Planning Board - Regular Meeting

information.

Now, you live. Okay, I'll call to order the start with the pledge. 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. Would you uh call the role, please? Chair Jones here. Member Nelson here.

Member Roberts here. Member Fer. Member Prinsky here. Member Furl here. And member absent Dave Gordon Church and Christians. All right. Yep. Okay. Um so just one item of note. Um yes. Yep. The um Marshack um project is not on the agenda. The uh bill notified us that the applicant has taken a pass tonight. So that won't be on the agenda. I know at some point we need to talk about gun farms, but we'll talk maybe tomorrow. Okay. What the next steps for that is.

Yep.

Okay. Um so the first item on the agenda is the um public hearing for Alex and Amy Lewis. Uh they have property on 95 lower Whitfield Road. Um the public hearing we need to reopen it. We closed it eronously uh last time. So we said we need to reopen it today. So I'm opening the reopen the public hearing. Um, and we did that because we have to do the determination of significance in the context of that public hearing and then close the public hearing after it or ask if there's any public comments and then close the public hearing. So, I er three weeks ago. So, I'm opening up the public uh hearing for the Lewis project. Is there anybody here who wants to speak about the Lewis project?

Once twice. Okay. So, let's do the um secret determination. Pass out some faults.

Yes. Perfect.

Um, okay. So, everybody's familiar with this. Um, anybody have any number one. Um, will the proposed action create a material conflict with the adopted land use plan or zone? Uh, I'm just going to rattle through it. If anybody has an objection, um, in fact, I'm not even going to read them. I think you're familiar with them. I'm just going to announce the number, say what I think it is. If you object, please let me know and we'll talk about it. So, number one, uh I believe is no or small impact. Number two, um will it change the intensity of the land? No small impact. Three, uh will the action impair the character and quality of the existing community? No or small impact. Will the proposed action have any impact on the CA? No or small impact. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to traffic um or affect infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. Or small impact. Will proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy? No. Or small impact. Will the proposed action impact existing public or private water supplies? No or small impact. Public or private wastewater treatment? No small impact. Will the proposed action impair the quality or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? No small impact. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in natural resources? No. A small impact. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. A small impact. Will the proposed action create a hazard to the environmental resources or human health? No. SW. Does anybody have any objections to any of that which we just discussed? Okay. So,

I will uh entertain a motion to declare this to be a um negative make a negative declaration in terms of determination of significance. Um and we'll do a roll call on that. So, uh a motion to proceed. I make a motion. H makes the motion. Jennifer seconds it and we'll do a roll call. Stacy, would you do a roll call on this? Yeah.

What is the roll call about? When we when we do the vote on this, we're supposed to do a roll call, obviously. I'm not sure we always follow that, but somebody pointed that out to me. This case I would be a negative. That's what Okay. Chair Jones. Hi. Member Nelson. Hi. Member Roberts. Hi. Member Fetcher. Hi. Member Pinsky. Hi. Member Faralt. Hi. Okay. So, we have six in favor. Uh, one absence. So, I think we're Elsa, are we done on the night back? Yes.

Okay. So, I checked off the box. I will sign it before I leave tonight's room. Just give it out. We move to close the public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. I entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Dorian second. All in favor of closing the public hearing. I All right, Bill. So, we did the negative debt and Dave Church. Don't go away, Bill. Will you be able to do the decision by the 13th on this one? Sure. Okay. So, Bill will have a decision on the 13th, which is two weeks from tonight. No, no. Church of 10%. We're good, Bill. Yep. Okay. And you have to hang around for another one, right?

We probably be like, I don't know or Jack in a box or something. I mean, like every other one I'll be here. Good imitation. Um, next one is public hearing for dignified dwellings. This public hearing is still open. Good evening everybody. Good evening.

Um so we're just going to do the public hearing now and then we have you on the agenda for regular order to go through whatever else we need to catch up on. So we're just going to continue the public hearing. So is there anybody here who wants to speak to this project project being in dignified dwellings? Okay. Um, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. We still need to do the determination of significance and after we u let's wait until we get to the regular order. Number of things I want to talk about. I'm sure you have some updates for me. Uh so the public hearing is still open uh right now and we're going to go to the next u item on the agenda.

Okay. Would you be doing your secret determination now or let's wait until after we discuss the whole project later on and I have no problem. We'll say we'll do a determination of significance later. Okay. If it's appropriate and could even close the public hearing. Okay. All right. But I'm gonna wait till later because there are things that the board wants to talk about. All right, Jan, what's the name of the next project? I'm grant

You're looking at the old one. I'm looking at the old one. Larry's having a conception. Um, all right. So, the next item on the agenda is Verizon. Good evening, Scott. Good evening.

All right. So, I'm not going to comment too much um on this one. Everybody has their variety of emails um on this. It's a a late arrival as a public hearing uh item. Um Stacy got done it on the agenda um 24 and a half hours before um the 6:30 deadline, 6:30 p.m. uh deadline to get it back onto the agenda. So the public hearing for Verizon is open. Uh does anybody want to comment on the Verizon project? I believe there are some other people who are coming, but uh I don't think they expected it to come up this quickly. Could we if there's no one else that shows up when I'm done, can we hold it over and go to a couple of the other applications and then come back?

Um yeah, I can come back. We can move the timing of the public hearing as long as we don't move it up. We can certainly move it back. So, I'll delay the public hearing. Um but not forever. Not forever. No, no, no. But I am expecting other people. So what we So you don't want So we'll wait. Whatever suits you. Are you okay with just delaying? Yeah, we'll wait. You can sit down, Larry. Thank you. Thank you. Um All right. So the next project is um slow. Sorry, Scott. It's

okay. We're here for the duration anyway, right? I think I am. Hey All right. So, this was a lot line change if everybody remembers. Um, this was a property that had the lot line going through the middle of a house. So, I guess you could say it's appropriate to do a lot line change. This is a lot line deletion. Bill, do you have anything you want to say?

Uh, no. That's it. It's a lot line uh improvement. um to move the line from the house to there's two house two existing houses on two separate lots but one of them was on the line so the line moving the situation that okay do we have escrow we had asked for $150 in escrow I believe so Bill did you deliver escrow to us I didn't we somebody else may have I'm pretty sure we did but I'll double check that's figure out.

All right. While she's checking, I'll go through the um the decision. If we don't have it, Bill, we can proceed. Um but I'm just not going to sign the map um until we get the escrow. And it was $150 we'd ask for. So, you all have a decision. It's not in here. You'll have to look at the U. Oh, it's posted online. It's online. It's in Yeah. I have a scruff. You have escro. It's on Munich collab under review. It's on the agenda on Munab.

Okay, that's right. Thank you. All right. So, I'm going to skim through this and mention the pertinent things. So, this is a um approval for a lot line for um ski slope. Reason for request applicant Selene De Flaminio and Marina owners of tax parcels two tax parcels um wish to improve the pre-existing nonconformity of the lots and will address a lot line transsecting an existing building both effective parcels are pre-existing and nonconforming lot line improvement will improve this non this nonconformity and is consistent with the town of Rochester zoning board of appeals area parent decision cited below. So this had been worked by the um the ZBA many years ago. Um all tax parcels known as 19 and 21 ski slope road have access to trails and road via ski slope road zoning is lot two. Um, the planning board has reviewed the plan and certifies the lot will meet Town of Rochester lot requirements or will improve the ability of existing parcel to comply with setback road access or other standards for R2 zoning district and for recording purposes only. Further represents an exempt lot improvement in accordance with section 1252 of the town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given by the planning board. The planning board further grants the authority to the chairman to sign the flat as certifying the lot improvements for filing purposes without further resolution upon receipt of the chairman's determination that the map flat meets the requirements of the code and it's an agreement with the survey plan and maps provided for provided for review. Um and then it just goes on to

talk about um the notes that have to be on uh the map. And the last paragraph, the owner shall file in the office of county clerk such certified plant bearing the chairman's signature and notes one and two above within 62 days of this certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four post county clerk certified copies of the plant to the town of Rochester planning board within 30 days of filing. Anybody have any questions with this or comments? Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve. Peter second. Jen. All in favor?

I. Chair votes I. Anybody opposed? So, six. Um, and one absence.

Okay, Bill, you've done done that one. Yep. Somebody else is after me, but I have no other. There you go. All right. Yes, but they're not here. So, thank you. They'll help. They're not coming. Oh, okay. So, so if you want to just hang out rather than jumping up and down. No, Daxter is not coming. Daxter's not coming. So, who's representing Lmon Monica? You said he didn't have to come because they're just doing their decision. I said that about uh Lewis. Okay. All right. He's in.

So, this one is also on the uh on MUN collab. This is the lot improvement for L Monica. Everybody have it? Yep.

You got it. All right. So this is a lot line uh improvement. The um reason for the request is Diane and Anthony Lmonica, owners of tax parcels, two tax parcels, proposed to remove a lot line and combine the two existing parcels into a single parcel. One parcel has an existing occupied dwelling which will remain. The second um a two-bedroom dwelling and a hunting camp on the same parcel will be removed. Both parcels currently meet and the new combined parcel will continue to meet the requirements of the town code section 12518 with respect to approving lot adjustments. Um I won't read this is standard similar to uh what we just read for ski slope. So I'm going to skip that. Page two, um, number one and two of the notes that have to be on the flat. Uh, interesting enough, I learned something new. Uh, and it was pointed out that only lot land surveyor, um, basically a lot line are allowed to, uh, survey or present or sign such a map. But our code allows a professional engineer to do it. And um so anyway, everything is good with that. The owner shall file and this is standard fair uh talking about filing with the county clerk and bringing uh copies back to us. So anyway, it's fairly cut and dry. Anybody have any questions?

All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve. I make a motion to approve Zoran will second it. All in favor? Hi. Anybody opposed? Chair votes yes. Okay, that's the last one is um Shanker again. A lot life that's also MA. Yes. How are you? Do you and Bill have any comments you want to make?

Had two existing lots of the same ownership and deleting the line between existing house on one lot and the driver comes in on the other. Okay, this is the one that was require it was necessary to do this because there had been a stop work order uh on a building that was being built on the other property that was owned by the same both properties were owned by the same owner, but there was no approval gotten uh and we don't if there was it was an accessory dwelling that requires a primary dwelling on a lot of So this one there were a lot of questions from the board the last time I Does is everybody okay with this one?

Yeah, I am. I just had a question. You're you're going to be able to meet all the setbacks with the because I know there's some discussion about the the lot line between the neighbor and property. So there was we will meet the side. Okay. That was the uh and you do know you have to go back the uh nothing we're doing here um approves whatever it was that you're doing before that you didn't have approval or you still have approval. You have approval now. We had we had approval. You had approval

before we started. Um they just you know the site plan was incorrect so they stopped it. Um so we will go to the town and ask them if we can. Yeah. So this is just to get rid of that lot line, not approve the positioning of any of the buildings. You understand that? Okay.

All right. So um same basic information, different um parties. Um I'll read the reason for the request. By Shanker, owner of two tax parcels, proposes to remove a lot line and combine these two existing parcels into a single parcel. One of the parcels has an existing occupied dwelling and improvement including a driveway access including driveway access to Doug Road over an existing parcel all of which will remain. Both effective parcels currently meet and will continue to meet the requirements of the town code section 125-18 with respect to approving lot adjustments. The next paragraph is standard verbiage uh as are the two notes that have to go on the map. All right. So, you'll have to have uh those notes. I think they are on the map already. And then the last paragraph talks about uh needing my signature, bringing it to the uh the county and getting us copies back. So, uh I think you're good to go except for the uh for the vote. So, I'll entertain a vote to approve this lot line.

Dave Roberts. Second. Second. Jennifer. All in favor? All right. What? Uh just note that Hans is abstaining. Uh chair votes I. So we have five eyes, one absence and one abstension. Okay, you're good.

As soon as you get me that map, I will I will sign them. Okay. I just need another witness like dyslexic.

Okay. Bill, talk to me.

Want me to talk first?

Uh, yeah, sure. So, the Hemlock Ventures, they were before us um prior back in February. Um and we rejected uh their proposal principally because we felt that uh this client what they wanted to do and and moving the lot line of the smaller parcel to the middle of the larger parcel violated our um we the town code that no subdivision of existing parcel is allowed uh without coming back to the planning board. So, we rejected uh the uh the project. I then requested the ZBA to which was after the fact. Um and they just said, "You already made a decision. There's nothing for us to do." and they suggested to the applicant, excuse me.

Um to go back to the building department, reapply, let the building the new building uh inspector make a determination uh which he did and it was for a lot line and then to come back here to the planning board. So um the applicant is here for the same reason that he was here before under the same determination of line and um so it's open for discussion. It's open for uh either the applicant or the applicants uh representative to speak. Do you guys want to talk first? Go ahead.

Okay. So yeah, I'm just here. say that you now had a second determination from a second to code enforcement officer that this is a lot line improvement, not a separate. My understanding, you know, we've got kind of like two pieces of evidence coming from people whose job it is to be the professional that interprets the code, enforces the code, and understands the codes. Um, so I'm hoping that will change some opinions from the board. If not, then my understanding from the zoning board meeting was that the next step is that you guys as the planning board are supposed to appeal the decision of the code enforcement officer to the ZBA if you don't agree with that decision and not to just deny the application like happened last time. So it's all

okay. So the applicant is correct. Um if this is the second uh determination that it's a lot line. So if the board um disagrees uh we would need to go back to the ZBA with an appeal of the CEO's determination of the lot line. Um I gave everybody a copy of the town code section 12518. Um, and we'll Is this in the package? I don't think it's in the package. It's in the package. Is it in the package? It's right in front of them. There's two copies, one for each of the partners here. Did you find it?

Yeah. Yeah. Dave, you got it. Hans and Peter. This looks like there should be two of them then.

So this is the the code from 12518. I have an abbreviated version that just shows me just shows me the um four qualifications for something to be a lot line. So the code reads parcel shall to qualify as lot improvements involve the addition of land to an existing parcel or lot line adjustments so as to and this is where I want to go one by one and either you guys can make a comment I'll read them all or if you want to make a comment after I read one as to whether or not you agree that um the CEO's determination was correct based on your read of this and we do have the ability Even though the ability to quant these matters, we do have the ability to disagree and that's the purpose of this EBA if we disagree. So the first one and I won't give my opinion yet unless nobody says anything and then I'll just throw something out there as to what my opinion is. So the first one is improve the ability of that parcel to comply with setback or other building standards. Does anybody have any comments on that one?

No. I'm getting nos on this one. Yeah. Okay. Does everybody agree that's a no?

Okay. B. Increase the suitability of the parcel for building development. the I'll point out that the ex the smaller lot um can be developed. It meets all the zoning standards and could be de developed and the parcel that they wish to break off of the bigger parcel um if it were to be subdivided is certainly suitable with access over the smaller parcel. So uh conceptually you're not improving the ability of the parcel to be um uh for building development. It has the potential for it.

This doesn't make it any better or worse. The language is suitability, right? I can't hear you. Is the word used suitability? It says increase the suitability of the parcel for building development. So, I would argue that by making a larger lot, it's more suitable for building the house. It's more valuable. It's better.

Well, it may be more salailable. That's true. But I think suitability refers to zoning suitability by moving land around something that may not meet the code. It now meets the code by borrowing property, if you would, or moving property from one parcel that meets the code when it loses that part of the property. they add it someplace else and it now makes it zoning suitable for uh building. So I would say no. Does anybody disagree? Go ahead. Maybe it's on here and I'm missing it. What's the current lot size? What's the average for smaller lot? The smaller two acres. Two and it's or two.

Thank you. Okay. More or less. C. Add to the availability of open space. We're getting nos. I don't believe it makes meets that qualification. D. Adjust the boundary line location or produce a corrected deed if a map reflecting the same is desired for recording purposes. I don't think it meets that either. So is there anybody on the board that believes that this is a lot line given what are the gating factors for a lot line?

