Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Unknown.

Should be good. Sure. Okay. Oh, you're already stood. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Stacy, would you call them?

It's a hight area. Right. Chair Jones here. Member Nelson here. Member Roberts here. Member Duda here. Member veteran here. Member Pinsky. Member Straw here. And we have Dave here. Dave Church here. Yep. And Greg Vulner will be attend. Okay. Okay. All right. Now, couple of items.

Couple of items before we get to the agenda. Um, Ravog, if anybody's here for Rav, um, they canled on us about 3:30 this afternoon, so they here today. Um, so if you're here for that, you can have a have a night off. Um, I'd like to approve the March meeting minutes. um March 2nd, 9th, and 30th. I'll make a motion to approve. I I did Hans and I both found a couple typos here that we submitted to seem not significant. Okay. So, if you'd make the motion with the adjustment to typos, I second. All right. So, Peter, all in favor?

Anybody opposed? She both vote sign. Um Spirit Circle, just a comment or two. Um Dan is here. Um but I just wanted to get started. They asked that we mount and visit the site. So I just wanted to get the board to u get a motion from the board to set the site a site uh visit. I make a motion to arrange site visit for spir circle. Alina, I'll second. Jen, all in favor? I I I. So we're going to set that set that Dan Stacy will call you to set it up.

Yeah. We usually like to get two or three dates and fit it into everybody's schedule and that's really all we wanted to talk about. Um I will tell you that we're anxious to get this to the historical society. So when you come on the 27th we're going to make a motion to um refer it to the historical society or historical commission rather. So we want to get that done. So let Caleb know about that. And that's really about it. Just wanted to fill in a few administrative things uh before the next meeting. So, you'll be on the agenda for the 27th. Sounds great. Thank you. Good. Thank you all. Okay.

All right. The first item on the formal agenda is a lot line for Beth and David Hillme. And Bill, you're representing them. Yes.

So, talk to us. So this is uh located on route 209 right in the between 209 and airport road. This front John both roads. It actually also has front of John this um little uh sand road or whatever sand hill had some other name last time we talked about it. Um but uh there's existing three separate tax parcels and what they're proposing to do is just change the line on the one that uh has the bondage on Sand Hill Road to increase the acreage a little bit and just give them a little more room in the area where they'd like to build right up in the corner of that lot. And that would still leave them with over six acres on the main parcel. And then they also have another uh smaller parcel down on Route 209 that they acquired a few years back and they're proposing to merge that together with main parcel.

And that the access for that larger parcel is on 209, right? The main parcel. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. There's no access on there's two accesses there. You may be aware there's a little hair salon there. Country Clippers I think they call sign out there for that. So there's a little entrance into that and then the driveway coming into the house and outdoor laser. Okay. So there's no intention of being on airport road. No. Okay. Does the board have any questions?

Yeah. Ping a couple of things on on the mapper register historic state and archaeological and wetlands, but I don't see anything on there. I don't know why they they got pinged on there, but they're I mean sort of familiar with that property. Yeah. Wetlands maybe. I just pinged on the maper. So, but there any wetlands? I don't I can't imagine how it's pretty hot in here. Maybe if there was something if there was any put closest place I can think there might be wetlands would be either on the other side of Route 209. kind of gets wet low and wet there a little bit.

Yeah, I mean I like I said I'm sort of familiar a little bit with that property and didn't make any sense to me. Yeah, but just wanted to mention Okay, regular score. Anybody else? Oh yeah. Yes, I do have a couple of things. Um the EAF number 12, we're going to need sign off from OPRP because that was a positive hit on the mapper. And then Bill, did you hear that? Yeah.

And then um also it would be good for you to depict Sands Hill Road in its entirety. It's kind of it's hard to really figure out where it is and then it kind of goes away here. So and Sand Hill Road is viewed as an uh access to what the tavern, right? So, if you could just depict that it just you just have a couple of lines and it's not reflected in the legend. Um, and that I guess what you're talking about is to make it seem more like an actual road. Yeah. So, we see where the road is. Okay. Should be on the map. It's marked. But I see what you're saying.

Yeah. We don't know where it goes. You know, it's not ident, you know, if if he wants, he can put the I think he should put the road on it. that. Okay. Yeah. Um I'm not sure if the version of the map I have is the same as what you have. Um mine doesn't actually have that later with the road name. I was like, uh that's odd. So we can just uh So we have a a later map that you have. Uh that's possible because it was just something I had in the file and I was like, "Okay, I got one. I don't have to make a copy for it for the meeting." So that was just my little and Helena, you said the mapper had a hit on ship up. Correct. Item 12.

Do we do those for lot improvements? I don't think so, but I'm just coming through. You don't really need them. Yeah. Anybody else? All right. So, Bill, would you make sure next time you come you have a a map that's up to date? Oh, yeah. And, um, Dave, can you do a decision for the 27th?

Um, escro escro. Yep. Thank you. And, Bill, we need $150 in escrow. I'll entertain a motion. Peter makes a motion. Second. Jennifer seconds. All in favor? I. Bill 150. Yep. Okay. And we'll do this. We'll do the decision on the 27th. David will work on the decision. Okay. Thank you.

All right. The next item on the agenda is Uh Amy and Alex Lewis. Bill, do you have anything you want to add? Do you have a decision? I think we're all set. You know, just had the public hearing and had the public hearing again and closed the public hearing, closed it again. So, it's all good. We did shake it. we close the public hearing. Okay.

Zorian asked me to mention one thing which was I believe he said that the culbert was not indicated on the last map just had this the culbert um the culbert that goes across that's he wanted me to mention that on the final map if we can include that culbert when out doing the site visit we mentioned that pulver that goes from the wetland area across the road. Yeah. I'm not sure which version he was looking at but if it's on there it's on there. you just mentioned to me on the way out. Yeah, there was that was something that was brought up when we went for the site visit and at one point the color was there and it wasn't labeled. It's labeled now. It's on the final plan. Okay.

The final plan build the color code. No. Oh, we took that off because it was uh difficult to remove each one. So, you're saying that the final map I'm going to give to us has the co on it. Yeah. Dav um when we if we approve this tonight could you include the co as a condition

yeah let's just include about the co across the road breaker

or lack or lack of a need what do you want the way that the same he's It's on there. Hang on. It's on there. It's on there. Oh, it's on now. It's takes care of it. Yeah. All right. So, we do have the code there. Bill, we have the metal circuit issue of the waiver and you sent us a letter saying we don't see why we have to why you have to send us a letter about the waiver. Right. Talk to us about that before we do the decision.

Uh, well, sure. on my soap box about the uh section of the code which I don't have it in front of me to quote but it clearly states that um about no lot in a subdivision will be have more than 40% of the lot include uh prime farmland prime farmland you look at the soil maps even on the parcel viewer there are sections of the maps prime farmland there's parts that are shown as farmland of state land of statewide importance And there's prime farmland if drain. The code does not say prime. It doesn't say farmland of statewide importance. It says prime farmland. So this lot doesn't have prime farmland on it. Has prime farmland of drained which is of course in a wetland. So which really up.

So you don't want to give us a waiver. Well, I just wanted to uh this is something that we kind of uh first had this issue about over a year ago when we first dealt with the the new code and at the time it was like okay that lot clearly said prime farmland. Majority of the parcel was prime farmland but this one has doesn't have prime farmland at all. So I think it's something that we need to iron out here if we want to bring it up now. So let's iron it out for this project. that needs work beyond this project. Um, Professor Church, do you want to apply on this item the way we've handled it in the past?

Well, it came with the new code. I don't know how the decision was made because it's affected more than projects and what bills represented now too, right? Um, uh, where you've previously granted waiverss. It says prime farmland is defined and mapped by US Department of Agriculture. If you go to the definition of prime farmland, it's about 200 words long and never mentions those soil types. Um it so I went looking around um uh for various sources of maps. I as a trained cgrapher you have to understand a map is only good as the forest source it's based on. So, I'm not sure. I looked at the metadata for the Olter County Parcel Viewer. Um, they seem to rely on a Cornell source um uh which has a uh a GIS cgraphy lab. I looked at theirs and they have a long list of by soil type names what they consider prime. So, uh that's probably as definitive as you get. So the way that

but there's the three categories. It appears to me uh it could be interpreted a variety of ways, but it's clear I think Bill's right. You're pushing the envelope. I would argue the soils of statewide significance do not enter into this realm of being prime farmland soil. However, it looks like the USDA does use the term uh there are variety of soils by the way that have uh limitations. The one unique toolster county is the drainage issue, but there are several categories nationwide. Those are prime soils if X in our case those are typically included in the USG US definition. Our

code talks about prime farmland. as defined by the Department of Agriculture. That's the definition. And we've had situations here where we have prime farmland, we have farmland of statewide importance, and then we have prime farmland if it was drained. So, we have three different scenarios. Right. Right. And the our code doesn't say anything one way or the other. No, it doesn't include them. We've just been applying those three terms to under prime form of it. Right. Right. So what do you recommend we do is accept my suggestion is you drop the definitely drop the category soils of statewide significance.

Okay. And what do we do with prime farmland if if drained? Uh well the conservative approach is you keep it in the prime farmland definition. All right. Anybody have any comments about that? Yeah. I mean it's it's a it's a fairly common agricultural thing to drain farmland when drain soil if you need to for for farming correct right it's yes it's yeah some of the richest soils in the region yeah that's how it became good the Ronda Valley the valley in Orange County the are all drained

okay so Bill we're making code as we speak since the code is a little loosey goosey we should go back to the town board along will put whole host of other things and make recommendations. I mean that the to let me So I want you to give us a waiver letter that'll be part of the uh of the decision. We'll do the decision tonight, but I need a a waiver letter. We just got advice from the expert to say include prime farmland, include prime farmland that's wet, but if drained would be prime farmland, and leave out farmland of statewide importance. So, I think that's reasonable right now and what we is what we can work with. So, I'm going to read the decision if the board is okay with that. Yeah,

I'm going to read the decision. I need a waiver letter. I'll long enough. I'll give you the letter just, you know, to cover things here. I could say, well, wait a minute. Let me see what's the percentage of this lot to the prime farmland. You want your decision? No, I'm just saying I'll I'll do that. But you know, we acknowledge talking about the prime farmland of drains part. So we acknowledge that the code is a little cluji may or may not be 40% of the lot. Okay.

