that, I'd have to talk to our CM to see about, you know, if that was something you absolutely required, whether it's even feasible to put within a compound.

What does the board want? You like the attenuating fence around the generator? If Greg says that's works, then I think that's the I'm saying that that is more applicable than a sound attenuating. It's more effective to have it around a generator than the 50 ft around the entire It's also much less costly for the applicant, isn't it? Yes. But it to spend the money on something that's not going to work. Okay. I mean to have it all the way around the compound is going to cost more money but it's going to be less effective than having it.

It wouldn't be very effective at mitigating noise around the edge of the compound. It wouldn't really give you anything for mitigation. So I think you heard what the board wants. Yeah. I I'll go back. I can't guarantee one. It's also seeker issue for the board. We have a we have a road. this is going to be seen as a as an industrial intrusion into this area. We're trying to mitigate that. Sound sound is a factor in it. And so um and and that is in our part three and and um

let's see maybe there's an option to do additional sound attenuation through the generator manufacturer. Uh again, you know, my client, it is what it is, but again, the decibb are less than conversation. And I've said it before, six months out of the year, they hear 110 dB for at least an hour a day once a hour a week when they have one equipment running. Um, just is what it is. I have to make that argument.

So, something else we could consider, I'd have to go back and look because I haven't checked, but I think the nearest sensitive receptor is the apartment complex, right? Something they could also do is put up, and we'd have to look at the site plan and see what it looks like, but just put up one wall to attenuate sound towards the the apartment complex. Maybe we could leave potentially the other three lights open for access for, you know, methods. So, you get the benefits for the apartments while not necessarily limiting their whatever they need to do with the actual. Okay,

that's very true. That's that is a that is a good mitigation technique is to is to move the orientation of the equipment. I've done that in the past and it's been very effective. I have seen you do have one house down the road. Yeah. You do have the one residence on the road. Same side. How far is that? It's more further away than the apartment building. It's what? It's just a touch. I could measure it, but it's a little further away than the apartment building, but it's pretty close. Still a lot further away, but the exhaust is facing towards the back. There's no receptor. So, if you orient it,

just a little shift should be able to be accommodated. So, there's an option you can consider. It's 350 ft away in the apartment building center of the the apartment building 170 from well from the generator I think it's probably in in the neighborhood of 160. The antenna is 170. So it's 160 from the generator and to the house it's a little over 350. Okay. So it's almost twice as far. I'm less concerned with Yeah. I don't think that one car as much. The apartment complex might. Anybody else?

No. It's uh somebody had mentioned what time is it? 10 o'clock. Did you still want to go into a client um attorney meeting on raft? Do we just big picture we can talk about what we've talked about? Okay. Yes. All right. I'll I'll enterain a motion to 15 minutes. I'll entertain a motion to u close the meeting. I have just one question. We we wanted to do two site visits I think this week. I I forgotten which one I just emailed Bill and talked to him. Wait, we have dates for That's why

Yeah, I was I'll make a motion. Peter makes the motion. Second. Second. Or save us.