You're talking about general or this particular paragraph? You're talking about general or this particular paragraph? I'm sorry. You're talking about this particular paragraph sub paragraph or or you ask invite application the four qual qualifications to make a lot line. Does anybody agree that this pro this proposal meets any one of these? You just need to meet one of them. Partially what? Partially if if a small lot added to big L this is perfect lot line adjustment. It's a

without subdividing just addition of small lot to big lot. It's a perfect subdivide. It's a perfect Line is us based on our experiences aboard and I I'm on a board for seven years and never never anybody showed up to combine lot line with subdivision. Okay. And I I'm not quite understand why is it so complicated to make a lot line adjustment make a property build and divide it between two parts on this separate application.

So, If I understand you correctly and I don't want to put words in your mouth, you're suggesting that this should be both a subdivision and a lot line. Two separate applications. Well, two separate actions which we can have we can do at one time. Right. Okay. Provided one is lot investment. So again, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You don't agree that this is simply a lot line, right?

Okay. Is that the sense of the board? I still think you could argue that suitability is not necessarily in the sense of planning. It's it's in the sense of adding value and then if we see value so so hey hey no we see kind of because this is a definition from planning so I I would disagree Rick I think you need to go through points to yeah before you decide on this you only read from A1 okay that's all I have

well there are three subsections A1 A2 and A3 so you read four you actually read four kind of clauses and A1. But there's two other criteria the board should be aware of from A2 and A3. A2 says this I just A2 not reduce the in other words to qualify as a lot line improvement. There are two more criteria and they're not unfortunately it doesn't it's not clear whether they're um connected by ands or wars. not reduce the ability of the lot from which the lot improvement parcel is taken to not reduce the ability of the lot from which the lot improvement parcel is taken or reconfigured to comply with the applicable development standards of this chapter. And three says, include a map restriction to the effect the improvement parcel will never be considered a separate building lot apart from the track to which it is being added.

Is does everybody have that or need me to read it again? Okay. So this is A2 and A3 and 120. What is 125-8? Does everybody have that? Yeah. Okay. So D, do you have a comment about that? Me? Yeah. I think it clearly complies with number two. Yeah. Number three as well.

He's willing to put in the map restriction. He's got number three as well. I'm not sure I'm not sure if he's considered that or if he's looked at this, but I don't know if Bill has, but I I think he's got two. He could have three. And it's not clear whether one2 and three are connected with anors. So I have aside from the fact that this the previous subdivision said that it should come back to for reconsideration and that um I also would like to note that the conditions that were included in the previous subdivision are not included in SNAP including a wetland buffer um notification of rattlesnakes potential rattlesnake habitat Um and um I believe a no build area in the previous uh previous subdivision. So um I would be agreeable that this could be a lot line improvement if those are included on this map. Um I'd also like to ask a question that the proposed dwelling is that where you're planning on putting it? Um just put that I would say like not exactly but more more or less I would say you might want to come back but you guys are amenable we can include whatever things you'd like and we'll adjust that well

it's not what I would like it's what's on the previous sub. So it's not what I would like it's what's on the previous subdivision. The problem the problem is with these things is that they get left off when this somebody look at this map they wouldn't know that there was rattlesnake habitat that or wetlands or a no build zone. So that's why it should be in my opinion included on this map. Um, and then also, you know, I've seen a couple of maps now in different variations with the proposed dwelling in different places and there was up higher on the property uh closer in line with the um the the other building that you're building now, correct?

Um, yes. We we've like this isn't exactly where it would go, but the I think the drawing you're referring to is some sort of plan that I had made very early on in the process.

Um I think that where the location of the dwelling would go is I'm not sure if this is exactly germanine to the conversation about the lot line adjustment, but it would probably go somewhere very close to where that lot line is going to be deleted between the two. So, I think the problem Peter's having and maybe others are having, I think we've had at least three, if not four maps. First map that we saw early on had the property had the house on the larger lot in the corner of that larger lot up from the square small lot. The next map that we saw had no house on it whatsoever. That was the map that we rejected when we voted against it against doing this as a lot line. This map had or rather the next map from 10 days ago had no house on it. And now this map so it's four maps. This map from 6 days ago um has the house on the square lot. So I think this board might be receptive and I think what this is where Peter is going. If you locate where the house is going to be precisely and we put notes on the map showing the buffer zone, you can't have the house and other structures in the buffer zone.

Buffer zone will be around the wetlands on the larger piece of property. So all that has to be shown on the map where that buffer zone is and that there's also an identification that this area has been found to have timber rattlesnakes. out maybe, but it has been the previous owner when he subdivided it was required to identify where those dens were. So, we would need for you either to research that, find out where the dens were or to find out where they are on this subdivided portion of the bigger property. um and indicate that there are dens there and on the map indicate that those areas are not buildable and that the dens cannot be impacted in any fashion. So, you would have some work to do um in the field or through researching whatever you got from the only person you bought the large property from to identify where those dens are and make statements that they will not be if they're there that they will not be uh disturbed. So, that might be a way to get around this and avoid

it being sent back to the CBA by this board if that's where the board wants to go. I think the previous um Have you seen the previous subdivision? Do you I have seen the flat plan, but I have not seen anything about locations of rattlesnake.

Yeah. So, in the in the notes on the previous subdivision, it said uh timber rattlesnakes the upper reaches of the property may contain foraging areas for timber rattlesnakes. As a precautionary member, site work uh conducted must be conducted between or site work between conducted between April 1st and October 31st require placement of temporary silk fencing to be placed around the entire area of disturbance. There's also a no build area. Um and the I'm asking whether you looked at it uh before because you know the the 100 foot buffer uh was comes quite a way into uh the the top the I guess it would be the north side of that property towards the house.

So in the previous uh I mean I've seen something with a 100 foot buffer from the wetlands, right? We do not plan to go within that 100 foot buffer.

Okay. Well, yeah. Uh yeah, I was just agreeing right the 100 football purpose and should have been on this map here. I I to uh I know I had it in mind to do. I'm sorry I didn't get it on here. Um first first thing we put in was we've been just trying to get for I don't know how many months now. Get a determination. What are we doing here? I don't even know what to call this. Is this a lot line improvement map or is this a subdivision map? That's all I want to know. And then I could put some details on here. I don't want to go too far with this mapping if we don't even know if it's going to happen.

I'd be happy to go and and put rattlesnake notes on there and everything. Fine. But can we just get through these first question is to what are we doing?

That's that's a that's a valid question, but it's a it's a question for us as well because you know it it looks at the surface it looks like a subdivision and the previous note said that you had to come back for any further subdivision of that property. So, there's a big argument about semantics about whether you're moving still ending up with two lots or three lots or or you know moving lot lines. Um, and I'm okay with it being a lot line improvement, but I just these notes are omitted and the house's proposed dwelling has moved around. So, I just want to be sure that it's not going to violate any of the notes that were contingencies that were in there before because that is something that does happen as things go down the road.

And, you know, building department, if they looked at the map that was submitted, they would let you put that house wherever you wanted to and you could easily put it in uh put it, you know, back in the middle of the federal wetlands. Yeah. Unless there's a note on it. So, or where the where there were influence. I agree with Pete. I agree. So I observation um could you remind me the the previous site plan of the home restricted further subdivision. Correct. Correct. Just an observation without coming back here. Just an observation that this lot was sold last fall. Yes.

To the owner. So this to me feels like it's a way to get around requiring a subdivision. That's just my personal opinion and that's Can I go ahead can I opinion

as a compromise it should be applied as a subdivision and lot line could be kind of on it side because subdivision we're considering half a dozen different criteria in order to approve application if the lat line addresses simple lat line so if it's this If they apply to the subdivision and then side do line okay fine you want to combine but not just a lot line I totally ignore all the criteria required by court to consider subdivision that was how I see it you know

if just to remind the board of the context here if I understand the applicants correctly that the the code enforcement officers has ruled that this is a lot line revision is that right in the Yes. Let me join that means if if this for this board to change that or to otherwise regulate that under the subdivision uh rules as opposed to lotine and I think somebody mentioned it before but I just want I want to remind you and that's what this question is about now. You'd have to appeal it to the ZBA.

That's a question before the board is whether you want to appeal that designation to the ZBA in order to get the ZBA to agree that it's a subdivision and then back here. And I would watch for that because in the past we had disagreement with this uh CEO and we went back went back to the you appealed it to the ZBA. No, we were discussing CEO didn't go to ZBA

but there was a cases when we couldn't understand why CEO qualify application this way versus another way. This is not first time. I I you know last time I felt that this was a lot improvement and I voted that way and I still feel that way because I I feel like the distraction is that you know this lot line improvement but has kind of split stat of property right so there's a two very large parcels or large parcels if we were looking at it adding you know if the say the revised area that's 13.7. If that was a little 1.5 or 2 acre piece, we say, "Yeah, it's a it's a lot improvement because it would just be adding a smaller piece from the 7.5 to the other." And to me, that will be a very easy decision for this board. But I think the distraction is that it's a larger parcel that we're creating by by this lot line improvement. I still think it's a lot like improvement. I think that if there was a further to your point restriction per paragraph three here that says that it can't be um subdivided any further then that kind of takes care of everything because you're not adding another option to this combination here.

I was thinking yeah so that that kind of settles it. Dave, would you agree that the other distraction is the fact that the map that we have right now doesn't indicate where the buffer zone is? Oh, yeah. No, it totally doesn't have anything about the possibility of timber rattlesnakes. Absolutely. That's the primary. I mean, I'm I'm I'm okay with it being a lot line improvement. I respect the CEO's determination and I don't want to hold this up, but I also want to respect the previous subdivision, the notes, and the work that went into that. Let me make a suggestion.

The criteria A A1B which the chair opined was not it wouldn't do that increase the suitability of the particle for building development I assume and I and the chair specified that that would relate to some type of zoning suitability but there's also a colloquial

interpretation of the way suitability right in a bunch of different ways. My guess is that the applicant feels that the lot line revision or whatever we're going to call it would increase the suitability for those purposes without getting into too much detail. The board's concern is the bringing down of the of the restrictions and perhaps even some added restrictions relating to wet or rattlesnakes or whatever. If the board were to explain to the applicant that the in the board's view the suitability was not only the applicant's um vision for development but also whether or not those environmental constraints were were loaded back in and if the applicant were agreeable the applicant produ could produce a map saying that and then they'd have their criteria that the board would want and the board would have no further interest I don't think in making in dealing with the subdivision and the appeal that would be necessary. So I guess if that makes any sense

generally amendable to that but without having understood all the information that you guys make dens and stuff I would prefer not to make a binding like uh decision on that at the moment. I'd like to be able to at least understand what the all the a clear understanding what all the restrictions are the rattlesnake dens and the locations of those be specifically something that I was not aware of where those might be or what what what the what the information is about that.

So how about we do this? You get some homework to do. We need a map. I think what you've heard the board say is that if the map reflects the environmental situation as it exists on actually both fossils, I don't believe there's any wetlands on the square parcel not to my knowledge. There actually is on the lower left

left hand side. So, if this is properly mapped with all the wetlands, um, and you go back and look at whatever was in the documents you received from the previous owner with respect to restrictions in terms of rattlesnakes, and we'll do our research, too, but it's up to you. We know that there were restrictions placed on the A3 parcels. That sounds if you do that and you establish with us the ability to discuss that what you found what we found uh then perhaps that's a way of resolving this.

Okay, that sounds like a good path forward. I think just to point out there is a time limit on this but you know and I and I'm not trying to run out the clock or anything like that. So I think it's going to be like we'll

I will get this done. I will figure the next meeting you know we'll try to get this taken. So, we're worried about the time limit also, but I I don't know if when we were at the CBAU court, what their attorney said, and I didn't record it, but she said the reality is the law's intent is complete application. When this board has a complete application for a lot line, then the clock can begin. So, one could argue that the clock began at the time that we got this on collab as ready for review. One could say that the clock didn't begin until six days ago, which was after that ready for review because it wasn't ready review for review. It gave me another map. Okay. Six days ago. Um, so in my mind, I'm not going to worry about it and I'm going to I'm feeling lucky if we had to go to a CBA that the interpretation of that and part of their attorney would be when we have a complete application and we still don't have a complete application for an LLI because you're missing any of the environmental constraints that may be on this property.

When was the CEO determination? Do you have that? It was one second. It was about a month ago. for two days back, please. March 3rd. March. March 3rd. Well, uh I'm not sure which timeline or clock you're talking about, but talking about the lot line clock. 62 days or 60 days. 62. 62. If the board is considering an appeal to the CBA of the CEO determination, the board has 60 days to do that from the CBO department. Well, our understanding from this meeting was that it's when a repeated application is received to the planning board, not building something totally different. Okay.

We're talking about we were considering the possibility of if we disagree that this is a lot line, we got to appeal that to the ZBA. There's a time frame on that. There's a stat 60 days. 60 days from the CEO determination, which somebody said was March 3rd. Yeah. Can I point that out? You're looking at something along the lines of May 1st. We did discuss during the ZVA meeting that the CEO determination and the zoning application is sent back to the applicant for them to apply in Municab and there's no viewing of their application by any board members prior to being marked ready for review by the building. I am talking about the appeal.

I'm just saying they're not seeing it until it's marked ready for review. The planning board. Okay. I don't know. I think why don't we do this? I hear your advice to us. I'll take it in an advisement. Um, if we can't resolve this, then we'll decide what we're going to do at that point. But we need to give you some time to go back and do right

the map, redo the map to induce this board to perhaps let it go as a block. And I just want to say reiterate that I'd really want to see that uh restriction that map restriction uh that we see here which is to the fact that the improvement parcel will never be considered a separate building block apart from the tractor which you she's been here. I think that's really important especially in this space. All right. So but we ended up with one part two. Okay. I think we have an approach here to get it. Yeah, I think that you know what I would like to see is the notes honored from the previous subdivision.

Okay. The right everything on there. I don't see any reason why it should not all be carried over. The right to farm rattlesnakes, no build area, no further subdivision. I think all that stuff in order to honor the previous subdivision um for this lot line should be included on the map. And then I'd also because you're potentially you're talking about access off of Heaven's Way. Do you have We are going to need probably the road maintenance, right? Is it uh do we know you said that? Do you have

I No, I I Peter I think I did check that build this. You'll have to check this. I did research the easements on off that road and the gentleman has the right to build a house with a driveway out onto that road out onto heavens. But Bill, you need to check that. Also, I looked at the deed and it's pretty clear from my mind that you have the right to put a driveway there. But again, when we get a when we get a better application with all of this information on it, um, which isn't much different from what we would have done with the subdivision, but Okay.

Yep. We we'll put together a better map and I'll look at the what the restrictions are and we'll come back to you guys soon as we can. Okay. One more comment making because it's in essence subdivision should we require water supply and sewer system on the map? No. If we agree to do this with a lot line that we never make that as part of the lot line. If we had if it was a subdivision and our attorney is correct he usually is

we have to take what the CEO gave us. Um however and I he hasn't waited on this. I believe we have the ability even in a lot line to honor previous notes on a portion of a lot that was previously subdivided and as well as well as um add whatever else we might know about that property of an environmental concern. So I think we might have a way of saving us a wall a lot more heartache and headache. All right. Very good.

Bill, you do need to check that easement. I have it's on Mun Collab. I think it was loaded onto Munab, but it talks specifically about the right um to build the driveway there with access to white. All right, we good.

Okay, we're good. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Um, no worries. So, uh, the people here for the public hearing. All right. I'm going to, um, I'm going to delay. Um, I'm going to go with unified dwellings and then we'll come back to you for the public hearing. All right. So, thank you, Bill. Thank you. Bill, do you have any questions? We're all done with Lewis, right?

Yes. One question about Louis was there was a letter was made in the indicator asking about Oh, you're talking about Louis. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. By the way, Okay, Bill, if you have any questions, you know where to find me. Yeah. As to what we what I believe the board is going to need in order to get this thing rolling. Yeah. I totally agree. Thank you.

Okay. And Uh Jeremy and u I'm a little slow on the up on the uptake. I continue to be where age is. Um so let me tell tell you where I I think the project is and then you will let me know um what I might administer. Um we didn't close the public hearing yet. Um, we did receive the RMA and Dave Gordon will have it by tomorrow to take a look at. You sent in the RMA. I think I got it Friday.