D. Well, and then the ultimately it's on the list of uh this 40% is a conundrum. It's it's uh uh I don't know what the term let's call it. It's plaguing small subdivisions. Y and you've been granting waiverss consistently. Um, and and speak it's reached a somewhat of a point of absurdity.

Well, what we've done, you're right. What we've done is to use it to get people to be more respectful. In a couple cases, it's actually not what you would think of as farmland. It's actually treed, but the soils are farmland and that qualifies or prime soils. And so, we've convinced the applicants to move their houses closer to the road to preserve what's in the back. So, I mean that's good, but the code should talk about that, you know. Yeah, the code speaks to the coverage of the total lot, right? There's no doubt we need to do some work. So, you've agreed that you're going to give us a waiver letter, Dave. When we do the decision, it'll be with whatever adjustments and that's one of them. You need to redo this. No, there's a condition in there that is there's no waiver.

So, you stuck that in last night. What? No, it was there. Okay. Okay. Thank you. It's also I think it is a conversation that we do need to interface with the town board on but it's also the consideration of farmland is not necessarily today's world row crops necessarily right but also agroforestry silver culture mushrooms all that stuff is considered agriculture and we have that is not something that happened 100 years ago so and you reminded us of that that's absolutely correct we just know they correct the code and make it easy to deal with all right so bill or border anything else

the only fine point I'd put on that when you flag it for the board is that prime farmland if drained can also be a wetland and so which portions of the like if it is a wetland it can't be drained right that's never going to happen so then in those circumstances does the prime farmland requirement still apply why don't we wait until we work on a definition to give to the town board I'm just saying that that's an it's something we have to think about it's a good point but as it applies to this project Don't forget that though.

I know. All right. This is a resolution to approve a minor subdivision uh in the uh town of Rochester. Um the applicant is Alex and Amy Lewis. The reason for the request, the applicant proposes a minor two lot subdivision for residential purposes. Lot one is to be 4 and a/4 acres. Lot two is to be 5.1 acres. Um lot two is currently vacant. Um location location location is on Lower Woodfield Road. Total acreage is 9.33 acres. Zoning district A3. Um there were numerous other referrals made to Orange County uh county department of health department. There's a list here of all the documents that we've received on page two. There's a whole list of wherees that I'm not going to go through unless Dave you tell me I should that there's something urgent in here to go through with the exception of on page three next to last whereas it says whereas at their we need to fill that out to say 413 meeting 41326 meeting. Um, Dave, is there anything else we should mention in the warehouses? I don't think so. I'm going to move I'm going to move forward. General conditions of approval. This approval is conditioned upon the applicant submitting all necessary final copies of the plans, reports, and documents to the town of Rochester building inspector. The applicant shall present final plans for signature by the planning board chair which shall be entitled plan showing subdivision for lands of Alex Lewis and Amy Lewis 95 lower Woodfield Road and modify as conditioned. This approval is further conditioned upon all other approvals which are currently required or any which may be determined in the future to be required in conjunction with the construction and or

operation of this use being secured or renewed as applicable and which are needed by operation of federal, state or local laws and regulations whether or not noted above in the specific conditions of this resolution including but not limited to United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Health, Austin County Department of Health, Town of Rochester Board, and compliance with New York State Uniform Fire Pro prevention and building code. Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved sub subdivision, the matter shall be referred to the planning board for consideration. Should any conditions imposed by other agency permits cause conditions to be in conflict, the more restricted condition shall prevail. Three, the minor subdivision is approved by the planning board and it shall be binding upon the applicant and any subsequent owners. Any changes from the approved plan shall require resubmitt and reapproval by the planning board. No deviation from the plans, reports or other documents that form the basis for this approval are effective unless and until an amendment to this resolution is secured from the planning board in writing. The town may stop work on this project or revoke a building permit and or withhold a certificate of occupancy or seek any other additional relief as authorized by law if any term or condition of this resolution is violated. Four, all fees must um all fees regarding this application must be paid in full. I'll skip to number five, any bonds necessary for performance of the work and we didn't uh make any requirements any bond requirements. So that doesn't apply. Six, the owner's consent block shall be signed and dated by the owners following the date of last revision and prior to the chair signing the plan. Here are the specific conditions of approval. One, a final subdivision map shall be provided consistent with the maps. Another documentation noted above and consistent with all conditions of this approval. Two, all surveys and engineers notes on

final map submitted must be followed in the field. Read. Documentation of all relevant and required and approved Olster County Health Department permits shall be provided to the planning board chair prior to a signature by the chair of the final subdivision plan. A final subdivision map shall show a 100 foot buffer around any wetland shown on said map. Additionally, all driveway cover shall be labeled on the map. The planning board hereby grants any waiver necessary for lot one exceeding the maximum of 40% coverage of prime farmland soils as per the town of Rochester code 12512B. So bill we're assuming that you'll get us that waiver memo in the next day or two.

All right. Six. Well, both lots one and two with share driveway access to lower Woodfield Road using an existing gravel driveway. said driveway shall not be paved in the mapped wetland or wetland buffer areas. A road maintenance agreement for said driveway will be filed with the town of Rochester as acceptable to the planning board prior to the signature of the final plant. So, Bill, I'm going to need an RMA prior to me signing this. Oh, okay. That was always the case. So, yeah. Yeah, I sent one to you. I said, "Oh, I sent it here." You sent Oz to aus? No, no. I just sent one recently. I had to research and send one off the rescue. Okay.

Well, we can't sign that. We can't.

Seven. The applicant shall comply with any and all comments from the town of Rochester Highway Superintendent and the Eyed Court Fire District and or the Town of Rochester Fire Inspector. The applicant shall present a final subdivision plat. The Town of Rochester planning board further grants authority to the chairman to certify that these conditions have been met, at which time the chairman is authorized to sign and date the plant without further resolution by the planning board. This final subdivision approval shall expire 180 days from this approval date. All conditions are satisfied and certified as completed. This period may be extended for two additional 90-day periods upon application to an approval by the town of Rochester Planning Board. The owner shall file for signature and certification effective approval. Sorry. The o the owner shall file for signature and certification in the office of the county clerk. Six approved paper plants and one mileong plat copy bearing the chairman's signature. any other related documents within 62 days from the date of the chairman's signature or such approval shall be deemed to expire without further notice in accordance with New York State Town Lord section 276. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four Olter County Clerk certified copies of this file plant and any other related documents to the planning board within 30 days of such filing. The applicant upon submitting four final maps signed and stamped by the county to the planning board will also submit a PDF of the final plan a final map to the planning board. The draft re resolution was prepared by the chairman and or town planner was read and discussed as needed by the planning board in a public meeting at the time and place of adoption. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve with um Hans, second by Dave Roberts,

adopted uh 413 by the following vote. All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed? Chair votes I. And we have one uh absence. So, Bill, you're done. You just have to get me that waiver letter. Yay. And you have an RMA that's due also. Yep. All right. So Stacy, you'll give me something to sign tomorrow. Yeah, I forgot. Thanks. Thanks. All righty. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Beth, for being so agreeable with the waiver regression. Um, Ventures, Mr. Freedellander,

Bill, this is yours, too, right? Yes. Oh,

okay. The last time that this was here, if the board remembers, we went through this is a lot line. Some of us disagreed that it was a lot line. Um, but um, we decided we would move forward with it. Um assuming that the applicant would be agreeable to putting certain notes on the map um to reflect notes from the larger subdivided property that you're moving the line around to. So he'll is this the map that includes all those notes? Yes. I see one here for timber rattlesnakes.

Mhm. I also see a wetlands 100 foot buffer zone. The only thing that I'll note, Bill, is I want to see a some sort of a limit of where the um the house is going to be marked onto the on the map, which gives him some flexibility as to where he puts the house. But I want to see some sort of limit that respects the 100 foot um buffer zone, which is very close to the house now. So, you got to give me I guess you could call a limit of disturbance or a limit of the house for the house which still gives you flexibility but respects the 100 foot buffer. Um, that's the only question I have. Oh, and one other comment. I checked the easement. Pier, you brought that up the last time. And they do have um rights heaven's way

to come out onto what is called citizens radio association association road giving them access I guess heaven's way. So the easement that I read does give them those rights. It conveys the rights from the owner that you bought it from to all of the grantees and you be a grantee. They're the grtor. So, with the exception of that envelope around the house, that will respect the uh the buffer, but also give you some flexibility as to where you put it. We need to see that. Does anybody have anything else? Go ahead.

Um because I was not here for the last meeting, but I w I viewed it and I looked into the timber rattlesnake issue and the den is about one and a half miles. So, I have the uh DEC timber rattle guidelines protocols that we should submit to the applicant. Okay. More complicated than if you see a snake run. They're good. They're nice. You gave this to me, didn't you? Well, yeah, but I didn't know if you wanted to look at it and you wanted to hand it to him. Whatever you want me to do, I was Thank you.

I could just speak to your request, Mr. Jones, about the setback. I have no problem with that, but the way I see this, it seems like that is in place here because we've got the no bill 100 feet of the wetlands and Bill has put that under buffer from the wetlands onto the mountain. So, I would think and then plus there's been a little setbacks from whatever the property line is. We have other setbacks on property line. If the board is okay without putting the limits of disturbance, the people who look at this map, which is not just you, but it's the building department when you give you answer when they come out in the field, the easiest thing for them to do is to see the things drawn on the map. Yeah, they read and they will read um and presume that this makes it a lot easier for them. So, it's for their ease and convenience.