The RMA. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I was just looking for confirmation. Yeah. Okay. Um, you need to get me the HOA for Dave Gordon to take a look at. I need that. Um I actually didn't realize that that was going to be something I needed to send. But

yeah, we talked about that last time and I in my email um Nadine to you after the last meeting of three weeks ago. I indicated that we need to look at the HOA also. And then also we wanted to look at the bond and we did get the bond information, right? The site plan information. Yeah, the engineer's estimate was submitted on the 11th and it was circulated to super. Okay. When did we get that information on the uh site plan? I sent it to Greg today.

Okay. So, it's with Greg went out to Greg for him to take it Friday the 13th.

Um he's on vacation. He'll be back on Monday. He said I'll have it reviewed by our next meeting to give input to the give input to the board. So what I'm looking at um is to leave the public hearing open um until the 13th which time we can more than likely close it. At the 13th we should have hopefully an HOA. Um we'll take a look at the bond. I'm sure it's okay. I looked at it. Uh it looks really complete. and we should be able to move to a decision not on the 13th but on the 27th of April.

Um and in that decision um things if some things haven't been completed in terms of the review of the HOA we can make those as conditions for the signing of the map. I still need to go to the town board but that can happen after the decision. I need to go to the t town town of Ford before I sign the mass and get approval of the RNA and approval of the site specific. Um, right. So, all of that can be conditions of the approval that we do.

Yeah. I'm sorry. I only I looked very confused because we thought we weren't coming back on the 13th. It was our understanding that tonight uh that it will put us back on the agenda tonight for the secret determination. So, you know, that's why Jeremy's paying Peak to be here and pay the attorney to be here, but now we're not doing anything tonight.

Can I ask about that? because um you know we did talk about the HOA, we talked about the RMA and I actually thought I was early on the RMA because we also talked about these being conditions of the approval. Um I could certainly get you something, you know, in advance of making the final decision for Dave to review. I don't see these legal instruments as being relevant to you making your secret determination. Um because you reviewed part two as you did for the prior application. You're right. You went through the criteria.

It's you know you proposed what what it was going to be. And I'm not sure why we need to delay that at least that aspect of it uh for those documents. So we're we're here to respectfully ask that you do that tonight because that's why we came. All right. So we weren't expecting a final decision tonight. We knew that. Okay. Well, that's good because there isn't one. No, I know. But we expected an action on secret to drive us. So that was what was the I think we've covered everything on not I think I know we've covered everything.

I just have one random not random question but there was a a public comment letter that was sent in um that stated the developer put in a road before the buildings permit was approved. The road is now blocking the old lumber road that should there be an emergency situation with making Rose Hill Road inaccessible would be the only way for residents of Franklin Road to leave the area. And I I didn't remember seeing anything like that or it's your property. So, but I So, um on the survey that was done, the existing conditions any of the old growth are on there. Um we've all walked the site. Yeah,

none of these were roads. They're definitely not passable by uh the vehicles. Um the only right of way over this property for any of the adjoining properties is um down by Frankle Road. There's a 50ft right away that crosses over this property. So that would be the very southerntherly portion of the property along and there is no part of this development that's off that right away. I I couldn't I just y I saw it and I wanted to ask okay that was all I had. Okay. Well, why don't we go I do have the material for the

for the part two of the big part two. So we can do the part two and um assuming that the board agrees that there is um everything is a no small impact we can we can move forward and then also after that close the public hearing. All right. And you know we we would say if for some reason it's everything else isn't in order for the 13th that we just assume to come on the 27th. That way we're not back here on the 13th and the 27th. So we can talk about that after we go through. We could do that as well. We can prepare the we can prepare the decision for the 27th.

Those items you mentioned, you're right. We've done that in the past. We can make it u my signing the map contingent on getting all this other information to us and also the town board approval on those items that have to be approved. Um but we can do the decision. You just don't get the signed map until anything is finished. Okay.

Okay. would follow that because I'm not sure that I think something different than what he's saying. He was just saying we would make doing it to a decoration of significance first because he was saying the way he he was going to put in the RMA perhaps before the declaration before the decision made you afterwards. So you all the board is familiar with this. It's the part two. Yeah, I should have

two. Thanks.

The reason we're doing the the full environmental assessment form two is because this required an FEAF. It wasn't an SE. I'm not going to read each of the items. Um, but I'm going to pause on each of the numbers. We have to go through 1 through 18 and I'm going to pause each one to allow you to read. Oh, you know what? Let's go through each. I don't um that signs uh us missing something. So the first one is impact on the land proposed action and remember um no or small impact um or rather moderate would indicate that we have to do something additional um so um the proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 ft. I suggest no a small impact proposed action man construction on slopes of 15% or great or greater the uh there are slopes in excess of this but they have satisfied us as to the location of where that's where the houses are going and also the roadway in terms of what they're doing to u meet this requirement

but I think we would say yes and then it would be yes and indication right yeah say yes in the part three that would be you want to identify that it is relevant to the project but then as part of our work here we've mitigated the issue okay so that's a model to launch yeah

okay um the proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 5t of existing ground surface uh I think that's probably moderate also D. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than a thousand tons of natural material. No more small pen. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. I'm assuming no. Is that a no? That yes or no?

It's not going to extend for part one. The answer I assume I mean houses will be built in you know not all one year. So you know I guess that's part one. So we said not multiple phases but 24 months. So more that means it's more than one year.

Okay. So that's monitor to launch impact. Proposed action may result in increased erosion whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal. Uh I'm going to put moderate. Um and there are mitigation methods that you're going to employ. proposed action is or may be located within the within a coastal erosion hazard zone. No or small. So this is a yes number one. Number two, impact on geological features. A identify the landforms. I'm going to say no to oil will leaves. Is everybody in agreement with that?

All right. So, this is a no. Impact on surface water. Proposed action may create a new water body. No. Posed action may result in increase or decrease um of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. No. Proposed action may involve dredging. No. Proposed action may involve construction within or journeying of freshwater or tidal wetland. Um it's a journey um but it's quite a distance from it. Well, the original plan was to build down lower. So you would say yes and then the mitigation buildings up still. So should this be a yes? Yeah,

this is isn't this on the current on the current plan? I think this is the current plan. So with that change, you can say you know no. I mean I I I think it's small you know I'm not putting words in your mouth but I don't I think either which way we would have the completely away from it you can look at the current plan I think if we say yes then we can acknowledge the public comments and our concerns that's acknowledging that the project did change as a result of its

proximity developments. Okay, let's do a yes. Proposed action may create turbidity in a water body either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. No. Proposed action may include construction of one or more intakes for withdrawal of water from surface water. No. Proposed action may include construction of one or more outfalls for discharge of waste water to surface waters. No. proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of storm water discharge that may lead to situation or other degradation of receiving water bodies.

I think you could say maybe yes on that because there are steep slopes and we have a lot of erosion and sediment control as part of it and with the road but I don't know what you guys think. Anybody else have

I think it's a risk. Yeah, I think it's one of condition too. Okay, answer yes. Proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within downstream sight of a proposed action. If the mitigation is is done involved so we say yes but there's mitigation post action may involve the application of pesticides and track. What are you saying on that? You're saying moderate to large which yes what are you asking any yes I I it's moderate to large

on J it's no or small on K proposed action may require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities no so impact on surface water is a yes and Other impacts on the next page is a known impact on groundwater. Proposed action may require a new water supply wells or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. No. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal. No.

Proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. Not a large impact. I would say no or small. Proposed action may include or require wastewater discharge to groundwater.

No. Small. Proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is or suspected to be contaminated. No. Proposed action may require the bulk storage of alolium, distillate or chemical products. No proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides. No other impacts none identified. So no small. So this was no. Well the first one is proposed may require new water supply wells. So I mean but only three is that a large impact. Small.

Yeah there are three but I think that's small residential impact on flooding. Proposed action may result in development of in a designated floodway. No. Proposed action may result in development within a 100redyear flood plane. No. 500year flood plane. No. Proposed action may result in or require modification of existing drainage patterns.

Jen, I'm going to turn to you as the border expert. I mean there how long is the road? How many what are how much area what's the area of disturbance? Is it it's not more than one or it is if it's more than one but less than five. That's why there is a soil. Yeah. So you could say yes and then modified it with the swift and controls. So that's a a moderate to large. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.

Not to small if there was a dam. No. Or small. Max. Uh other impacts. No. Impacts on air. The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. Uh so A uh I would say no to all of these.

B. The proposed action may generate 10 tons a year or more of any designated hazardous air pollutant. No. C. Proposed action may require a state air registration. No. Proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds A through C? No. Proposed action may result in the combustion of thermal or thermal treatment? No. Of northern atomic refues and F, other impacts? No. So, this is a no. Number seven, impacts on plants and animals. Proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species as listed by the New York state or federal government. This is a moderate because of the Appalachian shoing fern that was identified. It's on the endangered list New York State. So, we should check that as moderate to large and just seek information as to where that fern was actually located. And I believe it was

was it located it was located by in this their wetlands person but certainly our wetlands person and it was down in the fly area where there are no longer houses being built. Okay. But so could that be the mitigation that we're not building? Yeah. So, I think it's a yes. And then when we do the part three, we identify the mitigations. And a lot of these are being mitigated, Dan, by the fact that you're moving two houses that were down in in the VLY area. You're moving it, you're getting rid of one, and you move the other one up onto the plateau, which is away from the fly. Right.

And he expanded the the buffer area further uphill. Right. That's right. They expand about 100 ft. B. The proposed action may result in reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened um or endangered. That's also a moderate. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any species of special concern or conservation need. I think that's in moderate to launch. Also, the proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habit. I think that's a yes.

The next page E mean it's moderator lodge. You don't answer these yes or no. You're right. Answer the big question. Yes, yes or no. Thank you, Dave. Not a little larger. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered national natural landmark. There aren't any.

No. Or small. Proposed action may result in the removal of or ground disturbance in any portion of a designated significant natural community. No. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting, breeding, foraging, or overwintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy. Um, no. Um proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest grasslands. No proposed action commercial industrial recreational projects only. So that's a no. And J other impacts no impact. So this category is a yes. Number eight, impact on agricultural resources. Posed action may impact soil classified. Um, I would say no or small. Posed action may sever, cross, or otherwise limit access to agricultural land. No or small. Proposed action may result in excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land, no or small. Posed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land. No. Or small. Posed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. No. Or small. Proposed action may result directly or indirectly and increased development potential of pressure on farmland. No. Or small. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal farmland. No. Small. Other impacts? No. So this one is a none. Impact on aesthetic resources. A proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. No or small. Proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination, or

significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. No or small. Proposed action may be visible for publicly accessible vantage points. And there's two parts. seasonally. The second part is year round. No to both. Situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is two parts. Routine travel by residents, recreational or tourism based activities. No. On both of those proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of a designated aesthetic resource. There was no designated aesthetic resource. So there's no diminishment. F. there are similar projects. The answer to that is no. It gives different distances other impacts. No. So this one is number nine is a no. Impact on historic and archaeological resources. I don't believe Dave correct me if I'm wrong that we came up with any bits on that. So we're not going to go through each one. That's a no.

Same again. Number 11. impact on open space and recreation. Proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions or ecosystem services provided by an undeveloped area included but not limited to storm water storage, nutrient cycling and wildlife habitat. Um now we're small. I mean it's next to the bl so you can see then how the houses will move up. is 47 acres. Is that 47? It's 40 acres, three houses,

but what I mean is that um the ecosystem services piece. So you could say that uh you could mark this as yes or moderate or whatever and then say that you know the number of homes was reduced, one of them was moved up and they were there's no impact. Recognizing the project change recognize it and then okay so mounted it to launch and the conservation alien stuff. Yeah. And then that would be the mitigation. Yeah. Right. And that'll come up in the break where you said okay thank you. I think most of the answers to these to these yes answers are the mitigation. Right.

So Peter you're proposing that B through E are all audits or we should go through those? No I think we should go through. I'm just saying just a general.

Yep. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. No. Proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resources in area with very few such resources. No. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. No. Or small. Other impacts? No. So this is a yes impact on a CA. Let's go through this. Well, there aren't any. So that's a good

impact on transportation. I think we can all agree this is no. Impact on energy. I think we can also agree that this is a no.

Great. impact on noise, odor and light. Let's go through this because we did have cons uh letters from u neighbors about the light and that would be mitigated by dark sky and um adherence to dark sky. U proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established. No. Proposed action may result in blasting. No. Proposed action may result in routine odor. No. Proposed action may result in light shining onto a churning churning properties moderate to large.

No, we would have to have lights like right on the property line. The homes all meet the zoning setbacks. So all further from the property line would be zoning setbacks with dark sky. So there there's no impacting. You did agree that everything would be dark skies including what's allowed on the houses. Yeah, it's it's the standard note from from the project that is on the plan and it's and it's really not a mitigation. It's a it's a requirement and again this isn't there's no street lighting. There's no this is household lighting. So

So that's something Dan to note that would have to be in the HOA agreement. The people can't come in and change the lights increasing the amount of light dispersion. So, the applicant puts up a house and it's all dark sky and then somebody else decides, you know, I'm going to take a couple of flood lights and shine them all over my property for whatever reason. So, it has to be in the HOA agreement that that's not permitted. Okay. All right. So, that Yeah, just a question. You're not anticipating having to blast, correct? To No blasting. Okay. Beef code violation anyway, right? I don't Well, they need permits for it. For blasting? No. No, politicing.

Oh, yeah. It would be, but we want it in the HOA. So, you're correct that it's going to be in the HOA. Okay. So, number D is no or small. B. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky globe brighter than existing area conditions. No or small. With that caveat that that provision is in the HOA agreement. I'm sorry. Which one is that? It it has to do with dark skies has to be HO.

No lighting, outside lighting, anything other than what is dark sky compliant that has to be in the HO that are on the plan that all these notes as far as on the conservation restrictions and these notes will will be in there. So under lighting, there shall be no lighting installed along the roadway. All exterior lighting should be downward facing and dark compot. But those are on the plans that we'll be in. Okay. Normal. So this category number 15 would be no.

16. Impact on human health. A. The proposed action is located within 15 ft 1500 ft of a school. No. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. No. There is a complete emergency spill remediation. No. The site of the action is subject to institutional control limiting the use of the property. No proposed action may affect institutional no control measures. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and or disposal of hazardous waste. No. Proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. No. Proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. No. Proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal or processing of solid waste. No. Proposed action may result in excavation of relative disturbances within 2,000 ft of a site used for disposal of solid or hazardous waste. No. Proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from landfill. No. Proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leech. No. Other impacts? No. Everybody okay with this? And number 17, consistency with community plans. The proposed actions land use components may be different from or in sharp contrast to surrounding land use patterns. No or small. Proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located grow by more than 5%. No. Supposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning? No. Action is inconsistent with any county plans? No. Proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing

infrastructure. No. Proposed action is located in an area characterized by lowdensity development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. No. Uh the proposed action may induce secondary development impacts that is residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action. No or small. So would everybody agree that this is a no?

Consistency with community character. 18 and last. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facility structures or areas of historic importance. No. Proposed action may create a demand for additional community services. No. Proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing. No proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially designated recognized or designated public resources. No proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character of the area. No. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. No. Everybody agree this is a no. Agreed. Okay. So, $64 question. Um Dave, we have um three of them here.

Bunch of yeses. Thank you. Oh, um three days. Oh, you're talking about three days. I thought we No, I was going to say this morning. So, we have some free Dave.

You Dave. Okay. Um we have some yeses here. My belief is that they've been mitigated. That would be in the part three. We don't have a part three tonight for the board to take a look at. Um we have an open public hearing. We've done the first walk through of the determination of significance. Our next step is you got to get part three and then you can do the negative declaration if you're so inclined. Okay. Based on that documentation.