Okay. And so, we would request that you do that. Sure. Okay. Appreciate that. I have a question about the wetlands. Um, were these wetlands ever delineated or is this just pulled from federal websites? Do we know the the large wetland, the federal wetland up in the main portion of back end of the lodge lot? That was it was so the 100 foot buffer is like the old

that was done when the three lot subdivision was done up here. This is three big lots that were done. Yeah. That had all these notes and everything. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Okay. Helena, you you Oh, thank you for those. Um, are you suggesting that note B should be amended to say and the applicant is required to follow all the regulations? Oh, or the uh timber rattle rattlesnake protocols suggested. So, do you want this amendment to say that or are you good with it? The way it leads it talks about a sec. So the question I

where he goes go ahead. Yeah. We have had in my day job I've done construction in these areas and we have this but then you were mentioning referencing the protocols. Ours stipulates you know if identified on site like you have to do the silk fence but then it's also you know because there's roads and stuff where there isn't necessarily self fence. Um and I don't have the language in front of me but it's something along the lines of if it's found you have to bring like a habitat. You have to ask me for it. Yeah, if I believe it's all contained in there. Okay.

I guess my my question was Helina brought in the documentation on from the New York state in terms of building in areas where there's no rental state dens. Do we need to say something here? It talks about the time frame when work can commence in that area. Do we need to say anything that they must follow the the New York State regulations regarding construction? Yeah, that's I wouldn't say that because the den is is greater than I believe one and one and a quarter miles away. So just but they probably used the property. So that's why I provided that. So if he's I did not read the whole all five pages. Okay. So you're okay with Yeah.

Okay. You don't have to because it's not the right thing. The regulations are part 182. That's just timber out protocol. So if you see it, make call, remove it, don't kill it. Anybody else? The applicant anything? Nope. Um just I guess clarity about the like to the building envelope including the town of setbacks and everything. with the setbacks to assume like the delineation is again for the convenience of the building department to know where the house the area which the house can go.

Yeah. Just want to make sure that we're getting what you want on here. So you just like kind of like to see a shape that's called out all the area that that we're allowed. Bill knows what it is. He use dotted line or or he shades the area and that's in addition to the setbacks that are given.

Anybody else? All right. So, what we'll do, we got the escrow, right? Um, so what we'll do at the next meeting, Bill, if you get us a map with that one change between now and the next meeting, Dave, can you do an LL decision for the next meeting? So, we'll get it on the agenda for the meeting of the 27th, assuming that Bill gets us a new map with um just that one change on it. Sounds good. And then that's the map that can be used to go to the counties, get their stamp and everything else. So, you don't have to make more changes to the map if that change is done.

Okay, we're good. Thank you all. So, Bill, I'm going to put you on for this for the 27th. Everybody okay with that? Okay, thank you. Are you finished for the night? I think I am. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for getting my schedule all consecutive.

We'll give you a chance to get yourself together. I had a lot of stuff to bring. I was there for a long time. Thank you. Dignifyings.

Evening, Mr. Chairman. How are you? Our client is away, so he's not here. Okay. So, it's just the two of you. Nadine, how are you?

Good. How are you doing? Good. Uh the PA uh public hearing is still open. Is there anybody who wants to speak to this project dwellings? Okay. There being none, um let me just tell the board what we're going to do tonight. Um we're going to do seeker. Um you have in Munich collab a f a um fe that's been done by u planet church and we also have a resolution that's been done by our attorney. Uh so we're going to go through that um sum in summary and when we're finished with that we're going to close the public hearing which is our process um given the law um that has been interpreted by our attorneys and then Nadine just a comment before we get there just kind of by way of update and if anybody from the board has questions or comments before we do seek please um put yourself heard the RMA is done. My understanding, Mr. Liry, is that your client has accepted the RMA with Mr. J, Mr. Gordon's changes.

Yes, that is correct. Uh Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to speak with my client by phone this afternoon or this morning before he went away. Thank you. I reviewed it and we look good with the proposed conditions. Okay. So, what I'm going to do then, um we'll get a new copy. We'll get a clean copy done and I'll submit that to the uh town board for their approval. So, I don't know whether the rest of the board has had an opportunity to read from the RMA. Yeah, I just wanted to make one note. I think you've talked about it with eight about meets and bounds and the fun. Yes. Okay.

Okay. Yes. So, um we've been working with going through this process. We were really waiting until everybody was happy lots and We had that discussion. We had asked them to plan. We do have that. We've reviewed it with them and bounds for the creation. So when we do our final step, we're going to have a cover page and we're going to include the survey of the meet and bounds in our set. So that'll be the final step.

Okay. All right. So, I entertain a motion to approve the RMA as rewritten by our attorney and approved by Mr. Ly that I can then submit to the town board. Jen makes that motion. I second. Alina second. All in favor of referring this now to the town board.

I votes eye. So, that's one. the bond. Um, again, the board has seen the bond. He, um, it's quite hefty. Uh, the, um, Greg Boner, our engineer, has approved it. He said it's fine. Given the amounts and the details, I'm not going to question that. I don't know that the board has any questions. U, but, Greg has said it's fine with him. So, I'll again entertain a motion on the board to refer the bond with an indication of how payment is going to be made um to the town board. And the payment is number of ways. It can be cash, can be a actual bond, shy bond, letter of credit. So, before I give it to the town board, I need to uh include this is how you're going to pay it. Um, yeah, I think um that Jeremy was going to find out what the the town board really would like to see. I think he had two ways of going, whether it was a letter of credit or a construction bond. So, um, you know, from the town board to approve one of those methods.

So, he's going to talk to the town. Yes. All right. Yeah. So, I'll entertain a motion then to refer the material to the town board subject to the town informing the applicant what the um the appropriate way of of paying for this bond. The bond was 182,000 some odd change. Um so, it's it's pretty hefty, but it's reflects what has to be done. Um, so I'll entertain that motion so we can get this part of it moving with the town board. I'll make that motion. Peter, Dave Roberts. All in favor?

Chair votes eye on that as well. Um, Nadine and and Dan, usually the bond takes a little bit to get for the town board to wrap their head around it and to figure out how it's going to be paid for. So, the sooner you can get to that or he can get to that, your applicant, the better off. what meeting they're going to have discuss that at, you know, that way he could go to the town board meeting for that discussion. We'll get this out. I don't know when the next town board meeting is, Stacy. Do you know? Next week, Thursday. Next Thursday. So, I'll certainly get it out to them. What's the deadline for material to get it on the agenda? Do you know? I should, but I don't.

Okay. I'll certainly get it out this week. you'll be copied on whatever I send out to them. Okay. And then it's sort of in their hands and between the town board and the applicant. All right. And then the only other item that I had, you mentioned the meets and bounds. I actually have two two items. So that's good. And then Dan, um the HOA, we want to have our attorney just take a look at it. Yes. But we can make that a condition of approval.

Okay. Right. Um, so is there anything else the board has before we go into the seeker? Uh, any question? Okay. So, if you have the the seeker material available to you, you can get to it through the agenda on MUN Collab. Stacy put it up there. You can click on the the in the agenda portion of MUN collab and it'll bring up fingers crossed it'll bring up the draft seeker environmental assess assessment form part three and also the resolution. It's long. Um so what I'm going to do is summarize it on page one. What Dave Church uh wrote up here is indicated the five items that were hits on the part two. One was impact on land, three was impacts on surface water, five impacts on flooding, seven impacts on plants and animals and 11 impacts on open space and recreation and then there were specific subcategories uh under those items. So we listed those and then on page two we go in to talk about how the applicant has agreed to mitigate those five items and I am going to quickly read through those. It starts in the middle of page two with first the re uh redesign of the action. Over the course of two years of review the applicant and town have agreed that the major subdivision proposed will be redesigned. Initially presented as four a four lot subdivision covering the full site and served by extended private road and driveway systems. The original design would traverse steep slopes, potential important habitat, possible federally federally recognized wetlands and a wetland buffer to create four new

large lots evenly spread over the existing underbelled property. Working with town representatives, the applicant prepared alternative designs also reviewed by this planning board. The subdivision is now scaled back to three lots that have been relocated to occupy an approximately 1/ half of subject property focused in to the more southeasterly and central portions of the site. This will substantially reduce the need for any private road and driveway land disturbance. This redesign has also shifted proposed development off of the majority of steep slopes away from potentially federally recognized wetlands, away from habitat areas of concern, and minimize disturbance of the town required wetland buffer area. The redesign will also restrict paved areas as defined by town of Rochester zoning code from the small area expected to traverse the town quiet wetland buffer near the Rose Hill Road access point. Second, avoidance of disturbance in the northwest portion of the site. The planning board finds that there is significant need for avoidance of any activity of land disturbance to the northwest of the subject site in or near what is called the Vlrook and Pakama Vali wetland habitat areas also known as the great Pakama Vl. This important natural habitat area shared with the adjouring towns of Olive and Marbletown has been documented in the 2018 town of Rochester Natural Heritage Plan and other supporting references. The VA fly brook is a class A stream with documented trout. The fly area surrounding the brook corridor hosts in a unique and highly sensitive habitat of hemlock northern hardwood swamp at red maple tamarak pete swamp that is likely to include a variety of protected species including known presence of the appal appalachian shoing fern. The

project redesign has now shifted all development and land disturbance out of and well away from these ecologically significant areas. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to reclaim and reveate a strip of land just east of these areas that had been of limited disturbed from a previously uh constructed forest road. Third, a conservation easement on key lands. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to designate all of the northwestern portions of the subject area as a conservation area. The conservation area has been defined on subdivision maps provided that include 11 noted specific restrictions on land activities and that include field markers. The applicant will also work with him to voluntarily place the conservation easement to protect this conservation area and the sensitive plans that define important open space and habitat portions of a subject site. So those are the findings um or better known as the part three. Anybody have any comments? We good. Dave Gordon. Um, do we need to vote on this or can we wait till we do the resolution which in effect includes the part three in the resolution