All right. So that is going to take you to put together the part three. Yeah. I'll have to uh break it up as a draft. Okay. For the next meeting. Is that Well, if that's when you want it, then we'll go for that. So, we need the part three. We all know that or we all believe that these things have been mitigated, but or avoided by them

or avoided, but we need to develop the part three, which we don't have for tonight. So this will have to slip until the next meeting and Dave will need to prepare the part three and a resolution and the resolution. Are you pointing your head? You'll be able to do the resolution by the next meeting. Resolution of approval or resolution of next day deck deck. Yeah, thanks. Dan, you had a question.

Yeah, I was just, you know, this is an unlisted action. Um, so I realized that a full EF was submitted. I mean, technically it was not required. Um, but we did one anyway and you went through it and you went through it exhaustively. I mean, can we just have an understanding of what you know the part you could not you you couldn't verbalize a part three tonight or do you need to work on that?

Um, you know, to memorial to and then have it memorialize um for the next meeting so that we know what it's going to say. Um, you can also it's an unlisted action. It's not a type one. So you you can do a conditional negative declaration if you wanted to do that. But I mean if you know we we just want to leave tonight with an understanding that you know this is what the party's going to say. And I think what we are hearing tonight is that everything that's been identified um as potentially moderate to lots um is um has been mitigated or avoided really avoided by redesigning the project and moving it away from the environmentally sensitive areas. We did all that and the conservation easements which we've offered which you know a a three lot subdivision with all of those you know concessions made. I just don't see why this should be such a big to-do I would like I would I mean is there any way this could be done tonight? So I understand what you're saying,

right? There's nobody I think this board has been at this along with the applicant and and through two and a half years, right? And it took us a while to finally have a breakthrough a few months ago when you agreed to eliminate one lot and move the other lot up top away from the line. Okay.

So that was great. Um and we have to follow what the various rules and regulations say particularly around seeker because that's fairly easy. It would be fairly easy for somebody to challenge our decision on seeker if we were to what I'm hearing not skip a step but do not complete a step so skip a step the appropriate way of doing a step um and that being found to be erroneous just by pro by virtue of the process not being followed having said that I don't have JD after my name so you do what's your reaction to what uh Mr. Liry is uh Mr. Liry is proposing.

Honestly, I'm not sure what your what your um what your idea is, but before we discuss it in more detail, we we should. Can you can you just um confirm for me how many of the overall categories were checked? Yes.

Okay. You got five out of 10 categories checked. Yes. Five out of 18 check. Yes. Um so this is not this is not a trivial thing. Um the board has done a fair amount of work. The applicant has done a fair amount of work. Um so and the basic seeker procedure is to go through but I'm not I go back a number of decades with seeker. I've been doing secret type of work in the environment for 35 years. I am not um tied to the particular forms. I think there's sometimes too much feel to the forms, but that is what we're doing. We're going along to the procedure.

I don't know of anything other than writing up a part three, okay, in response to part two. So, if you can explain it to me also to the extent you suggested a C and D, that has even more

we're actually considering that another project that has more formal procedures that would require it essentially drafting a CND and then putting it up for um public comment period hearing that. So, I'm not sure where to go with that. But the bottom line is if we've got a part two on a on a project that was somewhat um of concern and now has we've had a number of discussions within a progress with it. We need to write up essentially what the result of that is. That seems like a normal and standard thing to do and it's also consistent to DEEC procedures. So, I don't frankly understand.

No, look, I I I agree with what you're saying. I mean, it should be written out. What I what I was saying was I would want clarity when I leave tonight. what what some sense of what that's gonna say you heard the disc I mean you've heard the oral discussion at some point there will be a written document uh that we will then have I mean this is going to be a form the ne deck here become it is a neck was there's a formal determination of the board you're fully aware of that right

the process here is to do a part three take a good hard look at it literally write it up so that will be able that way the applicant the public everybody will know what happened with those project that be do I don't know what the shortcut is, but I'm fairly confident the CND wouldn't get us there and he we're under an basically an injunction to write a write up part three because we have five questions with sub questions that we that are subject have to deal with. Could I ask the board something before Dan answers that? Um, does the board agree that the five items have been mitigated or avoided?

I think they've largely been avoided and mitigation, but I'd like to see, you know, the certain things like the erosion control um and uh and the conservation considerations. um in writing maybe

I would also point out to the applicant that the writing of the evaluation of the environmental um issues and the mitigation will and could inform the statement of conditions that would be necessary on the ultimate approval and you know we say this is being m this is this is not significant evidence by middle because of x y and z that becomes essentially x y and z become candidates for conditions of approval. Right. Okay. So, when can we expect part three? By next meeting by the 13th. Well, I mean is what?

We have to do at least a week before that, right? For the board eventually. It's up to the board. I'd like it a week ahead of time for the board and anybody from the public. Yeah. Do you believe that's doable, David? Uh, let me just list the things that I'm aware of that it sounds straightforward. You've got the Lewis decision for the 13th. Who's uh the board member repping this project? The lead me. You um do you need help with it?

I just needed a reviewer before we shared the part three. I'll review it. There you go. Jen is and a lot of what we talked about is erosion control and water related and Jen that's your the 13. So why don't we make that I don't think I'll take you that long to look over it. I think it's pretty straightforward. Just capturing everything and putting it all together. Yeah, it sounds straightforward. Depends on how much more happens. Okay. So that it's a simple document.

Our original EAF was submitted um December 2023, but with the revised plan um we updated and revised the EAF on December uh 2025. So um it was revised at that point for the three lots. And so, you know, if you need you don't have that current version or something, just let me know. You mean the part one? Maybe part one. Correct. And that was that was loaded up to maybe clip. Yes. So, yes. All right. So, to answer your question,

the uh the the volunteers uh I don't know what Easter does for people with school children, etc. Is everybody around? I have no kids around. Well, I'm speaking for my only myself. I'm asking a question about the volunteers. I'll be out of town returning next Monday. Okay. So, I will get it Tuesday. Okay. I'll distribute something by Tuesday. Okay. Two Tuesdays. That's fair enough. A week from tomorrow. Right. So, our plan is to get it on to the meeting of the 13th. Okay. Thank you.

I and I asked a question to the board that does anybody see anything here at face value that hasn't been mitigated? I don't. And if you recall, I'm I was the one pushing and pushing. Uh but there's six other people on the board and they need to be satisfied that everything's been mitigated because they were very very involved in getting this thing to the state that it is. I think mitigated but as Dave said conditioned you know it's so the part three for the 13th and then for the 27th we would have the decision we would hopefully have the decision. All right, great. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. All right. Um, I just had one other question. As you did with the RMA, if you have a sample of an HOA that you previously approved, just not that it's going to be a ditto of what we're doing, but just as some feel for the language that you've accepted before. Uh, yeah, if you have that. I know I know I know at least one of the samples that you sent to me for the RMA was an HOA as well. I think the chair signal that that was not going to be an input into the um declaration of significance. So no what what I'm saying is for the condition. Are you still okay with like I don't want to come to a meeting and say

I didn't get you the HOA. I think it can be a condition. Are we in all agreement? Okay. So hang on. Yeah. I'm okay that the review of the RMA that Dave will start tomorrow. Right. the review of the HOA and we don't have it yet, right? And the business with the site plan uh bonding document

all of the delivering that to the board uh as long as the board we've agreed to it before can be a condition of approval and at that point I'll honcho it with Dave and Dave and make sure it's appropriate. I'll get it before the town board and then alert the board, this board, that everything's appropriate and I'm going to be signing the map as a result of everything being approved. Just to be clear, does that answer your question? Yeah.

Okay. Okay. If you're good, then that's fine. But what what the chair was saying was that essentially the um the NE declaration of significance would come under consideration, I think it was on the 13th, right? and the uh ultimate subdivision approval would be considered I guess at the end of the month two weeks later right so what you're talking about is actually more the condition of approval quote unquote is not related to the seeker determination more related to I totally get that I understand I was just talking because these issues were identified and and raised at the beginning of this meeting that you still don't have these things so I needed clarity as to them And I was the one who said I don't think you need them for the negative declaration. So I agree. I agree. Right. Okay. Thank you.

We're good. Thank you. If you need any of the reassurances, you know, have my number. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening. Um, you know, just and looking at the Verizon is Thank We're going to get to Verizon in a second. We'll take a break also. I forgot to get escrow for him. Okay, I can email Bill, but if you guys can do the potion that hurt. So, let me come back to that before I lose my other train. Come back to it.

So, tonight I was kind of anticipating that we might be here with a a lot more work to do, paperwork, important paperwork for seeker. So, we talked periodically about doing the seeking process, what we just did tonight, a lot earlier in the application process. And I don't know what that means other than we're at the tail end. Maybe I should have pushed this up couple of months to get it done. We did it in the sense informally in the sense that we identified all the environmental problems and we were asking for mitigation. If we did it under seeker under the part two, we'd have the force of the part two to say these are the uh things that need to be mitigated. How are you going to mitigate it? We sort of done did it because that's the way we've always been doing things. We got a whole bunch of stuff. We'll mitigate it and yeah, we'll be fine. But I think we saw it tonight that had we not done all of that, we would have been kind of stuck or we could have moved it along much more quickly in the sense our process of insisting that things be done differently on this project. We could have gotten there maybe a year ago to force maybe to force the kind of mitigation that we finally got done. So I don't know what anybody thinks of that we knew a year ago. I don't think we knew there's many changes.

Yeah, there's a resistance in regards the entire downside of you know what what they're concerned about is basically two weeks. In other words, they wanted they wanted us to consider the declaration of significance tonight. Instead, we went through the part two and we really only need to part three which we'll consider in two weeks. It's in the scheme of things. What you're suggesting is to is to instead of just jumping in using our judgment to craft what the mitigation should be in the environmental analyses, we go through the part two to do that,

right? And that and the but the advantage being not that we have a better product, but that rather we at least get the part two out of the way so that when we get done we're prepared to jump to a part three. Um I suppose you it in some ways it would be give us two weeks more efficiency but um this is actually more deliberate put our um we put our judgment into this and then at the end we go through the part two it's

I think it's more than an initial two weeks it took us Peter's right it took us years to get to agreement to get rid of one of those lines big change I mean but we could have accomplished that by doing the secret Okay. I think I think the board is aware of the the issues in general as they but maybe not. But if you need the secret part two to prompt you as to what the uh issues of concern might be overall then yeah then

well not only not only us we knew where they were but to convince the applicant that this wasn't going anywhere uh until they answered those things. As I said before, I'm not I don't if the applicant isn't convinced that, for example, that that it's going to cause problems because there's a runoff issue or a wetlands issue or something issue just by verbally than you think that the existence of it in the part two is more convincing than you're right. But I I think at this point most sophisticated practitioners know that if if the board is expressing an environmental problem for which there's not an immediate solution like for instance because there's you know um houses down in the in the um either way

but we spent a year and a half we have that. So I hear you part two will help co Okay. Yeah. Did Peter do you have escrow? We didn't do it for Hemlock and then Stacia reminded me we didn't do uh additional escrow for hemlock which we might need given some of the complexity. So I'm going to recommend um that we ask for another 350. I think we got 150. We don't have any yet new application. That's right. It's a new application. So I'm going to recommend this is a new application. I'm going to recommend $500 in escrow. I need a motion. I'll make that motion. Peter second. Dave Robertson. All in favor? And we can notify Bill and

I'll email Bill. Thank you. Okay, let's take a break and Verizon, we'll get into another hearing of Verizon in 10 minutes. You have the force of that say

I'm worried about the weapon and we enjoy and they could take the school as far as he would have done most you know what because my DNA is not worried about my DNA part of whatever it is on the forms are not superfluous but just upset Dan are going to be more moved by saying here something I don't know where you sign it. You just said you have to sign it.

I know. Um I don't know. I have to look at an old one. My name planning board.

I signed in two places so we couldn't be wrong. That's right. Wait, what do I do here? I just put my name. Yeah.

And I heard him along as a hypothesis. something a simple man. I'm assuming he's got it's a funny

I think it's a receptive I think everybody I think it's clearly page if I have you go I don't I think it's an effect two in a row.

Yeah. So if you disagree, it is what it is.

I don't even like this.

I find section of codes confusing, but uh from anyway. It seems to me like issues suspicion so they wanted him to go through a full Well, that's the original

from a practical matter. It's so much to do about if you're suspicious about what he's about to do. Yeah. It's just I assume he just wants to sell the law. He's not going to sell it himself. I've never met the guy. He's going to sell for

he's really a I with you completely. I don't understand why you just sign it didn't decide weeks ago. I'll just file for a subdivision. Yeah. Okay. They would have it would have required all those notes, right?

I don't know. Maybe maybe it would have cost him a couple thousand. I don't really understand it. That's what he told us on outside and it was completely painful discussion. It was

it was the hour and a half procedure of argument over the date of the week which triggers the 60. He's talking about No, no, I'm not. We're just jawbone about why he did why he doesn't accept the fact he wouldn't do anything. And on the side, well, I'll tell you what. I don't know why he said because it would cost him. That's what he That's what he calls that son. I'll tell you what. Right.

Even for a while I don't believe now that I'm understanding this concern is basic of not just these violence but also what's on the actual subdivision. We don't have the authority. But that's all in so on what to call it a racist. No. Is that correct? Correct.

I mean, if I'm going to carry them over emphasis, they still stay, right? because they were part of the previous

I don't think I don't think too maybe not well you have to go back to the old maybe didn't want to show. Maybe he's got for all we know money and and his he's got a problem. There's something we have the authority to a law firm that does not car. Okay, let's come back to

you for me because I need everybody to I jumping on that terrible throw away. No, I'm going to see I don't relish action. I think it's fairly minor. Thank you. Okay. Um, so thank you. All right. So this is the u next item on the agenda is

is the public hearing for Verizon and I don't think we I need to give this group the rules of the of the road again. Um, I'd like to keep the presentations to under seven minutes, five or seven minutes. If somebody has um a little bit more than that, I'll certainly um understand and allow it. But we have and we also have after the edit hearing um we'll be uh the board will be discussing Verizon for quite some time uh just to wrap up the draft um part three and also the resolution uh with determination of significance the public hearing will uh not be closed tonight it'll continue um as I had said previously ly to the 13th uh the next meeting. Uh and so we won't be doing the determination of significance tonight. We'll leave that for the hopefully we can get that done on the 13th. And u so let's get started. Um first on the list is Larry. Larry Freriedman.

Thank you Mr. Chair. like to speak for a few minutes about uh Matt Allen's conflict of interest. Um you've seen in the letters that we've received over the last week from the public regarding that conflict of interest that the public has absolutely no confidence in the notion that Mr. Allen is an independent expert given his long-standing and extensive history of working with Verizon both directly and indirectly to help approval of cell tower applications throughout. Excuse me. Barry, are you going to submit your writing board to Thank you. Let me start over.

You've seen in the letters you've received from the public over the past week regarding Matt Allen's conflict of interest that the public has absolutely no confidence in the notion that Mr. Allen is an independent expert given his long-standing and extensive history of working with Verizon both directly and indirectly to help it win approval for cell tower applications throughout New York State and Connecticut. As we as you know, we've established that Mr. Allen worked directly with Verizon between 2018 and 2021 to help it win approval for two cell tower applications in Bedford, New York. And we've also established that according to the CV Mr. Allen submitted in another matter, he has worked indirectly with Verizon to help it win approval for cell tower applications in New York State and Connecticut more than 70 times. Nonetheless, in your draft decision rejecting our request that Mr. Allen be disqualified and his opinions be disregarded. And for those who haven't seen it, that draft decision is set out in the resolution that you posted to Munich Lab for the first time yesterday, Sunday. In that draft decision, you contemplate that the board will conclude that the fact that Mr. Allen has worked for Verizon both directly and indirectly does not detract from his independence to work for this board in evaluating Verizon's application here and does not create an undue risk of bias or an appearance of impropriety. Given the facts here, members of the board, that conclusion is not credible. Indeed, it is dead wrong. And I will tell you exactly why. If Mr. Allen's long-standing and extensive work with with Verizon does not detract from his ability to serve as the independent expert for the board. Why then, Mr. Chair, did you ask Mr.