if that is incorporated by reference in the resolution. We don't need to vote on it separately unless there's some controversy or question about it in which case we should discuss it and vote on it. But if if there's no objection to it, it's part of the it's part of the declaration of significance. Okay. So I don't see any reference to the part three in the No, the question is in the in the declaration of oh in the part in the resolution I don't see any it is it is should have been did I miss it

yes first the first resolve the board adopt second part three okay so I'm going to read this um resolution uh for a secret negative declaration Town of Rochester Planning Board, April 13th, 2026. Um, secret classification is unlisted. This declaration of non-significance was issued pursuant to section 617-7A of the state uh environmental quality review act regulations. Whereas dignified dwellings has applied to the town of Rochester planning board for subdivision approval of a proposed major subdivision that originally consisted of four lots at 174 Rose Hill Road, Town of Rochester. And whereas the applicant submitted part one of a full environmental assessment form and other relevant information. And whereas the board circulated a notice of intent to be seeker lead agency and subsequently became lead agency having received no objections or comments. And whereas the board conducted numerous public hearings during which the applicant appeared and presented the project to the board and its consultants. And whereas during the course of the meetings and project review, the applicant has proposed to reduce the subdivision to three lots with attendant reconfiguration and reduction in prospective environmental impact. And whereas the board has held a public hearing in the course of which the public had the right to submit written comments to the project on the project to the board. And whereas the project is an unlisted action under secret regulations as and whereas the board has reviewed the application and its supporting materials and comments from the public, received input from its consultants, completed parts two and three of the FBAF and review the requirements of seeker and other information in the record with respect to the project. Now therefore, be it resolved that the board hereby adopts the detailed analyses and findings in

the FEAF part three. next hereto and made a part hereof. And be it further resolved that the board as seeker lead agency determines pursuant to 6177 of the seeker regulations that the project would not cause significant adverse environmental impact and that therefore the preparation of draft environmental impact statement will not be required for the project and be it further resolved that the public hearing on this application which has been continued to the date hereof shall be further continued to afford the public the opportunity to comment on any remaining issues. is relating to subdivision approval for this project. And what that means is that when we approve this, I'll ask again if there's anybody here to uh comment on the project and then we'll close the public hearing. So I'll entertain a motion approving this resolution unless anybody has any questions or comments about

I'll make a motion. Hans Peter makes the motion. Hans seconds. All in favor? I. Anybody opposed? Chair votes yes. Okay. Um, pursuant to the relevant relevant court cases yada yada yada etc etc. I'm re um want to acknowledge if anybody has any comments from the public on the project in the context of the public hearing. There being none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Jen makes the motion. A second. Dave. All in favor?

I. Uh, anybody opposed? Chair votes yes. So, the public hearing is closed and we'll have a decision for you. Um, Dave Church, you're okay with the 27th? Mhm. Okay. So, we'll have a decision for you on the 27th. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Long time coming. Was that okay? Um public hearing for um

second Okay. So, this is a continuation of the public hearing on um um Verizon.

Are we okay? This is a continuation of a public hearing on Verizon. Um hey, Greg, would you mind gathering the uh there's anybody who signed in and welcome Okay. So, um I'm going to go through the names here those who wish to speak. Um I'd like people to keep their comments down to five minutes. And um so the first uh comment is from Julia Walsh. Miss Walsh.

Uh hi. I just want to take a moment to reintroduce myself to the board again as a land owner in the center of Rochester city for over 20 years and a resident and a homeowner for the past seven years. I've also had a long extensive history as a local fish of the village of New Falls for four years including as a leazison of the planning and zoning boards uh and as an environmental advocate for 25 years. I'm also the founder executive director of a statewide environmental organization called frack action. I was one of the leaders to be banning fracking here in New York in which we ban fracking using seers no alter action alternative. So I just wanted to say all that given my experience and as a resident I hope you'll take into consideration what I have to say when I've been devised by my council John Baron who I've retained on the part of the new community group stop the schwango bridge cell tower that you'll be hearing more the next 30 days. First off, while I can appreciate that your attempt to consider what the public has had to say about the impact the cell tower will have to the aesthetic and community character of the town by trying to lower the tower from 145 to 125 B. In part three, it is incorrect to say that quote is not expected to have a significant adverse visual impact at 125 or 145. This cell power will have a significant impact on the aesthetic. And bring that reason alone given that our viewshed is an economic driver for the businesses and real estate of the town. Uh plus 125 foot will still impact the Chamonga scenic highway. If the board votes tonight on this conditional negative declaration, then you should also have a ballooning test conducted at 125 for the taxpayer tax to our worldass viewed before a final vote. Further, it is my understanding that under federal law, if the cell tower is approved, then the ability of Verizon to get a 25 or 30 foot increase to the tower is legally

required if they determine to do so. And any written or verbal assurance that this is not what Viet Verizon wants to do will not hold up in court. If this is true that then your 120 foot mitigation is in effect known from the start and part two section 11 open space and recreation is incorrectly marked no. This is problematic at best. Preservation of open space and recreation was a need for Brandon town this year and establishing a phone was proved overwhelmingly. A massive cell tower that will impact our viewership for the rest of our lives and our children's will require you to vote answer yes to this section. Part two, section 18, consistency with community character items subart interfering with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized public resources marked no or small again the tower will impact tourism the scenic byway state park views and should be marked bless yes lastly I want to respectfully respond to what lawyer Dave Gordon said in the last meeting is response which seems to be a point to the concept that the board is legally bound by federal law to approve the cell tower or lose to Verizon in court. This threat of a lawsuit is something that Verizon's corporate lawyer said in almost every meeting I've attended. Sometimes in a veiled threat or in a more overt way simply telling you will lose court on need. Just would like to quickly state on the issue of need. Many of the residents do not believe that this is true given the fact that Verizon itself under the crime of perjury fulled the FCC that has 100% coverage in its current target area other than four homes on Stony Kill Road which are behind the Stone Roth wedge. Uh and this has been information published by the National Broadband Map that's on the SEC website and which uh expert reports by Michelle Herz and Larry Freeman submitted you. We are a home rule state. We're one of the few in the country that actually gives significant authority to

town boards, planning boards, and zoning agencies. I know this very well after assisting hundreds of municipalities across the state, including our then Republican Town Rochester Supervisor Carl Tripman in passing bans and moratoriums on fracking. While council Borian says it's his job not to get the town into a lawsuit, I want to disagree that it is your job as ber being paid for by taxpayer money and all of your jobs as volunteers planning on on this planning board to conduct a thorough secret review that is accurate and to follow the law of our town code. To this end, this project for the reason stated the positive declaration, not a conditional negative declaration. Closing, I've been quite disappointed to see the board seemingly been going through the motions, the foregone conclusion that this is a done deal, and that your hands are tied, that no one on this board or anyone in this community actually wants this cell tower, and yet you're being forced to approve it in fear of that Verizon will sue. In the same spirit of Gordon's remarks last week that we are living in a moment in history where we must follow the law and fight for the principle of rule of law, I'd like to ask you to not support a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't care about our community. I ask you to stand for the rule of law and the vital importance of our state environmental quality and review act. Give us a positive declaration and require a full environmental impact assessment. I'll be sending the board another 100 signatures from people who signed our petition that I read last week when I submitted 100 signatures last week. Uh and to close recently the town of Yorktown Heights planning board rejected a Verizon cell tower and told them they had to find an alternative location. Planning board of Rochester can and must do the same. Thank you.

Hello. our attemp our attorney has chosen to respond to those comments. So, we're going to allow him to do that.

I just want to make two comments very quickly and only very specifically on um comments that were attributed as quotes to me and I want to respond to both of them because neither one is correct. First, I did not say that we would lose to Verizon that the board would lose to Verizon in court uh unless we approve the project. I was speaking very very specifically about the proposal from certain commenters that we essentially take out all of our uh visual impact review and start from square one and the time frame that would cause and I spoke very specifically about that particular issue with respect to the shot clock not the not the substantive issue as to the uh the tower itself. Secondly, I actually said the opposite in terms of that um whether we whether I'm we would be getting into a lawsuit. I said actually what I'm trying to do is to follow the law as it was written and I spoke to the specific provisions of law that we were trying to follow and that even though it it I said it's my it's my job to keep the board out of a lawsuit. That's not why I'm making these decisions. I was the Senate. I could make decisions at all but my legal my legal decisions are based on trying to follow the law and I mentioned the law that we were trying to follow and in particular I think in that case I was talking about the shot clock. So just be clear uh on the points that and again if you haven't attribute you're entitled to your own interpretation of the law and you've got lawyers and that's fine but when you attribute it to me I want to be clear as what happened.

Okay. Thank you. Um, next person, Ramsey Adams.

Hello, my name is Ramsey Adams. I'm the founder and executive director of Catskill Mountainkeeper. Um, and I'm also uh joined here tonight with a board member of Catkill Mountain Keeper, John Pratt. Um, Catville Mountainkeeper mission is to promote protect the Catville region. Um and uh we do that by supporting policies and strategies that safeguard the natural environment and promote sustainable, resilient and just communities. We have members in the town of Rochester and throughout Alter County and Alaska region. We are very concerned about the last harmony of the proposed Verizon cell tower um and will adversely impact a worldclass viewshed from the Shawang Mountain Scenic Byway that millions of people visit every year is enjoy. We are here tonight to ask the planning board to look for a positive declaration under the state environmental quality act. We believe the proposed Verizon cell tower will adversely impact the new shed and that under SERA such an adverse impact the aesthetic of community warrant a positive declaration and a full environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, if the majority of the board intends to vote for a conditional negative declaration for the cell tower at the 125 ft that that a balloon test be conducted before a vote. Um, we ask that you please vote for a positive declaration. Thank you. I think it's a really uh incumbent upon this board to just follow the law here. I mean, this is uh what the secret is for. Um, and I think it's really an easy decision to be able to make tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Iris Stern.