Allen, as you've told the public repeatedly, why did you ask him before hiring him whether he had ever done visual resource related consulting work with Verizon? The fact that you asked this question demonstrates the importance generally and to you that if Mr. Allen told you he had previously worked for Verizon, which we've now proving he has, that would create an undue risk that he would not be independent in advising the board. And at a minimum, his engagement by the board would create an appearance of implied otherwise, Mr. Chair, you would not have asked him that question. And the fact that you have told the public that you took comfort in the fact that Mr. Allen told you he had not previously worked for Verizon also underscores your appreciation of the importance of that fact if it were true. And it's turned out through our hard work going through uh as much information as we could dig out that it is true. So because you asked this question of Mr. Allen because you reported his answer to the public and because you took comfort in his answer that he had not worked with Verizon previously. Now that we've shown that Mr. Allen misled you and he does have a long history of working with Verizon. The board cannot credibly turn around now and say that his prior work for Verizon somehow is not important or does not detract does not detract from his ability to act as an independent expert. Otherwise, you would not have asked him about that and reported his answer to the board and the public as you did. The same is true from Mr. Allen's perspective. Why did he mislead you and

tell you that he had not previously worked for Verizon when that is untrue? The fact that he misled you, that he had not done any prior work for Verizon, unders underscores that he recognized the importance of saying that he didn't do any work for Verizon if he wanted to be hired by the planning board. He needed to say that he hadn't worked for Verizon so that he would not be seen as biased as a result of that work. Otherwise, he would not have misled you and would not have would have had no incentive to mislead you. So once again, the fact that Mr. Allen misled you and did not tell you the truth about his prior work for Verizon means that neither he nor Verizon can incredibly turn around now and say the fact that he did do work with Verizon on so many matters and so extensively for such a long period of time indeed at the same time that he was working for you. They can't turn around now and say it's not important and they can't say that the fact that Mr. Allen did have this does have this extensive relationship with Verizon does not detract from his independence and does not create an appearance of impropriy. So in both directions, Mr. Chair, the fact that you asked this question, took comfort in the answer and reported it to the board and to the public and the fact that Mr. Allen recognized the importance of the question and giving you the answer that would result in your hiring. Both of those facts in both directions prevent the board, prevent Verizon, prevent Mr. Allen from now turning around and saying this will not detract from his independence because otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question if it wasn't important and he wouldn't have misled you if the truth were not important. So, at bottom, if the board decides to accept the draft rejection of our

request that's reflected in the resolution that was posted yesterday, at bottom, the board's rationale for rejecting our request that the board end its relationship with Mr. Allen and disregard his opinions just does not align with the facts and does not make sense. I therefore repeat that we respectfully request that the board grant our request and engage a new visual resource consultant who is genuinely independent of Verizon who will not create an appearance of impropriy and that the board rely on that consultant's advice to assisted with its secret analysis. Thank you.

Thank you, Larry. the you can sit. So I need to um I guess quote correct the record or inquire as to the uh my previous statements. Um, I believe I said and I could have misspoke, but I will relate again what I thought I've said in the past and I'll relate it again. When Mr. Allen when I approached Mr. Allen, it was in January of last year. And by the way, some of these this information is dates is unclear to me because I no longer have access to my emails that would represent um my discussions some of my discussions with him. I have no emails um from the planning board before December 5th of last year. The reasons for that are interesting and I'll simply say that the emails were prloined by somebody. The word prloine means taken. Um so but my recollection of what Mr. and I spoke about back in January of last year and what I said publicly three weeks ago or maybe it was five weeks ago at one or more meetings was I asked Mr. Allen um exactly the following. Do you now work for Verizon? and he answered yes rather he answered no I have worked for Verizon and I worked for them and finished that work for them in 2019

I did not and he told me he was not working for Verizon at uh the time that I spoke to him in January he also told me I believe I related that to this board he also told me that he works with a company called Homeland Towers, a third party that does work with carriers across the Northeast. And admittedly, um, you know, apparently Homeland does 85% of their work with Verizon and the rest of it. Um, I don't know that for a fact, but um, and he didn't tell me that. But in any case, what he did tell me, whatever work he does for Verizon, uh, he does through Homeland Towers. I did not ask him, was he doing any work at that point in time with Homeland uh, Towers to my recollection, I didn't ask him. Um and the reason I didn't ask him was probably because I didn't think it was important um that fact would be important. What was important was he working directly for Verizon at that time. And that was about the summon substance of what I believe I asked him back in January February. Uh and I believe if anybody from this board remembers something different, I'd love to hear it. Um, and I don't have my emails to be able to confirm um, what was said between myself and Mr. Allen. I can't even tell you if the emails existed. My recollection is that I documented it and I would have done that on email. So, I want to repeat I asked him specifically, are you doing Ryzen at this moment? because I wouldn't consider that to be very important in our consideration of whether or not to hire

him. And he said no. And he told me when he finished and he worked directly with Verizon and he said 2019. Now from the statement just made I heard 2021. I don't think that's borne out by Mr. Bur's letter that the board received. Sit down. Sit down. Sit down. Don't interrupt me.

Um, I don't believe that's borne out by Mr. Berg's letter, but you know, that can certainly be checked tonight by somebody in the complaint written by Mr. Olsson's client, Verizon, that Mr. Berg submitted with his letter, Horizon itself, they sued the town of Bedford for denying the application. Right. And in their description of the chronology of Mr. Allen's work for them, it says that he did that from 2018 to 2021. Okay. Thank you, Larry. Sit down. If I may. No, no, we're not getting into debates. Larry, there's a lot of misinformation. So,

well, I'm going to let you, but not now. We're not going to go back and forth.

Larry and the rest of the public, I don't intend to be interrupted by any of you when I'm talking. Don't do it again. I'm serious. I do not interrupt anybody and I'm letting you speak in excess many times of the amount of time that I've told everybody else, which is seven minutes. That's because I have a great deal of respect for this group. Um, period. But don't interrupt anybody from this board again. I expect courteous behavior on the part of everybody, including the board towards you. Um, okay. The next person on the agenda uh to speak is Ira St. And oh, by the way, if you don't mind, before you start, perhaps at some time we're going to be putting people on a stand uh in court. And at that time, what I just told you, I will repeat again without any compunction. And I certainly think that that's exactly what I said in this uh to this board at some time either three weeks ago or five weeks ago. If I didn't, perhaps it was the late hour, whatever. I have no desire or reason to make stuff up. And I attempted to get everything correct in terms of my memory and exactly what I remember the conversation. And unfortunately, I don't have the emails. Now, I'd be happy to tell anybody in here in here who has the emails for you to go get a court order to divulge those emails, but it's not anybody in the town. It's not me. It's somebody who, as I said, prloined those letters or those emails. And not just from the planning board for for the entire town. The emails have are not available before December 5th. So, um that's my recollection. And again, if

the board um remembers me saying anything else, I' I'd love to know. But uh that's my recollection. Okay, enough with that. Ira, um you're next up. based on your introduction before we started um that you're not going to consider the resolution tonight. I'm sorry. I didn't just based on what you started the meeting with by saying that you're not going to consider or vote on the um the CND. That's correct. I'll pass. Okay. Yeah. If you change your mind, we'll be here. Wait. Um, Franny Herz.

So, I'm trying not to repeat myself, but part of me feels like I'm not being heard. So, if I repeat myself, um, so be it. I'm urging you at the very least imploring you to please declare a positive declaration and require Verizon to conduct an environmental impact state. Given the 22 conditions and mitigations you are asking Verizon to include it is obvious that this tarot will have a significant adverse effect on all the issues we've all been raising for the last eight nine months whatever it's been feels like an eternity. It's gut-wrenching for all of us. Um, clearly on some level you agree with the court of public opinion, people that are here that have waited all night to be here, the people who have signed petitions today, yesterday, like in no time. Um, so if you didn't agree with the court of public opinion, you wouldn't have these 22 mitigations and conditions that again, this I know I've said, but I really do these mitigations actually work. What's the proof? What's the data? Um, do they work? Do they solve the problems? Or do they exacerbate the problems? Because I feel like a lot of them exacerbate the problems and make it worse. And I I don't need to explain that to you guys because you're all really smart and I know you know what I'm talking about. And I just want to say we all went to the zoning board meeting. This has really been great. This has been a great use of our time. So, we went to the zoning board meeting and the applicant referenced the amount of investment by Verizon for the tower. And I just want to remind you guys, and I'm sure I don't need to, um, the tireless investment we, your concerned neighbors, how much time we've put into this, and also how much time you guys have put into it. So, it's not like I don't have

any sympathy for Verizon's amount of investment because of the investment we've all put in. And if we did the math, it would be a lot greater what all of us have done to fight this tower. Also, at the zoning board meeting, the applicant argued there's a need. I know the need is like whatever hard to prove. It's, you know, everybody has their own opinion about need, but there's still no proof provided except that Verizon's convoluted and corporate interests, which by the way, Verizon's personal interest has been discussed by the applicants specifically. It's not the other carriers, right? So, the need is very specific to Verizon. It has nothing to do with the people in this community. None of who want this power. and it's been it's been embitted by the applicant. I I I didn't come up with that. Um so an actual need's never been proven, especially considering the location on Granite Road in the middle of a neighborhood and in our iconic viewshed, a site that was randomly chosen by the applicant through the process of elimination. As you guys remember, 15 people were commuted properties were approached and this was the one that it could happen on. It wasn't like they were like, "Oh, we need to put a tower right here in the middle of this neighborhood, next to these houses, and next to this low-income apartment building because this is the important spot." It was the only one that was able to be approved because three said yes, two weren't allowed because of our zoning, and this was the one. So the need thing is really questionable. So I really I I just implore you to declare a positive declaration. Make them do an environment. Thank you.

Thank you. Michelle Herz.

This has actually been going on for over a year and it's um it's pretty bad pretty bad for all of us. Um, and I just want to point out an observation. Historically, the telecommunications industry and Verizon have blurred the line between lies and the true dangers of cell tower radio frequency microwaves. This is filtered down through all levels of government, including through this planning board. And that I find to be very sad. Then the lies, the lies are the lies and the truth is the truth. And Verizon is has now unveiled their threats and they're threatening to sue. I I heard it at the zoning board and I'm sure you're hearing it. So that is one observation. I also want to raise another point. The zoning board asked that that Verizon state the proposed site so that they could see where this thing is going to be on the property because it seems to change. When the balloon test was done, it was one place. Then Matt Allen took those photographs and tampered with them and put the cell tower behind trees. So, it's really hard to know where this thing is supposed to be. So, I'd like to know if anyone who knows when Verizon's going to do that and if they're going to do that. It's a question. We don't have to answer it now. I don't know who to ask, but I'd like to know one, is it going to be done? Two, when it will be done, and three, will it will it be done with posts that are clear and bright enough so that the neighbors can see it without trespassing?

And the other things that the other thing I want to mention is if someone one were to come before this planning board and want to build a small industrial facility in front of your homes that is known to have emissions. How would you feel about that? These emissions, let's just say it's engine exhaust, constant 24/7 engine exhaust blasting out. I don't think you would like it. I don't think you think it would be good for your property values. Well, just to let you know that radio frequency in the microwave range is a class 2B carcinogen in the same category as engine exhaust. So, you see how this will affect the neighbors that live near it. They will not be able to sell their homes. Verizon's gobbledygook about real estate was gobbledegook. It it wasn't. You even mentioned chairman said I need a degree from MIT to understand this. Well, the fact is it's not understandable and some of the cell towers that they used were never even built to compare to compare real estate values. Some of them was never even built and they said they were or whatever. So, um please please this cell tower is in bad place and it's going to be reflect on all of

you if you let it happen. Thank you.

Yeah, Julia Walsh. Um, you can hide in just extemporaneously speak a little bit following some of the other people. I mean, I heard the same thing as far as uh Verizon and putting $60,000 in the escrow. And I mean, they are a multi-billion dollar company. They're not our good neighbor uh who should be given any kind of leeway in the situation. Um, I went to the zoning board meeting as well and it's like there's just feels like there's this game of semantics going on as far as the height, what they could get the height later, the different carriers, and also the overlapping zones. I do have a lot of concerns about the need and the reports that, you know, Larry and Michelle paid for out of their own money because they're concerned about both their own health, I'm sure, but also like our community because they could just leave. And I think a lot of people in the neighborhood will leave because they don't want to live underneath a massive cell tower. um including you know these people that live literally 150 ft away who can't even come and speak because they're concerned that the landlord who is basically the one you know who is allowing this who's never showed up here once and I don't even think lives in this area um you know they're concerned that they'll be thrown out of their will lose their house um if

they speak out against it so there is a very real concern and you know I Some of you would agree potentially that there are some public health impacts that could be of um concern with I mean it's just kind of common sense that some people wouldn't want to live right next to a cell tower like that. Um and I know that you can't legally uh deny the project based on that but there are grounds that you can deny the project legally on. Um, and so just once again, I mean, there's been multiple towns, including Woodstock, who've denied cell towers and it's held up in court. So I don't understand why that can't happen here. Um, and so just ask again for you guys to look at the legal grounds for this, including our code and our community character. um which you know is we do live in a very special scenic region where the uh scenic byway and different our viewshed is actually worth a lot of money. You know there's some communities that's not the case. Um but it definitely is here. I mean we have a worldclass viewed. So, uh, I wanted to, um, to submit this, um, petition that over 100 people have signed so far and still going. So, I'm sure there'll be a couple hundred more. Um, mostly people from the town of Rochester and then also neighbors, visitors. So, I'll just read the petition language. Uh, the chat to the chairperson and the members of the town of Rochester planning board. We the underside, residents, business owners, neighbors, and visitors ask that you require a full environmental impact statement concerning the proposed Verizon cell tower in Brett Road in Akward. After many months of reviewing the project, it appears that building a

massive 14-story industrial cell tower in a residential neighborhood will have significant adverse impacts on our environment, property values, and community character, as well as our worldrenowned scenic viewed along the Shawong Mountain Scene byway quarter on Route 209 and Route 4455, which includes the views of the Shalong Bridge and Cascal Mountains. The information that you have been provided by hundreds of local residents who have signed petitions, submitted letters, attended and spoken in public hearings is more than submission to meet the threshold under New York state law to require full EIS that will consider the impacts via environment and the community under the state environmental quality review act. That study will analyze in depth with independent experts how this proposed tower will impact the environment, wildlife, plants, the senior view shed that powers our local tourist economy, which brings over half a million visitors to our region. Each year the state park visits alone, and the community character of the town that makes it a place where we love to live and many of us raise our children. Please vote yes on a positive secret declaration that will require a full environmental impact statement to the planning board to take into consideration before you make a final decision to reject or approve this cell tower. I'll just submit that and make it as well. Thank you. Um Toby Toby Stova,

good evening. Thank you again for your service. Please bear with me as I read my statement so I don't forget anything. Many years ago, I was involved in a movement to stop fracking in New York State. Julie and I, a lot of us involved in many people in this room. No one wanted to live near an area that was fracked because of probable pollution of groundwater with fracking gas and chemicals. We prevailed and we are relieved that a ban was created in New York. Imagine how this community would feel if there were a proposal to build a nuclear power plant in our neighborhood. Residents would be rightfully concerned. Now imagine a scenario in this case that a town board would be prohibited to rule against such a proposal based on health concerns which is what is happening here. We would all be outraged that such a gag order could possibly exist when it comes to the health and well-being of people and or life. Yet here we are today in the town of Rochester looking at a proposal for a giant electromagnetic radiating tower and somehow the telecommunications industry has obtained the power to block any decisions against it based on concerns. Even more ludicrous is a policy that can look at potential harm to wildlife yet not consider human harm

as if we are impervious to these hazards. Yet everybody in this room is not impervious to these hazards and we know that this is radiation. Even so, the people of this town have given the planning board plenty of reasons other than health to deny this application. So, I'm going to give you those reasons right now. Concerning the environment, at the last meeting, Michelle Bertz read an impressive list of birds cited at the proposed site. It is clear that there would be significant negative impact on the wildlife in our area. Yet, the board has been relying on Verizon's false claims that its mega cell tower will not have any adverse environmental impacts. Two, concerning the viewshed, Matt Allen of South Associates was hired by the board as its viewshed expert. Yet, Mr. Allen has worked for cell companies, including Verizon, and I do agree very much with what Larry said here. This is clearly a conflict of interest. Could this spot be why Allen only used Verizon's terrible photos of their balloon test? Then Mr. Allen claimed that there would be no adverse environmental impacts if this cell tower were to be built in the middle of our community within one of the most beautiful viewsheds in New York State. Allan should have been properly vetted before he was hired by the town, but

apparently he was not. Based on photos submitted by residents, our photos, it is obvious that the tower would pierce the protected fuched. The planning board must reject Mr. Allen's findings. concerning property values. Clearly, having a mega cell tower built right in the midst of our ecolic landscape near our homes is a real threat to property. I have spoken to many nearby property owners who are quite concerned about this and are already thinking of moving elsewhere. Why should Verizon profit at our expense? Concerning the character of our community, we reside here because we enjoy the lifestyle of living in harmony with our natural surroundings. Everybody here in this room, I'm sure, that's why we're not living in the south. A mega cell tower is an attack on the peace and beauty that sustains us. For months, you have heard from community members loud and clear. Nobody wants this cell tower except Verizon. Concerning the need for another tower, clearly we do not need another tower within a 5 mile radius. Let's tell the truth about this. Verizon has a need to profit and is competing with other providers in our area while trying to convince us that we are the ones who need this and we don't need it.