Thank you. Iris St. I live in the town of Rochester and I wanted to speak um specifically to the draft resolution and the draft determination that I was uploading in the last couple of days. Um on the draft resolution regarding number five, um you specifically mentioned the density issues that have been raised for the last few months. Yet those issues are neither detailed nor are they addressed. Um the issue of dwelling units per acre is a standard topic of con consideration for the planning board in other matters and uh still not really sure why the conversation hasn't come up in in this matter. Um and also as mentioned previously and uh section 140-26B requires that any new multif family projects in allowable zones need to set aside 50% of the parcel for open space. I realize that's in the new code and the apartment building is was built under previous codes or no codes perhaps. on the foot.

While this is not a new multif family project, it is on the same parcel as the proposed cell tower and I feel the existing resident should enjoy the same planning values as the next residents of a new multif family building uh dwelling in the town would uh be authorative. We um the planning board has also been urged to confer with code enforcement office for clarification and interpretation of the one sentence determination. But um as far as I know and I was there this morning uh the planning board has not approached um the code enforcement office um and instead you have referred the community to the code enforcement officer. So I did take your advice. I went over there to kind of explore what the determination may have meant and as you know there's a new code enforcement officer and um the other person is not there. Um but they did say that they are available at any time to discuss any um determinations that code enforcement office makes including one done previous to the current code enforcement officer. And one thing that I did learn um in the conversation was that the former code enforcement officer considered the cell tower to be an accessory use. That may explain the one-s sentence determination. Um, but looking up accessory use is defined by the zoning code as a use incidental, related, appropriate, and clearly subordinate to the main use of a lot or building which does not alter the principal use of subject law or affect other properties in the district. So, while I appreciate you including zoning concerns in the resolution, um it you implying that it's important,

but the language is very dismissive of the planning board's um ability to act or even ask for clarification of this matter. Um and even though you mention it, you don't really offer any mitigation or the zoning issues that were identified. So I just wanted to speak specifically to that point in the draft resolution and on the draft determination um regarding number 11 impact on open space that was given a no for impact as uh was just mentioned um but there is this open space set aside in the zoning code. So, the apartment residents currently have open space and after this draft decision, should you adopt it the way it has been drafted, they would have a mega tower on a 50x 50t concrete slab instead. So, I urge you to reconsider number 11 and change that to yes impact to open space. And then number 18, community character um is also mentioned and you cite uh many documents including a reference to the town's zoning code. But the zoning code offers more guidance to the planning board here than your uh draft determination states because um you the character of that parcel is such that there was new apartment buildings on one half of the property and open space pretty much forest on the other part of the property. So the consideration of a special use permit would acknowledge the intent of the zoning court code towards multif family buildings and community character. The character of this neighborhood um will not be found in a document. It won't be described anywhere. It's really up to you as our planners um to determine that by your

own observation. So it's apartment buildings and open space right now. Um, and anything that displaces the existing open space should be considered a significant impact due to community character. And finally, as you may know, the ZBA has scheduled its first public hearing on this matter for this Thursday, um, which is pretty confusing to all of us. But wouldn't it make more sense to let that process start as objectively as possible before issuing any resolutions or draft determinations before they have a chance to consider the application that's before them. So, I urge you to reconsider these draft documents in light of the zoning issues that you mentioned in there um the upcoming ZVA deliberations and to also meet with the code enforcement officer and get further clarification. As always, your time is appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you very Thank you, Alice. Uh Michelle Harris, I'll skip it. I can't hear you. I will skip it.

Thank you. Toby Stove evening. I'm not going to be someone that's scientific, but that was very wonderful to hear that science. I'm going to be passionate. Um, so first of all, I want to read something to you that came from my sister who lives next door who could not be here tonight. Um, okay. So number one, there is no law that says we must approve a fourth unnecessary cell tower in our town. Two, this is not from her. It's not from me. It's from her. You're not here to rubber stamp every Verizon request. And three, listen to the community and protect us, not them. Well, having said that from her, I just wanted to make some comments. At the last meeting meeting, I did hear Dave Gordon speak and explain to us about um what? Well, let's see.

That he had to follow the law. That we would that he had to follow the law that he must follow the law. And we were wondering what law are you referring to? And you did say it's the shot off. Yep.

Okay. But the board made a negative determination based on what we believe be false evidence from so-called experts who shouldn't have been disrupted by. And now you're out of time. And then we wonder, why have countless public hearings and waste our time and your time? We're here and and you're going to do what you're going to do. Also, this is important. We never got proof that the fort of cell tower was needed and we gave you the statement from Verizon themselves which said that there was full coverage in this area. So why are we doing this? We have full coverage. So, what is what is it about? My dad had a saying. My mind's made up. Please don't confuse me to the facts. And here's a fact. You say you are, but you aren't listening to us. We don't know why. It feels like you're protecting yourselves to us. We've given you plenty of ammunition other than health for denying the cell tower, but in your spare time, which probably don't have much, I suggest you do some independent research on your own about the infant mortality rates living near cell towers because we have and you can't, but there's so many other reasons not to have this. This is a huge mistake that is going to cost our town a lot in many ways that are much more important than money.

So I'm going to say it again. Please deny and please do what these people are sickness. Thank you. Jerry Winrub.

Hi. All right. So, um I am an eye doctor and I've been an eye doctor for 40 years. And the reason that I'm successful at it, if if I believe that I am successful, is that I interpret each of my patients as if it was happening to me. So I so a person comes to me with whatever problem I say to myself well how would I what would I do if this was me or this was my family member. So my first question to you guys is how many of you live near this cell tower?

Anybody can't ask.

Okay. Can't ask. Okay. So, if what Toby said is true, I live near this cell tower. I actually live right on the other side of the Stony Hill River, which is shared by Hudson uh uh the Hudson Valley Resort. And my granddaughter lives on that on my property, and she's a year and a half old. And so when I end up heading on out into the pasture, hopefully she'll continue to live there. And what if now you may not you may look I don't know if the infant mortality rate is higher in cell towers. It's been proven over and over. But I could I say definitively that I know that. I don't know that. But what if it what if even remotely that's true? If remotely that's true, then that's something that's going to affect my granddaughter. And you know, I lived for uh the first 55 years of my life in Brooklyn. And I moved here in 2008 when I lived here full-time. And when I lived in Brooklyn, the number of people who cared about the person next door, you could count on one fist, let alone one hand. And when I moved here, everybody cared about the person who lives next door. And it seems to me like if you just think about it, especially in this society that we live in, you know, Verizon, what are the chances that Verizon is thinking about me? I mean, just honestly, I mean, this guy seems like a nice guy, but what what are the chances that Verizon was thinking, "Wow, you know, if I put out that cell tower, it might affect Jerry's

granddaughter. You know, I better think about that again." The chances are Verizon isn't thinking about that. Okay. But what makes Rochester unique or the Hudson Valley unique is that everybody thinks about the person who lives next door. And the people who live where this cell tower is being built are poor. So poor people don't get listened to as often as people with money. As I can tell you, if all you have to do is drive down Stony Kill Road and good old Stony Kill Road, which has double wides, which has um you know, has a has uh trailer parks and has million-doll homes, million-doll homes, you know. So, those people who don't even live here, they the chances of them coming to this meeting is unlikely. But the the but just the average person comes to this meeting because the average person is thinking about the person who lives next door. And I don't know who's on this planning board. I don't know who you guys are. But the chances are you're not you didn't join this planning board because you lived here for for uh six months. I would bet you that the majority of you have been living here for either your lifetime or a big chunk of it. So what we need to do is we need to think about the person who lives next door. And our Verizon people, they couldn't care less about us. Let's face it, they couldn't care less about us. They care about getting this thing up. They don't know. They You go to whoever the president of the Verizon is, the chances that he knows what Rochester is, it's pretty unlikely. Okay? And if he doesn't get this s this cell tower, he's going to move right to the next place because

he's a they're billionaires. They they have so much money. It doesn't matter to them. And if my granddaughter gets becomes ill, it won't matter to them either. And that's what I think we need to think about more. And not not you're bad, I'm good. Forget all that [ __ ] Okay? You know, it's just that we have to think about everybody and we have to think about whether not whether it just affects me, but how does it impact other people and those other people who are neighbors who we care deeply about. That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Larry, yes. Thank you, Chair Jones.