We must not be bullied and cave to them for fear of being sued. And that's what it looks like because we've given you so many reasons. Therefore, since the board cannot rule on the health concerns of the community, the planning board has been alerted to plenty of other red flags and should flat out deny this application. At the very least, the board should require an environmental impact statement, which means the board should issue a positive declaration in its SRA part three findings. The radiation from 5G 4G cell towers can travel more than 10 miles. There are already three cell towers within a 5m radius of the closed site. People living near cell towers are getting sick and people are fighting them across the country for that and other reasons. So again, here are the other reasons. The tower would harm wildlife, adversely affect the neighborhood, destroy our community's character, lower property values, and last but not least, nobody wants or needs this cell tower. Let's do the right thing and reject this application. Thank you. Thank you. Um Jeremy, members of the board, Mr. Chairman, I envy I don't envy any of your positions there. I don't think I really

want to trade places with any of you. Thank you for all you're doing. Um, I sent a letter in. I'm not sure if you folks have had time to read it or uh if it's in your lexicon to, but I I'm not going to go through that here, but I I would say give it a give it a read. There might be a couple things in there that uh make sense to you. I'm just going to kind of riff here for a second, and I'll try to keep it focused and not go too too long on a little clock. Um, as far as uh, you know, Mr. Allen goes and and and and also Mr. Fishman, it seems like both of those two folks have been shown to have uh, let's just call it a bit of an industry uh, empathy, right? So, I don't know if that is disappointing to hear. Maybe you didn't know anything about that. Maybe this is news. I'm just, you know, I would be interested to know if it would be something that would actually necessarily disqualify their opinion on anything or if it's just kind of, oh well, mistakes happen. Who cares? They still, you know, 2 plus two is still four. Even if they, you know, have a particular uh opinion, particular background, something like that of a conflict of interest. Um, just it seems it seems seems pretty obvious. Um, as far as the need goes, uh, there's been really no demonstration of need because according to Verizon's council, they don't have to show you dropped call log or missed call logs. They don't have to do any of that. So, they're not going to. So, that's interesting. So, there's no there's really no need. We really don't have a need other than if we rely on the testimony of I think it was Mr. Fishman or uh or his his opinion, which is that everything is groovy. Um, so those two things are kind of

interesting. They kind of go together, but aside from that, we really have no tangible, you know, nothing nothing we can sink our teeth into terms of needs other than some sort of hearsay about, well, those maps are no good, but look at our maps. Our maps are great. Um you know uh at the ZBA meeting there was some discussion of um future uh additions to a tower regarding the issue of like collocation and well if some other and I'm far from an expert on this so um perhaps this is is is just nonsense but follow me for a moment. Seems like from what I gathered if the tower was erected and then a few years later regarding collocation if another carrier wants to put it in but the tower's not big enough then there's going to be certain laws that are going to say well you know we got to make it a little bigger it's not our fault it's the collocation blah so I think there's a slippery slope here I mentioned that a little bit in my letter but I would urge the board to look into that and find out what's going down in the future find out how it looks because you can bet Verizon knows they probably wrote the law. They're probably involved in the legislation. So, you can be sure that they're Verizon's very clear on how things are going to look 25 years from now because they clearly have advanced technology far beyond 5G or 7G or 8G. They're they know exactly what's coming down the line. So, we're the only ones here who don't kind of see the big picture. Verizon certainly does. Um, if this tower is put in at 145 ft or whatever, maybe it's a 120 ft or whatever it may be. Um, I would be willing to bet that there would be language in there which would allow an an improvement to be made or an addition or it needs to be modernized or oh now there just I would say look into that because there's likely going to be

language in there that if the tower already exists then it would be it would need to be made more better. Right? So think about that. Um, there have been letters, uh, excuse me, there have been articles in, let's see, Daily Freeman, Bluestone Press, and the Schwang Gunk Journal about the new assessments. Good lord, the new assessments in Rochester. They're going to bankrupt everybody. And is your property really worth half a million dollars because you got a just a regular old mobile home on there and all this and that. I don't know how this is all going to shake out, but it's not really good timing for this cell tower proposal because you got a lot of residents really looking at the numbers about how valuable their property is right now. And you got a lot of people such as some of the folks that were here earlier today that want to come and they want to do subdivisions. They want to do this. They want to sell houses, build houses, sell them to city people who can come up here. And the city people, boy oh boy, don't they just love the view? adult. They just love the view and they want to live in nature and they're tired of being next to the skyscrapers and all the water towers with the radiation and the So, there's a lot of people that want to come up here because they have the kind of things that we have and there's a lot of people looking at property values. If you think that maybe the cell tower is going to increase people's property values, I think maybe there's an argument to be made that no, that's not accurate. Um, even the same could be true for just folks coming up who want to visit, take in the sites and things like that. So, I think you got a real clear issue about property values going down with this big um I'm not going to call it an eyes sore, but it's going to be a big tower. It's not going to look like a tree or a mountain or whatever you want it to look like. It's going to it's going to, you know, it's going to look like the ones

that you see when you're on 87 or something like look at that big thing. I don't think it's going to help out any of the viewshed or the property values or anything like that. So, you know, if the if this thing gets put up and it looks the way a lot of people are fearing that it's going to look, you're going to have egg on your face and you're not going to it's not going to look so great. If it's not put up and then everyone is sad because they can't scroll Facebook as fast as they want to be and they need to Don't worry, another carrier will come. there'll be another proposal to put in another tower and you can greenlight it and everything will be great. But in the meantime, if this thing looks as bad or causes the kind of commotion that it could cause right now while everyone has kind of got their ear to the ground for town meetings and the board and who said this and whatever and articles and publications, it's not going to look good. I don't I don't know if you want that to be your legacy. I don't know. But that's

Jeremy, I think you're bumping up against 10 minutes, so let's wrap it up.

Okay, great. Um, all I'm going to say here is um, you know, the word fascism gets thrown around a lot these days between the presidency and this and that and all that. So, I think the I think the actual Webster definition of fascism is characterized by the merger of state and corporate power. Right? So now we have corporate folks writing legislation for the state which I find interesting. So, I think this is a an adorable little a little glimpse into how fascism starts and what it's all about and when corporate power kind of binds the hands of our of the people for the people by the people, but yet not white because there's certain things you can't take into consideration and you're not allowed to base your opinions on and that sort of stuff. So, anyways, I'll I'll pretty much leave it at that. I just would would have one last question which is to play devil's advocate for just a moment. It seems as if the board is um looking to move forward and and grant the proposal for the tower and that sort of things. I don't at least it seems that way from from you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like you're happy about the tower and you know what could possibly go wrong and it's a good thing and that sort of stuff. I don't know what people's motivations are. I don't know. But it seems like you're interested in sort of dismissing most of the public commentary and you're looking for reasons to move this thing forward. I don't know why, but maybe if there if that is true, maybe you can tell us. Maybe maybe maybe there is a good reason to move this along that we just don't understand because we're just too busy caught up in the pollution and the eyesore. I don't know. But if you could enlighten us and tell us why it's a good

thing that we have this, then maybe we could be on your side and and we could all kind of come to terms. That's it. That's all that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

So, I'm not sure what will motivate the board for whatever way they u rule or vote, but what we're interested in is facts, the law, the code. Um, and that's what we'll do. Nobody has a dog in this fight of any sort. Um, and if you want to know all the specifics as to why this may be approved, you need to read the documentation that's been made available on the U system that's available to the public. One is called the part three, the seeker part three. The other one is called the resolution of um conditional negative declaration. So that gives a good idea of of what the board is using uh as facts and to guide their uh decision one way or the other. And um I hope to be able to get in the next 15 20 minutes to a robust discussion of both of those documents. So I'm hoping that the other speakers will move it along. Um we want to hear from you but would move it along so that we might have that robust discussion that I was anticipating. So Bob Lesno,

thank you. Appreciate your time. Um would just like to speak to something that you just said. Um and segue into I think you know all the most important points I wanted to make. Um, the one who really does have a dog in its fight is Verizon because they want their toddler. Um and as far as the board looking for quality guidance in making its decision, um the hiring uh of this uh gentleman Matt Allen who did not disclose clearly in any uh obvious way the potential conflict of interest because of um past and potentially, you know, presently business relationships with Verizon. The guidance that he has offered about this particular project has to be looked at with question. And the very fact that um if it is true that the draft for part three of of seeker um was kind of using language that may have actually been borrowed from um collaboration if not collusion with Verizon. If that were true, that would certainly be a strong piece of evidence to disqualify Mr. Allen's guidance for the board's decision making in this

particular thing. So, I would like to reinforce the questioning of his credibility as an expert environmental consultant. Um and and also amplify the request that has been made that he be replaced with someone who would engender more trust by the um community itself and whom whose guidance the board could rely on with much greater reliability. Um, and I would like to also amplify uh the request that um has been made by uh many community members at this point that a positive declaration um in the part three of seeker be made such that a more full environmental impact um statement can be pursued. And I will just end what I have to say by saying when I looked at the email address of the planning board today, what really struck me was zoning board of appeals at town of Rochester. York.gov. This planning board is a part of United the the New York State government and good governance. It should be a part of what the standard that this board should ex you know um embody in its planning its decision making and allowing this

person of dubious credibility to have such an influence over the guidance uh in decision making around this particular project that I think it's a a really poor uh decision and would reflect uh poorly in this issue of good governance fighting for. So, thank you for

Eric Herz wanted to make more one more thing that hasn't been brought up that an environmental thing, but it's the community, the Valley. One of the most important things to all of us here is the farming community. And how will this have an impact on the farming community? We have three towers already. They can have collate colloccator on them. I don't know how many they have. There have been a lot of studies, maybe it's not a fact, but there have been a lot of studies about bees. I asked a good friend of mine the other day who's a farmer. He grows vegetables and corn. I said, 'What would happen if the bee colony collapsed in the valley because this is not going to be the last the last cell. And he said we'd be growing corn. We could grow nothing but grain without bees. They have to have the bees. And so this is Verizon's not going to tell us now this is the last cell tower that they're going to propose. They're not going to tell us it's not going to be collate colllocated on it. And AT&T is not going to say we're not going to build. So there has to be a point where the town says no more cell towers. And I know you guys are your your hands are tied a lot by that 1996 law, that federal law. But Philips Phillipsburg stopped Verizon for seven years with a lawsuit. I mean

it went back and it's working in court. Seven years. And I don't know, but I would imagine AT&T and Verizon and the other carriers are looking at that saying probably Philipsburg is not a good place to build another tower. Took us seven years. So I don't think we should roll over. I'm not saying we should get in the middle of the lawsuit, but if in fact there's a fourth tower and a fifth tower and a sixth tower and suddenly the bees collapse and there are no bees in this in this valley, there won't be much farming either. There'll just be corn or grain according to my friend. So I think that's something we should think about. Thank you. Um, Ben Weberman.

Hi, good evening. How are you?

Well, um, thank you for for your time and all your careful deliberation, thought. Um, I submitted a letter earlier today regarding this matter. I'm speaking tonight as a resident of Accord. Voiced my strong opposition to the proposed Granite Road cell tower. massive tower in the heart of our community will have irregularly irreversible adverse impacts to the town's historic character and aesthetics say nothing of its impact on the Shondo great future shed. I urge the board at a minimum to issue a positive declaration and seek for findings. Um, furthermore, it's come to my attention as we've heard extensively that Matthew Allen, the board's independent visual resource expert expert has extensive ties to the applicant and according to a March 20th letter from Robert Berg uh that is a public record misrepresented that relationship to this board and also here you earlier Mr. chair and that that is questioned as to whether it was misrepresented but nevertheless to avoid any semblance of a conflict of interest I urge the board to disqualify Mr. Allen and said though the associates disregard his analysis and hire a truly independent U-shaped consultant uh does not have extensive ties to fight within question alternatively recognize any financial limitations and that Verizon has threatened to withhold funding if you were to disregard Mr. Allen's findings to hire an additional consultant without professional and financial to at least verify Mr. Allenis

Patricia. Thank you so much for letting me present and for all of your such a sensitive issue. Um, my name is Patricia. I've lived in the town of Rochester 48 years. I've stayed here because it is the most beautiful place to live. I was a part of fighting frack fracking in our town. And it was really impressive how the supervisor of our town listened to the documentation how it would affect our town and how it would affect our health and he actually joined us and actually helped us spread it to other towns the information. I guess I'm confused. There are so many reasons not to have a cell tablet. First of all, it's not been proven that we have a need. Interesting. I just this weekend went to visit a friend in the town of Marbletown and I took the back roads. I live up um off of Queens Highway. I lost cell tower um my cell reception way up there in the town of uh Rochester and going into Marble Town and nobody's putting a tower up there and and yet a tower is going to be put in the middle of our the town of Ghansson near where people live. There are so many other areas that need cell reception that aren't being looked at. And I don't understand why when there's so much opposition in our town and so many people are saying brilliant evidence of

why you have an opportunity that you could listen to us and I don't know it just doesn't feel that there's reception there. the presentation that someone has been advising you that has any ties to Verizon. I don't care if it was 10 years ago if he worked for Verizon. He should not be representing our town. It has to be someone that has no prize. And I guess there's a question for me is what is the town, our government going to get out of it? Someone said to me, "Well, maybe the town is going to be making money on having Verizon here." I I don't know. I don't know what we would get out of it. gives no benefit, but maybe you're going to have a little bit more reception, but for the animals, for the environment, for people, for disappointment, and the place that I've made my home, and this means a lot to me. My health means a lot to me. I know people who are affected by EMFs. Please, please consider that this is a mistake. and and you know Verizon it's their business and we know corporations only care about money they don't care about us and so um I also submitted a letter today Harrison

I came to this meeting I sat and I listened for a really long time when we talked about rattlesnakes over and over and over again. You speak a little louder.

I said I came to the meeting today and I sat and I listened a lot of talk about rattlesnakes for a long time and I thought that's fantastic. I mean that's what we should be focusing on but it seems like there's really no consideration about the wetlands. they don't know the law and and you're not allowed to talk about it. That doesn't mean we can't consider it that we don't know it's important. So, I just want to mention that there's a lot of laws that aren't necessarily good. And yes, maybe we have to follow them, but we're human. Doesn't mean we can't consider what's important. So, and I also don't think, yes, corporations, they're businesses. I don't think they hide that. They want to make money, but they don't have to make money on the backs of our community. And need I've been to a bunch of these meetings, not all, but a lot, having seen one person come and say there was a need. One person came and said that cell that cell phones are good for emergencies, not don't think that's being disputed, but I haven't seen one person come and get up and say they have we have either they haven't. Tiffa.

Good evening, board members. Uh, this is my first time speaking at the board. I'm a homeowner here in Aquar. I've been a property owner since 2008. I came to this area because it's a place of tremendous beauty and um tranquility. Um I am a cell phone user. I've been using my cell phone. I have absolutely no problem getting a signal and have been very operational on my cell phone. So I I personally do not see that there is a need for an additional tower. uh in a residential community. I wonder if there's been an environmental impact uh study that would look at collocations of really amplifying already existing cell towers like why do we need another one versus piggybacking on towers that are already there. Um, I know as a homeowner I would not like right now today if there was a cell tower that's less than a mile from my home, I would not be buying in that area. That's like a very clear and in fact even today my roommate said, "Wow, they put up a cell tower. I'm going to have to re you know there's like very real reality for folks in terms of medical considerations." Um, so I I don't see that there's a need. I hear that there's uh bias, potential bias and credibility issues. Uh there are already pre-existing towers that could be piggybacked. I'm not sure why we need this and who's truly benefiting other than the lease holders. And I'm also concerned that out of all the places that the cell tower could have been put, the one place that said yes is is very low income and maybe they really need the money. and it just feels like one of those sometimes the term environmental racism. I mean, I don't know if it's people of color who live there, but people who have fewer options. Um, so I really question the

motivation of like where this got placed and why we're not considering more res more commercial industrial locations if we in fact even need it. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that ends the uh public hearing for tonight. Um, give Verizon a chance to talk and then the board pleases to get to U.

I I would just like to respectfully request that the board consider closing the hearing tonight. I know the chairman said he would not, but except for the new issue of this alleged unsupported conflict of interest. I mean, we just sat through I don't know how long it was, but it's repetitive. This might be the seventh time we're hearing the same thing over again. The comments are important to hear them seven times to reiterate what we've heard. I I think it's I personally think it's time that the board considered closing the hearing. I understand we may not want to, but that's my respect for request.

So, I respect your um your request. I'm not going to grant it. Um, I simply think that um, first I gave my word that we would continue the u, and I'm not going to unless the board wants to vote vote over me on that, but I'm just not going to grant that request.

Be specific. Um, the public has requested and deserves the right to review the we put up the draft part three and also the draft um, the CND resolution within the last few days. They're both significant that the part three is particularly significant. They deserve a right to just, you know, take a look at all that technical stuff and comment on it. And moreover, if we if the board were to move toward a CND, as you know, there would be there would be the requirement of a 30-day comment period under seeker. Typically, seeker comment periods are accompanied by a public hearing. And so, the board's clear the clear movement here is just to continue the public hearing through that process. Next,

no. And and I understand I I we can disagree about what is legally required or not but I understand your position have command. Thank you. Legally um at least in terms of the public hearing for a for a site plan approval. We have to have one public hearing session. Ask the public to give us all the facts they know about and then we can close it. Correct. That that's not the way this board operates. It's not the way many boards operate. Uh you know to I can understand why you might think that we're hearing more than you want and I get it. But um it's going to be open. It's going to be open for the CND if the board moves in that direction. And closing it now and then reopening it, you know, next uh in a couple of weeks for the CND is is not

I Yeah. And I and I could be wrong. I'm not I don't know that a hearing is required to be reopened for that. I think it's a 30-day comment period. It is. Again, a secret it is very rare that a secret comment period is not accompanied by a public hearing. And I understand. I just just reading along

and also as I said um the uh the part three was only went up a few days ago and they they that that actually is that's a new document. and it has a lot of the environmental analysis in it that's that that the board is looking at now and they they deserve it. I mean, if there's if there's a if there's an approach that says we want to hear um comment on the most important issues that the board is uh dealing with rather than the ones the public may think is is is one they want to talk about. The part three has that and they deserve the right to take a look at that and get back to us. They have the right to look at it. I I'll leave it at that. Yeah.

Um I just would like to say though on the conflict of interest, we submitted a letter. Obviously, it's the board's decision. Um but what Mr. Freriedman said today, I I take exception with um even his attorney would not say what Mr. Freriedman tonight said, and that was, you know, Mr. He's saying that there is an extensive relationship between Mr. Allen and the horizon. And they they cite to one one instance that the zoning did occur in 2019. in 2021. I believe that's when the case was filed. I was not involved with it. I had no idea about it. But to say there's this extensive relationship and to point to one, and by the way, there's nothing in the law that says a a municipal consultant can't work for the industry and uh can't work for municipalities. In fact, that's odd that happens. Scott, um I'm sure you've got a chance to see the part of the CMD where we address this issue. Um it's addressed at length. I would just say that the citizens who spoke have chosen to look at one particular aspect of it and we we we all have different opinions as to whether they've accurately represented it, but there's going to be a number of layers to the question of how we handle Matt Allen's contribution and you and I'll tell to the public as well the the questions are addressed in the draft CND. We look forward to hearing your comments on that when you've had a chance to review it and digest it, but there's more to it than just question a number of times, Matt. And I would just reiterate my experience. I've been doing this. I started working with Verizon in 1996. So I guess it's 30 years since I'm getting away with this stuff. Um, having said that, I don't know how many applications I prosecuted, but I'm assuming five, six, seven, eight, somewhere in that ballpark. Not once have I with an application with Verizon worked with Matt Allen. So if as

Mr. Berg is suggesting that Matt Allen's behold him with Verizon. Well, no one told me about that and I haven't had any experience and and I basically work with Verizon from County down to Sullivan County, uh, Colombia, all so I do a fair amount of work in the state and pretty much have the state. Um, and I have never once in all his applications ever worked or Mr. Allen has never worked with Verizon was presented Verizon on one of my the applications I've been involved with. So I just want to put that.

Yeah. So um thank you Scott. Um just just a comment. There's so many um certainly facts um that could be not refuted but counterfacts. let's call it counterfacts when presented that it would take um hours and if not days to go through them one by one and I'm not so sure um that would necessarily satisfy somebody who's against the tower. I'll give you an example of one that I heard tonight this business about when is the last time that Mr. Allen worked for Verizon. My understanding reading the fact or reading the record it was 2019 you referenced and so did Mr. uh Freedelland 2020 um 2021. I believe that was because Matt Allen was quoted in the court case that accompanied that work that he did for Verizon. It was a court case for the town of Worster, I believe. Um could get that wrong, but that 21 was in reference to him being quoted in the court case and whether or not he actually testified on behalf of Verizon, but he was quoted in it. So that could be so you have things presented that are on the face factually correct but when you dig um he stopped working for them my reading of the record in 2019

Bedford thank you I mean it's a small point but it's an example of we could be at this for days weeks months years and uh which is fine but at some point hang on I'm sorry I poison in taping okay meeting by like camera I don't know how it's going to be used already was some inclination but threatening of the board member this is taping for community this is not I post private ting of the meeting shall is there any any thank you um are there any laws against taping

not that I know of public Mr.

I didn't think so. So, going back to what I said, you know, factually I understand 2021, but I don't believe he was he was working for them then. He was quoted in a document and that may be misunderstanding. But anyway, in any case, um it's very important, I think, from my perspective that the board move on tonight and get to going through the document. I urge the public to um read the documents that we put up on the system for your viewing for our viewing. Um there two of them um one is 12 13 pages long the other six or seven pages and I think that'll be very useful. Do you want to make any comments about um conflicts of interest in general or you rather just leave that be? Again, I mean, there's

and by the way, we do address it in both these documents.

Yes. Um, I just want to make the make clear to the public that the issue of how the board is to handle the allegations against Matt Allen. I mean, and what I just alluded to a few minutes ago, there's a number of layers to this because the one the one thing that's that's of equal importance as to the impression that people may have as to the lack as to his lack of independence, which as as Scott just mentioned, you know, the ethical issues can be overstated. um the public's looking at it a certain way, but setting that aside for the moment, if we were to set aside Matt Allen's contributions as as they're stated, all of them, let's say, that would leave the record before if it were even possible, which I I don't think it is actually because of a number of issues, but if it were possible to do that, that would leave the record, just to make it clear, that would leave the record before the board as the only the only expert weighing in on the visual would be Verizon's consultants. I I I I can't even just theoretically before we get into the specific facts, I don't I don't see how you can mistrust Matt Allen's contribution so thoroughly that we're better off with just the applicants um uh uh consultant. Having said that, I want to point out to the public that the way one of the ways we looked at it was to divide Matt Allen's um advice to the board in two categories. One of which is the specific technical advice that helped the board structure the environmental impact review in terms of the um you know the the balloon test, all the specifics. and the second was his sort of overall advice in terms of the ultimate issues of um of significance. I I want to again point out my

impressions to the public that number one there was very very little push back against his his technical advice at the time. I still haven't seen very much from the public criticizing it for all the criticism of him overall as being untrustworthy. I I don't know what he's actually told us that is that falls a foul of where the public would want us to be. But again, this is all sort of embedded. We couldn't possibly lose it. And I oh there's one other point that needs to be made here that the that folks who commented may not have fully internalized which is that many of the comments asked the board to essentially replace him which makes a lot of sense from the from the point of view of people that are that want his contribution thrown out. We can't do that. And the reason we can't do it is because the federal government has demanded that we complete our review within 150 days except to the extent that we agree with the applicant to extend it for reasons of making a better review. We're way beyond that at this point. We're a year and a half about a year and a half into this almost. So we cannot unilaterally go out and just hire another consultant and redo this. The applicant would have to agree and they don't. And what that means is if we were to throw out Matt Allen's contribution, we're left with zero. Now again, there are two aspects to his contribution. One is the technical advice that he gave the board which has been implemented in things like the balloon test and the the simulations and a whole variety of things. And the second is his overall evaluation. And the short message to the public and this is everything I've told you by the way is documented in the in the draft um the draft resolution. So we mean it's all there. Um the public may be reassured by the fact that the board is not going to consider

his recommendations in terms of the overall recommendation to um the evaluation of the significance. The board is independently looking at issues of the significance of the tower as viewed from the um from the uh the loca the key locations. Um and also the board is looking at the issue of see towers looked at from the granite road neighborhood which he did not recommend that we do because he's mostly looking at it from a from a point of view of state regulatory structure. So to the extent that the public is interested in our setting aside his subject of determination that's happening that this the the documents that you see reflect that the to the extent that the board that the public is suggesting that we set aside all of his recommendations relating to the structuring of the environmental review. What does that leave us with? It's this does not go away if we were to subvert the um review as has been suggested. It leaves us with a bare record and the applicant has a right to shut this down. That's it's been clear for people who have been coming here that from time to time Scott has mentioned that we have to renew the um the shot clock waiver. That's what we do every two months. they and we've been doing it because the applicant has been satisfied that we've been progressing on this. And believe me, as a as a person who is an advocate for citizens, I perfectly well understand the frustration with the idea that federal legislation has boxed us in like this. There are very very few land use applications, seeker applications that come before this board where we're boxed in either by time or on the substance. This is one of them. The federal government, for better or for worse, has

determined that cell towers in general deserve a short review and that there the board does not have the ability to prohibit or whatever the words are of the of the telecommunications act cell service in the in in the town. And one of the most importants here is is the time frame what's called the shot clock. So, and I want to also say from my perspective, it's not merely the threat of being sued. I think that we have the threat of being sued clearly from either side. It's a question of following the law. We may not like the law. Some of us may may or may not. Many of you folks may not. I perfectly well understand that. And I I spent many years on your side of this. We do not like this law, but it's federal law and it's pretty unambiguous. And so the question for us is not whether we're afraid of getting sued. We may or may not. It's kind of my job to try to avoid that, but that may not be possible. The question is whether we follow the law. And I would suggest to some folks that based on many of the other things that are happening in this country, it may be worthwhile even as a as a as a abstract matter to go and say that what the law says does matter and it is worthwhile. We may not like all the norms and all the laws but when it tells us to close down and review which it says that's that will that will inspire our actions that will that will frame our actions here in a way that no other seeker review no other land no other site plan review would in the circumstances that we're in and so I would ask the public to look at the moving pieces here to look at the reality of the fact that we hire an industry expert who has worked for

industry but he's going to work for us he's one of the more more prominent experts in the state use him to a certain certain extent and in light of the objections that have been raised to take a careful look at what is told us and figure out what's usable and necessary and what in light of your concerns is better left set aside which is what we were doing anyway be perfectly honest we were this board was took listened to what he said and said we're not going to go there in many instances and so to the extent that you were wondering whether it I don't necessarily believe that an industry perspective filtered through but the extent that it did this board has done something else.

Thank you. Thank you. That's why you have JD after your name and I don't. That's right. Having said that, we look forward to your comments as when you've had a chance to digest them uh in a couple of weeks. Very interested in it. So um tonight's public hearing is over and u if the board needs a break, fine. Let's jump into the documents and and there are a couple things we need to review.

I'd just like to say one thing directly on the public. There have been a couple of references to the fact that we're not getting information. And I know speaking for myself, I've read every letter. I've read every document. I've read every page of everything submitted from everybody in this. And so I just want to assure the audience, the public, that we are getting everything. Stacy's doing a killer job getting stuff up for us. And we read it and David so eloquently said, there's a lot of other issues here, but I just that's something that's been mentioned over and over and over again. Um, this is very serious to all of us here. It's very stressful to all of us and we take it very seriously. So it was my only comment directed uh back.

Not only does Peter read everything, I know that every member of the board reads everything and I get at all hours questions about stuff. It's like, oh damn, he's actually reading that thing. So um yeah, I read that too and here's what it means. So anyway, I want to thank the board for um arguably um a just a great board. You read everything and great insights. Okay. Um so I think we're done with the public hearing for tonight. five minutes and then let's come back and at least spend a hour about two or three issues that we didn't talk about in the context of

I couldn't have put Sorry. Is that a piece of chocolate?

My immediate reaction is going to be technically yes. They're really good. I had them when I worked at the co-op. There's a cherries and berries that are so I wasn't sure if you're in on something like dignified or even this. So if you have another half hour

Yeah. really know. Yeah, for now. Actually, I'm glad you might. You can actually leave. Not because I want you to But you can leave. Okay. If there's nothing more, we have to talk about No, you know what? I'm sorry. That's the containment salad. Thank you. So we do sorry break to whatever extent you can what if they do

in terms of charges whatever does that I think you know if we spend five million right we charge we charge the have the project as we have. Okay. I'm not sure.

Thank you. You know what I mean?

Yes. Exactly. You're so communally located. Right. So I think we need to get back together. The public is more than welcome to stay. We're going to be talking about decisions about the height, uh, decisions about the compound and the fencing around the compound. Yeah. Um, and there's a few other things that our attorney wants to talk to us about that you don't know about.

You do know about, but you might have forgotten. Problem tell a button something. Yeah. Next time. All right. So, given the late hour,

given the late hour, I was actually gonna go through the documents almost page by page and see if there was any comments, but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to simply um ask whether or not you've had an opportunity to look at the various pictures that were sent. um the diagrams picture labeled three and 3A which presented two different ways of looking at the vinyl fine and I believe I sent you no I I didn't send it out but I want to know if you have an opinion one way or the other about number three or number 3A if you don't tonight you can certainly send me um something in the email uh my recommendation I'm ambivalent Um, these are supposed to be white pines. White pines have a crazy shape. Um, one of the shapes which puts more of a pyramidal shape at the top is more of a spruce shape. The other one which is sort of a flat top with both the the steel and the um the antenna and at the top and so it has a flat look. That's closer to what many white pines look like in in the wild. But it depends on how old they are and all that. So I really don't have a preference. Although I I I like the coverage at the top, the pyramidal at the top. So I just need for you all to weigh in on that. So

I send you I send you couple of sites companies for making those type of clients. It doesn't have to be flat and it doesn't have to be extended. they come up with all kind of different calculations. I think I missed that J because I honestly don't remember try to find would you send it to me again? There are a number of companies who making those fines. So here's the only thing I say about that is and I'm opposing increase in there is no need for them. You're opposed? Yeah. Two adding extra to make it. Okay. So you're you would go with the flat top, right? Okay. And there are ways to cover those Santana citizens. Okay.