I didn't sign on the list. I wasn't planning to speak tonight, but I I find this invocation on the shot clock to be really audacious and outrageous. I asked Mr. Gordon last week whether he had ever heard of the Klutza exception to the shop clock and he laughed, which I appreciated. Um, it would be absolutely audacious. so audacious for Verizon to invoke the shot clock when they knew damn well about their relationship with Mr. Allen. I accept and I appreciate Mr. Olsen's representation at the last meeting that he did not know that Verizon had a relationship with Mr. Allen, but the applicant is Verizon. It's not Mr. Olsen. And there is just no doubt whatsoever that Verizon as the company that hired Mr. Allen both directly and indirectly knew about their extensive relationship with Mr. Allen. And our contention, as you know, we wrote you a follow-up letter on April 7. Our contention is that creates a conflict of interest at a minimum an appearance of impropriety such that the board should consult with a truly independent expert. We asked a lot of questions in that letter about how you vetted Mr. Allen and how you knew that Mr. Allen didn't have a conflict of interest. We haven't heard any response. I believe the facts speak for themselves. He says he's has worked he says in his CV he's worked on over 70 applications of homeland towers which 85% of those towers are Verizon towers. And we also found out that contrary to what we understand Mr. Allen represented to Chair Jones, he did work directly for Verizon on two towers in the town of

Bedford, New York, uh much later, much closer in time to his engagement here than what he told Chair Jones. But the bottom line is Verizon knew about that relationship and the notion that Verizon would now invoke the shot clock and the notion that a court would endorse that invocation of the shot clock when Verizon breached its duty of cander to this board and did not disclose the extent, the degree, the duration of their relationship with Mr. Allen. It was incumbent upon us expending considerable time and expending considerable legal fees to unearth the facts. And now at a late date in this process, but nonetheless, we have come up with the facts showing that Mr. Allen had a much more extensive relationship has had a much more extensive relationship than this board was told. And for the board, frankly, to tell us that it fears that if they do the right thing now and consult with a properly vetted independent expert, it fears fears that it will be sued for a violation of the shot clock rules and that the board will suffer a defeat in the court is really too much to take. Again, they breached their duty of cander to this board. They sat here for a year and didn't say a word to the board about the extensive relationship between Mr. Allen and Verizon and the notion that this board should be intimidated against doing what is right because of the shot clock that they would have to invoke. I'm sorry, it's just too much to bear. The audacity would be stunning and judges aren't stupid. Judges would not uphold an invocation of the shot clock under those circumstances. So again, in conclusion,

I ask the board to do the right thing now that it has learned facts about Mr. Allen that the board was not previously aware of. And given what I think is a clear conflict of interest, but at least creates the appearance of impropriy, the board should take a little bit more time. Again, sorry it's late, but it's their fault. They didn't tell us the truth. the board should take a little bit of additional time, consult with a truly independent expert and do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Um, anybody else? Yes. Your name, please.

My name is Bob Lesnau. Live in the town of Rochester here in Fort W. Um again I just want to say that I've been here over quite a number of u planning board meetings. I've listened to very wellreasoned objections by residents of the town. Um we know that beyond this uh you know core group of people who come routinely uh to oppose the process um to oppose the outcome of having a cell tower in our town in the line with uh Julia's effort to obtain u many other uh signatures opposing uh the erection of the cell tower uh in this particular way. Uh I would say it would be a very good faith gesture to the town, to the community, to those who live here who are very concerned about the outcome and the potential damage um that the Verizon tower would have. It would be a very good nice a good faith gesture to declare a positive SEO declaration calling for a full uh environmental impact statement before going forward with you know any other decision making that would uh allow the approval process to go forward. So that's why I want to step.

Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead. Your name, please.

My name is Matthew Red, town of Rochester. Want to push back on a couple things that were said. It was asserted that nobody supports this project. Not truth. I'm somebody um who supports the project. Look, I got no love for corporate America. I got no love for the Verizon Corporation. I got no love for these faceless corporate overpaid whatevers. But if corporate America is going to show up in our community and invest in infrastructure that we sorely need, I hope this board working with the community can get to yes somehow someway. I'm not getting into all the all the details and all the the the nuts and bolts, but this is infrastructure that that this town needs. Um maybe you it was said that it's like not um necessary. We already have enough signal coverage. That may be true today. going forward, we know all our devices suck up more and more bandwidth every, you know, every year when they put out a new one. So I I believe, you know, the people that build this infrastructure, provide this infrastructure, are looking to that future, maybe overbuild now to be prepared for what's coming. Um, if we're if we're really concerned about, for instance, health effects, um, you know, in terms of 5G, we know that's some doubt about that. There's some studies both ways. If we're really concerned about health effects, we should talk about things like diesel burning school buses, which we'll get to in a bit. But, um, you know, it's it's not the case that the whole community opposes the project. People I talk to, people I know, my wife, my family, we support this project. We need infrastructure. This is a public safety issue for our first responders, for ourselves. When we need to call for help, we want to know their signal there. We live in a day and age where we expect to be able to pick up the phone and call for help when we need it. Um, we know that there are areas in this town where that's not the case. So, to the extent we can get that infrastructure built out at no cost to us, by the way, um, we need to do so. So, I hope the board can work with the community, work with the applicant, and get to Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Um, so what we're going to do now is I'm somebody say something. You want to speak? Yes. Yes. May I have your name?

Yeah. My name is Deborah Modeski. I live on Stony Hill Road out of Rochester for 15 years. And um I just want to say I don't know if this gentleman here or how many people that live a half a mile from this proposed cell tower like myself and my family would feel the same way if they were living within that range of distance. But no one I know in our area on all of Sony or anybody I've talked to or anybody that is in this community that we have been in part of for many years are for this. So, if there's one or two people that are for it, I'm not really sure why, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be living as close to it as we are. We have, in my opinion, I am not going to state a whole lot of facts about all of the things that have already been said, but I do want to say that this land that we live on is sacred land that was stolen. And as the descendants of these people that took over this land,

would you close the door? Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. I'll take as affirmation. Okay. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect this land and we cannot do this. Only the members of the planning board have the ability to do this and as representatives of the majority of the people that are around here that do not want this. I think that all the things that everybody has said needs to be listened to. I think that we need to really take all of the precautions, all of the things locally, take everything into consideration. I know a lot of people, like some people have said, are not feeling really listened to. And I just want to ask the board to just take that all into consideration that we are protecting this land for the future generations. It's not just for us and and what is the good of what's happening right now. I live in a in the where I live is all the way back along the Stony Hill and we have completely fine service there. I don't know anybody that has like no service anywhere around there. I don't know what this need is. So, I just wanted to say that and speak to just bring my voice up here and say that as a member of this community, we're just asking for the planning board to take the time to really take everything into consideration and and be our voice. So, you are all that we have. Thank you.

Thank you. I just would like to say one thing. I'm sitting here watching members of the board who will not look at anyone who's speaking and to me that just says you're not listening. I've been watching you and you're not listening. And we are the people in this town. You supposed to represent us, but you're not listening. And I don't think this gentleman knows anywhere near Granite Road. So, thank you. I find that comment a rude comment on behalf of the board. I have watched

and I don't see I see very few people I see very few people. I've been looking at you and we all have ears. So, thank you, Michelle. And I don't think what I said is rude. It's true. I do. Whatever. Um Okay. So, I'm going to adjourn uh the public hearing for tonight. Um we're not going to close it. No, we're not going to close it. And the reason for it, why can't it? Because if we pass the CND, we'll have to have we have to continue it next month. You have a public comment periods required. You can open up the public hearing next month for that.

We in general seeker public comment periods in general a public hearing. I've never seen a secret comment period at a local level that didn't have a public hearing associated with it. So, we're going to have a comment period and a public hearing. Can we limit it because we keep hearing the same thing over and over again? Then sorry Lori or Scott. So it's I want to say it all but I don't know this.

You keep hearing these comments about your job is to protect the residents. Not true. Your job is to unbiasedly unbiasedly apply the law. I know you all know that. And I guess my bad character can't just help from saying it because it's just not true. I hear it every time. You got to protect us. You got to do what we say because we come and tell you this. You have to apply the law fairly and reasonably. Barely. And um and and and to Miss Walsh's statement that at each meeting here I've threatened the board. Completely not true. Completely not. I wish I did.

Exactly. I'm you know don't dis you're not addressing the I know I shouldn't bring myself down to and I'm going to shorten I'm going to ask you to are you finished? Yes other than we reject every single comment that was raised tonight. So in order not for the argument so we're going to adjourn the public hearing. We've gone through this a couple of times. I've gone through it a couple of times with our attorney and um I think the more appropriate way of handling it since we will we had planned on having a public hearing at the end of the 30-day commentary period.

So what's the difference between adjourning this and just extending it to that period of time rather than closing this public hearing and having quote unquote a secret public hearing which doesn't exist in the law. So, we're just going to adjourn tonight and we won't have another public hearing at the earliest until um early June when we have our uh the 30-day period is over and we make uh make our decision uh one way and the other. So, that's what um I've been advised by our attorney to do and I think it's rational uh to do it that way. Um so, that's what we're going to do. Okay.

All right. So, we're going to adjourn the public hearing, not close it. We're going to return it and um what we are going to do so what we're going to do now is transition to talk about another project so they can have their time in the saddle so to speak. It'll be the uh first student group. Then we're going to come back and discuss um Verizon and we'll be going through um discussing the FBAF part three and we'll be making the decision through a resolution one way or the other to the board uh to either accept or not accept that part three. So um I would suspect we're going to be with the um the folks from first student probably for the next half hour to 45 minutes.

Okay. Um, so we're not going to get back to Verizon until that 9 o'clock. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, and by the way, I should have mentioned this earlier. Pine Grove, anybody who was here for Pine Grove, they bailed uh from this meeting uh somewhere around 3:30. So, we weren't didn't have enough time to uh notice that in the uh uh town website. Okay. Um what I'd like to do is just take a five minute come on up. Take a five minute break of the board and then we'll come back. Huh? I'll bring my

Yes, sir. Instagram. It's over I got a I have a problem. Yeah,

sorry. Anyway,

so she did not See, this is where we're going to go easy on it. Please. I you know I get paid for you. If you visit, it's kind of You could be as I'm always on this side. I'm kind of glad I'm on that side. You want, you know, to get out of order. I appreciate I appreciate you having us.

Oh my god. We'll have to the whole squad here. I'm running for two. I'm running good. Good to see you again. How are you? Where'd you fly in? Uh this morning, flew up from New Earth. So, what' you say? Last time we were in this room, you had the whole crew making breakfast. A little discouraged. Is he Dave out there? He shouldn't be out there. He should get the hell in here.

We're ready to start. It's [ __ ] Did I say that? No. I You sneak. Anyway, of

you'll double check it again. decision tonight. So I will answer,

right? But we had asked her in the last

Yeah. Just put a little Yes. You know, and and the reason we're snippling normally they put in that road and you know that's what they Thank you.

All right. You being I went out for air and I was talking to about Steve. Yeah. Oh, hello. How are you? And uh saved me. We're just waiting for our attorney. The attorney lost. What is the attorney? Attorney's Where is he? Is he out there?