Anybody else on that? I'm against making it any taller than it needs to be. I agree that the with the white pines they don't have a lot of them do not have conical fab. Right. And so I think Okay. So flat top. Yeah. You have an opinion one way the other.

I my concern is that that we don't build additional cell phone towers or that we minimize the building of additional cell phone towers. So I I would be interested that a technical perspective allocation is possible and that whatever whatever works is I'm not sure David I'm for less height still a flat top. Yeah. I am for less height and we heard some comments that sort of alluded I think to the design but I don't believe we received any specific comments about this component. Is that correct? So with that being said, if we received more public comments on their thinking because this is a visual impact issue, right? If we receive additional comments as part of the open comment period, I would consider them. But I agree that I don't want any taller than it needs to be.

Okay, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. Um there is the issue of the um the fencing and and I'm going to tell you what my opinion is. There have been some talks about the generator itself needs to have a need to be closely fenced in uh either on one side, two sides, four sides the generator. I think that's a bad idea for maintenance purposes. Uh I just don't think it's workable from a mechanical point of view. So I would opt for um making sure that the generator has enough internal baffling or whatever you want to call it to dampen the sound. And then the 50x50 fence that goes around um is not chain link. It's um such that you can't see what's in there. And then it also has and Scott, I want some proposals from you that our engineer can look at. The fencing, the 50x 50 has some sound attenuation capabilities, although you all know that sound travels upward. It doesn't necessarily travel lateral. So, um I will remind the board um that according to the noise study factual that the sound emanating from this um once every two weeks and then in an emergency is less than uh what you would get from a human voice. It's and it's certainly less than what would be required by our code. It's under the amount for the code. So again, to ask for anything more beyond what's been already proposed is just hard to substantiate. So that's what I would go for. Um, no internal fencing around the generator again for fire, for safety. There's just a whole bunch of reasons where I don't think it's workable, but we need to be assure that the the degree to which it's

baffled internally. And certainly we need to see um we don't want chain link once something's been No, the plans actually show um a solid fence. I think they show currently a vinyl, but I know in the draft documents I don't know if it's specified clap. I think that's what it said. Yeah. Dark. Does anybody from the board have any any other How many decibels is the uh It turned out to be 47 dB. They compared it to um the Indian. Yeah. Um and it came out to be based on the ambient and what it was. It was under what was required by our code. Yeah. Yeah.

Rick but I'm sorry but ambient they consider ambient with the traffic on the road that road has a very small very little traffic and considering apartment next to it. I think I I think steel needs to be enclosed and for maintenance they can open up some wall and maintain it and it's not going to be more isolated insulated when it comes from the factory floor. So whatever comes from the facto's floor, the company who makes the generator create a spec and it's counting that going to be insulated more.

It's it's you're probably right about you're probably right about the additional insulation. What you sees is what you get from the manufacturer. It does come though. I think the spec sheet that we provided shows you that it does come with certain right but of but data of the noise generator was given for the analysis based on the factory that already has the insulations. Okay. So let's assume that whatever you get is what we get. Yeah. Right. 47 decibels. That's very high. It's not very I agree. It's not very Yeah. But 47 what on on a board on a board? It doesn't matter. I mean 47 if you were standing next. Right.

I also would disagree with you that this is that there's very little traffic. It's it's quite a full fair. Yeah. It is goes I I take that road all the time because Okay. Well, it's not 209 but it's certainly it's not 209 but it's it's there is there is substantially.

Okay. So, I'm going to stand by what I said, sir. And I appreciate that, but you are correct about the internal baffling. Um, okay. Uh, the only two other things I had, um, this one is easy. Dave and Dave, these two Daves. Number nine F, which in the part two was a moderate, somehow disappeared from the last um version of the part three. What is it? 9F. 9F is Stacy, do you have It's aesthetics.

Yeah. similar projects visible within oh you know what it is it's the section that talks about there are similar projects within the distance half quarter mile half mile 3/4 a mile a mile that we said because of what towers we did check that off as moderate but it disappeared from the um last version somehow so it's a subset of visual impact yeah a subset of aesthetics nine is aesthetics right Dave Correct.

Okay. So, it's a subset of um we checked off this I think there's four categories under there. We checked off B and C as being moderate, but we had also checked off F, but it just just disappeared. So, all I'm saying is we could talk about it later. Let's look into it. And we have two extensive discussions on visual bone. If you think that we need more because of some particular aspect that that question represents that I mean I'm not even sure what it would be but if you think we need to we can sit down and put in a sentence or a paragraph that that relates to that that I think we should do that because when the board did the part two this one was checked off as a moderate but then in the part three it got lost.

Well again I'm not as I sit here I'm not exactly sure what it refers to but if you wanted to go ahead and either call us or draft something I will do that. I'll do that. Obviously, you're gonna write it. I heard you're gonna do it. Dave is very busy already. You're writing it. I don't even know what it is. I know. We'll talk to you tomorrow. Are there similar? Just answer your phone. Visible within the following distance of the proposed project. Okay. So, let's talk about it. There's a one within two miles. What What does that mean in terms of the It's a statement that All right. So, I'll talk to you tomorrow. Okay. When I call you answer your phone. And then there was one more thing.

I got to go home and charge. Did I go? No, there was one more item that um you wanted I think you wanted to bring up. It was the statement um from one commentator about the issue of uh too much too much too many structures on the site um and with the residences it's already built out. So there's a a comment about an underlying it issue.

I think Ira laughed so much if it's it's helpful, but I can tell the public um I believe it was IRA um at least I think twice made objections to the board's proceeding based on his interpretation of of the zoning law. And these are pretty um pretty core zoning issues, at least a couple lateral ones relating to um uh multiple uses on the site, density and things like balance. And what I told him orally at the time from this chair was that those types of zoning issu zoning issues in general and those types in particular are matters for the um for the uh for the code enforcement officer and they're actually prohibit the planning board's actually prohibited from impeding applications as a result of as a result of those. Um I I I had told me at the time that he was telling I told him basically to go tell the CEO and he said I'm telling you and the chair actually jumped in and he had some difficulty. Um that's the same answer. The question was whether to put it in these documents and it was some point is it was something that was excluded from the seeker review because it's it's a zoning determination. I for just for the board's um knowledge, I did draft um uh today a couple of a short paragraph specifying that I did not originally draft it for these documents again because it was excluded from our seeker review, but if the board wants to acknowledge that that that comment and and um and put it back. I I'm not sure if you saw the draft. I the chair has it, but we could easily or I could just read it now actually if if it's of any value. you um it's actually not that extensive. There's my other All right. So, this is a potential addition for the draft CND, for example.

Um reads as follows. My draft one comment one commenter raised concerns relating to the project's compliance with the underlying zoning in particular adding the structure to a parcel already built out with residences. Under state law, the planning board does not have the authority to interpret the zoning code to determine whether a project complies with the underlying zoning. Instead, this jurisdiction is vested with the code enforcement officer CEO and the ZBA on appeal from the CEO determination and I cite the case C. Swans versus planning board of village of Kovkill with the site and there was another um appellet division case I could have cited but didn't put in. So that is just the the same answer I gave to Ira. So, what do you recommend?

And if we can put it in the documents at the board. So, what do you recommend in or around Dave? You have a lawyer, right? I I should I I think it would probably help to put it in the public has raised it and um technical, you know, it's not here. We should be open with our with our thoughts if that's going to help. Done. Yeah. Back in there. You're talking about putting it in the part three, right? Um I was real putting it in the CND. Okay.

And the CND has a section and public should be aware of this. Um the CND the draft resolution adopts the part three as its findings but also has a separate uh section on findings called um uh uh other factors or additional factors in support of this resolution where we put facts that are not necessarily part of the strict environmental review as brought through the part two. Part two identifies the questions to be answered in the part three. There are some other questions that could be outside of that for whatever reason and this is one of them. So those are going in the section in this in the uh the resolution that says um further support for this determination and the and I think I have four points in there

and that's what this would be on one of by the way one of the points in there is the discussion of the um uh the uh alleged conflict of interest relating to Man Allen as that's also in there extensively and we can put this short message in there which says that's why we didn't look at that zoning issue and we did let's get the citation to the state case. Okay, we're good. Any other thoughts? We good with that? Yeah. Okay. So, we'll amend the CN the uh the CND resolution. Put that in the right. Does the board have anything else they want to comment on?

Yeah, I found it's a really small thing. It's a the typo on just I think it was in the page uh page 10, but need the space between this and guidance. I think it's in the draft part three, but it's like red pencil stuff. So, email that to me.

I will. Yeah. Um, but I I thought that that, you know, I I know we went through several different iterations of the of the different drafts and the um the part three and the CND and um I I think it's it is it does serve as a really good roadmap for the process. So I wanted to acknowledge you know everybody's work on that. So I think it's very great. The two Daves worked on that. Yeah. Well, the work shows and I may call a commentary when appropriate. Okay. Anything else?

I have one. I don't really want to get in the weeds on this. It's more maybe an obser I'm not going to. You guys can't either. Okay. um under the under the CND the conditions section it lacks some of the specificity that the part three includes and so my observation is that that I don't know if it matters or not but it isn't as specific so for example an example this would be the the Indian the the bat tree cutting limitations it doesn't give specific dates it just says we will limit the bat cutting says comply, right? Yeah. And so I guess

you're talking about gen the individual 25 conditions. So some of them are fine, but some of them do have more refined specificity in the brought up. Yeah.

The critical thing for that is whether the the stuff that is written without the further detail that it was suggesting is enough to to justify the CND. In other words, it all the details don't have to be decided in the conditions in the CND. They do have to be decided in the conditions for the site plan approval. So, whatever condition you're worried about that that not completely laid out in the CND is going to be in the site plan approval. And there's nothing wrong with the two of them saying the same thing, but it's okay if the CND falls a little bit short of the specific. Like for instance the um in the current draft of the CND doesn't have the specification for example on the height with respect to the top of the tree that was basically decided tonight. Okay.

We if as long as we have enough there to justify a CND we're fine. But if you feel that it either needs more because you want to see it so you feel better about it or you feel that needs it for the CND go ahead and draft go ahead and draft the changes and we'll post them. Oh yeah,

talking about changes. Um we're really scrambling again this time even though we had three weeks. Um because we there was a lot to do. So I just like to say ask you by Wednesday night of this week, which gives you two days. If there's anything else, please get it to myself, Dave Church, and to Stacy. Uh, if it's simple um spelling, Stacy and Dave, you know, they'll take care of it. If it's something that needs um Dave Gordon's input, fine. Um, so just send it to myself, Dave Church, and send it to Dave Gordon also and Stacy.

I mean, I took a look at it before meeting. I don't have I don't think I have any material other than what we just talked about, but I'll take another look at it. Okay. So, Wednesday, please. Wednesday and midnight so we can get it all done by Thursday and post it over the weekend coming for the next meeting of uh April uh April 13. All right. So, good question. I I read it couple days ago days ago. Things didn't change today significantly. No. So, I need to read it again. Well, it was posted yesterday. The CN was posted yesterday posted posted on Saturday. Thursday.

Thursday. So, nothing other than the the the paragraph that I read on the zoning um which has actually hasn't changed. So, no, those are still good. It'll be different. Sorry. It's it's like reading. Yeah. Dioski just you should be able to you should be able to do it now and don't deprive yourself. Don't deprive. I was able to pronounce that day. I can pronounce the other one. Go home and charge my phone. remember. Okay. Anything else? Hans, you look like if you need to charge, I will try and break home.

We tried to I tried to message. All right. And um Okay. I think Oh, we have to we do have another matter. There is a uh proposed local law that we got from the town uh board that they want us to make some comments on. If you had a chance to look at it, um the town is attempting to put in a moratorum against BESS's temporary moratorum temporary moratorium of six months. Um to give them a give them time to come up with specific um a specific portion of the code to deal with battery storage devices, large battery storage devices. not

not what you might put in your house against uh next to your computer but the launch ones have a tendency to so they're asking for they want our input only on the moratorum. Oh not with regards to whatever it is that they write during that moratorum in terms of the code similar to the code for uh for cell towers. And when they do that, they're required by law to come back to us and say, here's the law that we wrote during this moratorum. What do you think? The moratorium is for six months and if they have the opportunity uh to extend it for another 6 months. Okay. I don't believe they have to come back to us for that. They can just extend.

I I respect it. If they feel like they need more time, they need more time. Okay. So, I'll make that comment. I have I have ahead. So there there is a problem in post moratorium and I had exchange with the supervisor and the supervisor acknowledged that she that they were all in the definition because the definition says battery storage system is one or more devices assembled together capable of storing energy in order to supply electric energy at any future time. That is that would include any home storage device.

I thought they put in there the extension limit. It's it's designed. They're going to change it because I spoke to her about it. Yeah. I I and she agreed. She agreed with me. But this is but it was vague because it it would have the way it was originally written, it would have precluded a Tesla power wall in your house as well as a a mega place. They're going to they were going to adopt languages under under a certain above a certain kilowatt. So the other thing Hans could you send me an email tonight? I forward you before you forward you send me something. Yeah I recommended verbiage Peter you had something but they're not asking about the input of the contents right now. These are basically

they just want to know do we agree with the moratorum and the provisions of the moratorum not the content of the law that they're going to write during that moratorium. So we have the length of the mortorium. We have the definition of what is it? Bes and I mean it's it's part we we have to acknowledge it's part if you serious about greener energy. It's part of a green energy environment and there are issues and it's it's to to make green energy more efficient and and to promote it in the power you need these devices. Yeah. So hold that thought six for six months down the road when we get the proposed law.

And I think the park planning board frankly would perfectly hand able to handle these situations. I don't think they need to have just like we're handling the cell tower, I think. No, I think that I think that what they're concerned about is is the fact that they're um they're coming on very strong in many towns in New York, right? And um catching towns unawares or offguard. And so they want to make sure that it gets put in the right place so we don't have a problem like cell phones in residential areas. Yeah. Well, to say we're not the only town that's it's preemptively uh coming up with a law to deal with this stuff. Yes. Totally

about where they can be, what how they have to be put together, size and things like that because there have been big incidents with these that are have gone on in there was one in in Warwick. There was well there's two of the same one exped three times that same one. Three times. Yeah. Okay. So that was I mean I guess we'll wait for the draft law to come out but that's an observation I have. I'm aware that numerous towns in the area have banned. Yeah. This and which

which what will end up happening is those towns that do permit it everyone's going to be pushed into those locations because it's functionally the only areas where they can do it. So I think part of drafting the law also has to consider that by banning it in other areas to push us some. Well, there's also a potential that if old town's bann I completely agree part of the clean energy. Yeah, there's also pending legislation in Albany um being proposed by industry to get the legislature to um ban bans. Yeah. to over overrule home rule. Okay. Ban what? Ban the ban ban any bans of these. Oh.

Yeah. Ban the ban. I can see the uh I can see the poster now. Well, that's what that's an analog of of the cell tower thing. It's an analog of article 10 and article 7. I mean, when when when energy issues or communications issues come up, very often the government will preempt local home rule. We get subdivisions. They get, you know, they they decide on power plants and and pipelines and other things, group homes. There's Yeah, there's dozens of us preempted by state or federal law.

Couple of months ago. Yeah. We're going to see I think we're going to see more of that. Um and Governor tried to do it a couple years ago on on housing and on multiple parent housing and that did not work. But

it again. So again, you know, the the the jurisdiction that we have to do secret reviews of land use applications is, you know, we we take that seriously and we have a lot of discretion, but to the extent that, you know, extent that other boards and other towns have been doing these things and not always um not always in the interest of what of where the industry wants to go, whether it's the industry's private profit or the need of the public to have power plants and things like that, the state is stepping in and so that's okay. So I'll relay that information to the we'll do that tomorrow.

I have it somewhere in this pile. I'll give it to you. There it is. All right. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion to I second. No, I said I would entertain a motion. You're first. You got a first. Second. Second. All in favor? As we