No, he better not. We found him. Did you really use internet? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm hooked up to my phone now. car out here. The lights have been on for since I got here. So, I don't know if this What car is it? Nissan. Anybody have a Nissan? Back on, Stacey. I'm just going to stick with my It was working for me. Peter has jumper. Did it have you

I can jump a car if you want. So the internet is working. It seems to me again you got too many people on at the same time. Oh, is that what happened? I was getting an issue.

Cleared out, I guess. Was it something I said?

Jumper to start the internet.

Okay. Uh, all right. We're all We're all here. So the folks in front of us are here from first student. I'll let you all introduce um yourselves. I don't think Jen Meco needs any introductions nor sorry the superintendent of schools. I just can't think of what I'll name there. So I have a hard time at this now with remembering my own name. Um so they're here to to talk to us about the EV stations. if you recall, um they were here in November 24 is what I recall and um we didn't we didn't make any progress. So he let us a little bit of quick history. Um the applicant attempted to get this approved as an accessory use by the building department at some point last year. It was not approved as that or the determination was not that it was an accessory use. The determination was that it was a special use with an amended site plan. And the reason it's an amended site plan is because there's an old site plan on the site that goes back to the 80s sometime that um that exist and which was on and has some violations which have been cleared up. So it's an amendment to that site plan which provided for in essence 20 buses as I recall on the site along with parking for staff. So after a series of um starts, restarts, misss, starts, they're back again here, a new team from the last time to propose what they're going to propose tonight, uh give us tonight. So we're all ears. Um full disclosure to the board, myself, Peter, Dave, and I attempted to get another board member, but they weren't available. met with um Mike

the young lady and the gentleman to the right we did meet with them for about 2 hours just to level set where we were at this point after all the starts and restarts. So we did do that and um made no conclusion except told them the hurdle that you have to the obviously certain that you have to jump. So, uh, there's maps in front of you, the latest set of maps. Um, and, um, thanks. So, we're all ears. Why don't you tell us what you want to do, how you want to do it?

Perfect. I'll run it down. So, good evening, Chairman Jones, board members. I want to thank you all for your time tonight. Uh, and especially to pretty much everybody within the town working through this project. uh over the past 18 months it it's been on off as you guys know. Um so we're excited to present uh the board our proposed project again and hopefully that we can come to a resolution inclusion with your support and your approval to move this project forward. I myself I'm Michael Anthony Joseph Klein. Uh I am again please Michael

Michael Klein Michael.

Yeah. So I'm the senior property projects manager for first student. We are the largest school bus provider uh service provider in North America and I am responsible for all permitting for all the locations uh as they get up and running. Uh with me I have Ryan Fitzgerald who is our senior vice president. We have Ammy Pri who is our director of ED programs. Paul Spadero with Round Out Ballet School District and Jen Mezer with the county executive office. So, tonight we're we're requesting for the special use permit and the amended site plan approval for the EV charging infrastructure for our electric school buses. Uh these will be installed on our existing site located at 5147 Route 204. This is a lease site for first student. The property is owned by Dave Lefver. Uh he has approved this project uh and is very supportive of it as well.

Mike who? Dan Le Fever. Oh, the owner.

He's the owner of the property that we leased from. So, uh, as you had mentioned, Rick, uh, back in 1990, uh, this planning board, not only this particular planning board, but the town board approved, uh, the existing use that sits there today for 20 school buses to operate from this location. We are intending to operate 20 EV buses from this location and continue the existing use that has been approved for over 35 years. Um, and that's that's pretty much the project itself. I I I mean, it's pretty simple. We're we're installing EV chargers for a site. We'll get a little bit deeper on the school district, so on and so forth, and maybe some of the the deeper details, but it's a pretty simplistic project to install EV infrastructure for this existing site. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna throw it over to Brian Fitzgerald who will dig a little bit deeper on where why why we're here, how we got here in regards to our client in the EVs portion of this.

So, as Mike said, good evening and thank you for your time. Realize that you've been working on some things already. So, really your time on this, although I will correct my I'm not sure I'm going to go deeper. from a trying to go a little broader and paint the picture and I'll I'll try to manage my own time here as well as yours. So, um so from a per student perspective, we've been the transportation partner for Round Outbound Central District. I think about eight years of taking care of it, right? And that that just means that our job is to take care of their needs for transportation. One of the things we offer the school district as their partner is um industryleading expertise in the electric school bus arena. Um very openly and as you may I'm always pretty candid here as this EV discussion in general and specifically the EV school bus discussion has taken hold. Obviously it's gone a it's gathered a lot of steam for a couple logical reasons. Right? If you're thinking of where EVs make sense, school buses, they'll travel a million miles. They come back. they can charge during the day and then the benefits that an an EV has. I don't know if there's a better place for that than potentially with young young children on a bus when you get into environmental noise and all the things that an EV can deliver. So as that really evolved uh for a student we made a conscious decision to invest in some of the capabilities so that we can then offer this support to our customers. Um and we really have we we went out and established a team of industry leaders on this front. We're currently operating almost 500 EV school buses across the US and Canada. And our team has even come up with a patented charging system that really takes most of the complications and you know underground and some of the things you originally thought were going to be big issues. We've even developed a system that really makes this pardon the pun but a little bit plugandplay on the infrastructure on this. So uh really

what that means we just been able to build significant expertise in really getting these EV EV school buses up and running. couple really broad developments that kind of got us here. And obviously, Chairman Jones helped me on a couple of this, so I'll go a little quicker on this, but uh yeah, you know, and if this is things everybody's familiar with, I apologize, but part of that bipartisan infrastructure bill set aside $5 billion for this clean school bus program. Now, although this program does allow for other types of clean energy school buses as well, the main focus over the last half decade or so has been in electric school buses. related but not fully attached is New York State issued a mandate saying that all districts will need to transition to EV school buses. The original mandate said all new equipment by 2027 and all equipment I share that sentiment and all equipment by 2035. uh even when they said that I think everybody with new manufacturing capability said a little bit expression. So that mandate has been adjusted a bit for reasons uh that span everywhere from just flatout manufacturer capability. Uh but one of the big reasons it um it has to be adjusted is that the simple fact is an EV school bus is still roughly three times the cost of a similarsized diesel school bus. So what that means right

well and on top of that obviously there is some who's gotten it down science here but there still some to to develop the infrastructure. So really what that means is it comes down to a situation where a district either has to acquire state or federal funding to be able to go do this or they've got to go figure out how they're going to fund that per school bus gap uh some other way right as as a district. So, uh, the first round of this EPA funding release, they started releasing this 5 billion in in tanches, so to speak. I think the first round was it a billion. Okay.

Checking on. So, they they released it in rounds. So, if you hear me talk about rounds, round one was almost a lottery, so to speak. Uh, districts had the ability to submit for the funding and then certain districts were chosen. Uh, it really was a little bit of a lottery though, so I'm not sure there was a lot of science that went in choosing it. U, there's been subsequent rounds as well. Each round has some different elements I I won't bore anybody with. Uh when we met with the uh Round Valley Central School District, it was a simple question for us really said, "Are you interested in doing this? If so, we can help you and we can kind of run down the details, the application, provide all the EV expertise that no school district should have just sitting there doing what they're supposed to be doing all day." So, that's the service we offered to the school district. the um the the Rhino Valley team was excited about that and said by all means you know we we'd love to be able to do this and bring this to the community so let's apply. Well, lo and behold uh we were selected in round one which is a real small subset of all the groups that apply. So the school district uh applies for this really again first we do the backup material and provide the the the expertise to to put that application in. So, Roundup Valley was uh was selected and then was awarded just under $10 million to put 25 electric school buses into the fleet here. That does include the price of the buses and it includes the number they put aside for what they believe the infrastructure was going to be. So, this was really I think it was the end of 23, the beginning of 24. What then happens is those funds get transferred to first student because we have to buy the buses and pay for the infrastructure. So all of the you know federal money has gone to the district district send then provides that money to first student first student goes and issues POS and we have actually purchased those buses u because you you had to in order to complete the cycle

with the funding from u from the federal money. Um, so that that's really over the last two years. And as Chairman Jones mentioned, for 18 months, we've been kind of trying to figure our way out to to how this all was going to work and all of that was explained well before, but it's landed us here. The thing I do want to mention is uh we have been applying for a series of extensions with the EPA uh going back, you know, 18 months or so for what they thought the original project would take. Um, the good news is the EPA wants the project to take full. So, they have been working with us to an extent and have given us a multitude of extensions. They their 90-day extensions uh though have now turned into 45day extensions.

Uh, we have another one coming due April 22nd.

Uh, so we're in constant communication with them uh on this uh project. Uh, I will I will say now they they have really ramped up. They're leaning on us to to bring this thing to a head though. So I think we are running out of runway with the EPA's timeline. Uh but our next extension is on April 22nd. So to to manage my own long-windedness too late joke. Um really from a first student standpoint, right, our our only horse in the race is this is a service we provide to the district so that they can go get the funding and get this up and running and then we'll kind of do the the dirty work in in the middle to get the buses, get them up and running and provide the expertise and the whole So So Brian, yeah, I don't know how much more.

Um I like two sentences, but go for it. Go for the two sentences. Yeah, but that's it. Go ahead. Two sentences. So that uh we we do know how to do this because we do have 500 buses up and running again. You know, we've bumped into all the beams to bump in over the times. And then really what we're just hoping for tonight is that we can work with uh everybody here to land on a solution that's going to work for everybody so we don't have to really unwind this and potentially wind up giving this money back to the federal government. Uh which means later on we may have to do it through a different.

Okay. So, um, as we as we spoke to people who were here two years ago, as we spoke, um, a couple months ago when you and Mike came in, the biggest issue here is safety of uh, fire safety. There were a lot of and everything's attended to that one issue of the fire safety. How are you going to make sure that these things don't explode? Question mark. and um that one bus on fire doesn't uh transfer to the other 19 buses that are that are lined up. Um so how do the firemen uh fight the fire? Um where's the water coming from? What are your safety recommend what are your safety provisions? We when we talked two months ago, you mentioned that you have some new system that uh can immediately detect if there's a variance in the temperature of those batteries and somebody gets somebody on command central gets notified. So that could be dealt with immediately as opposed to the thing exploding and now we have a real problem in our hands. Um what kind of safety feature you're going to have to convince this board that the safety features of the batteries you're using um are not just topof the line but topof the line as certified not by you guys but by uh consultants. I hate to use that word issue consultants uh that consultants uh and the best that the industry has to offer in terms of consultancy and and documentation and all of that. We have some side issues having to do with the site plan in terms of the lights bleeding off uh off the property. you're going to have to become compliant with dark skies. But that's the least of your issues to convince us that this thing is safe, that that we as a community can deal with the inev not the inevitable, but the possible. Um, how do we deal with that? Uh, you're going to have to convince us. Now, one of the concerns, which I I'm going to put out on the table again, which I had,

and I had it in 2024. I had it when I met at the school district. We had a big meeting. I remember you standing off to the right. I was sitting in one of the corners and I made the statement is look you guys are coming at this the wrong way. You don't even have local representation that can represent you in front of a local board. Um who knows the what has to be done in terms of documentation terms of process. I know that when we met two months ago you were amazed that it's going to take us quite a while. I think I said at least 6 months to get this thing done. You thought it was one and done. a local person would be able to tell you no under seeker the seeker process in New York State Jersey you're Ohio great states um however we have something called seeker and there's no way we're going to get through the seeker process in anything under three four five months u given the issues that we have to deal with so I want to repeat that again to just level set um for yourselves the board know knows this already and for anybody from the public who is here listening to this. So, um I I really appreciate you level setting for everybody. Now, we have to get it down and dirty in terms of the details. One of the things I'm going to do is ask our consultant Dave Church. And you heard all the things he's already doing between now and the 27th. But he typically with the pro any project, he does a write up on the project to make sure that what you've submitted is totally compliant with all the state rules, all the town rules, and he makes recommendations as to next steps. He makes recommendations as to um how to categorize this in terms of seeker um what is it? type one, is it a is it a listed, is it type two, etc., etc., etc. So, he's going to do that. That probably won't be available for the 27th. We'll have to slip into May given the amount of work that he's he's got on his plate. Right. So, that's one thing that we're

going to do. The other thing that we're going to do so that there's we're not um dancing around the issue, there's a form called this the f the seeker part two and it enumerates the various things that we must look at for seeker and identify whether there's a small to no impact or a moderate to large impact. So, we're not going to do Seeker upfront, but we're going to use that tool to make a determination to help you understand what this board thinks about the project in terms of Seeker so that you have no misunderstanding of the things that we're going to be looking for. And I would suspect that I'm going to also ask Mr. church to have that ready for us to do at the meeting or maybe even prefill it at the meeting of for May I think it's 8th or May 11th I forget so that we could have a robust discussion about these are the issues that we believe we need to deal with again site plan almost pales in comparison to what we have to do uh in terms of identifying the issues and how you're going to deal with those issues. So, um, do you want to make does the board want to make any comments first?

Well, let me I want to if you make Yeah, let me let me know. I was going to suggest a go forward, but

I just want I just want to point out that that in addition to seeker, the first three criteria for a special use permit all relate to the impact on safety and um, you know, the the environment in the neighborhood. Typical special use permit criteria. So we I think everybody agrees that getting you know EV buses is a good idea especially given the investment that the state and feds are doing here. Um but our job is to um you know e execute the law and the law here is going to require us for a bunch of reasons to look at local safety and it's not only this board but we're going to invite comment from either our consultants or in this case the fire department or both. And so part of your job is going to be to put together a proposal and a series of um protective uh measures that would satisfy these technical experts which who whose excellent whose knowledge of this issue is well beyond members of the board. So that's going to be the process here and the sooner we can ramp up on that. We obviously want to get you guys moving if we can, but we but there is a lot of concern about this particular issue. And so if you have that level of um experience in in solving those problems, the sooner we can bring that uh onto this site, the better. And you know, Peter may have some thoughts about that, but that's really where this is at.

What I was hoping to do, and I didn't certainly don't want to part Peter, what I was hoping to do is is two things here, which I think might get to exactly where where he wants to go. And first of all, we we really appreciate we've gotten some coaching on people could have done different two years ago and we do appreciate that and recognize some some errors of our way, so to speak. But one is I did I did want to uh allow us to hear a little bit from Dr. Spedo, Miss I think we'll get to some of that and then potentially part B of that might be Amy addressing specifically some of the questions. Before you do that though, I want to hear from the board if anybody wants to make a comment and then we'll go to Dr. tower and then we'll go to anybody.

Yeah, I could I mean I'm very supportive of this. I think it's fantastic that the school is that the school district is looking to convert. I echo what Rick said and I'm assuming what Peter will speak to. I'm not an expert on the safety side of things, but that's my major concern is fire suppression um and the safety side of it. Um and I think it would also be helpful. I mean certainly we have the drawings here. I didn't see is there in the project narrative that was submitted. There's one in the mud lab. Is there Okay, I'll It's a one page from a Oh, it's the same one. I don't know. That was my question. Is it recent one, Peter? Or is it It's from 24. No, it's not from It's a recent one. Okay. That's my general.

Okay. Anybody else from the board before we go to the H? She said it better than I did. So, okay. Peter, I' I'd rather wait until I have some questions, but I want to would love to hear the presentation. Okay. Superintendent Spatella.

Sure. I just said it's a honor to be here tonight. Thank you for allowing us to to be present and it's it's a big initiative uh with this with our EV uh buses and what the gentleman said earlier. I I love this community because we worked together, you know, the school district with our local municipalities. you know, we we partnered with our our local fire departments, our local firefighters, and uh you know, we listened uh to uh to to those entities and uh you know, we created together a a a tax exemption uh for our for for our volunteer firefighters and our volunteer ambulance workers. You know, people came to us, you know, our constituents, and we listened and we know that we have to work collaboratively and cohesively together to make sure our community is is successful moving forward. And that's what we're just asking here with with the town of Rochester, the planning board, is this is a big initiative. This is cutting edge. Uh we don't want to give $10 million back to the federal government. That that's the last thing we want to do. Uh we want to make sure those federal funds stay uh in our school district and in the town of Rochester. And we don't want that t we don't want that burden to be put on the local taxpayers. So this is a really great initiative. This is this is something that we won. Um and a lot of school districts didn't have this opportunity to receive $10 million uh to get our EV buses up and running, which is uh an unfunded unfunded mandy moving forward through the Department of Education. So, I appreciate you listen to us and um allowing us to be here and we're just looking to partner with you guys because I I feel like we need each other to to work together uh to make sure not only our school district is is successful but you know the town of Rochester is is moving forward as well too.

Next question. Just out of curiosity, what is the cost of transportation to the school district utilizing diesel and what will be the proposed savings by going to ED? I think that's a good thing to talk about to the community. I think I'm gonna segue that to Miss Mezer because she's gonna give you the um the transition. Yeah, that's my next career.

So, uh so first of all, thank you for giving me a few moments of your time and uh I'm here to talk just uh in support of the project. I feel like there I'm I have so many perspectives from which I want to talk about this. I mean I will talk about it as P executive but as a parent as someone who has been working to address the climate crisis for 40 years. Um uh so I'm just going to start you know several years ago the former your predecessor Dr. Morgan had uh called me tell me about this project. The fact that they had gotten this award uh federal award. I had been working really hard actually to get the infrastructure investment and jobs act passed at the federal level so that we could get this funding into our communities. And to learn that like my kids school district got the biggest award in the state for the for electric buses. I was just like so over the moon about it. And you know like the school district uh Olster County is electrifying its public transit system uh which everyone knows as UKAT um because of the climate health and taxpayer benefits that it delivers. Uh we have electric buses on the road now. We've had them on the road for four years in this driving around this county uh without incident. Uh, I've personally ridden those buses. They are absolutely like astounding. They're quiet. They're smooth. There are no fumes, no diesel fumes. They're clean.

Uh, and uh, our charging facility is actually indoors in our UK garage up uh, on Golden Hill in Kingston. Uh, you know, I understand that uh, the proposed facility is outdoors. uh which is even saf safer in the unlikely event of a fire. Um Olter County now has seven full-size PB buses on the road and we also have three um smaller uh paratransit buses for taking uh elderly and disabled residents to doctor's appointments. Uh we've had a great experience with them. Uh and we're going to continue replacing all of our buses as the diesel buses reach the end of their useful life. Apart from the enormous uh um value in terms of just reducing climate damaging emissions, we have seen significant taxpayer savings on fuel and maintenance. So on uh last year when we just had our five full-size buses, we save $85,000 compared to our diesel buses. And you know, today diesel is over $60 a gallon. And we are just saving so much money right now um to taxpayers. And you know, sadly, uh, I think these higher prices are going to be here for a while. Um, we offer our residents free public transit, so an alternative if it, if it's available to them to get around in this time, but our residents are struggling and any saving savings that we can bring to them is very meaningful. And uh this

is especially true with school taxes because that's most of everyone's property taxes. So you know the purchase of these buses is 25 for 20. I thought you guys were getting 25, but whatever you're getting the grants for 25. I I believe we what we're talking is uh 20 may need to be a fallback position given that

it's going to save taxpayers millions of dollars over the useful life of these of buses 12 years. Um there's no question about it. But like more importantly than the savings from my perspective is our kids health. Um you know that you can't put a price on but there there have been numerous studies showing that the the fumes from diesel exhaust are present in the carriers. Kids breathe them. And I remember stinky buses as a kid. That was like something you just remember. You see plastic all the time. But um but you know this is this is just a huge benefit, a public health benefit. Um now I know there you there's been concerns expressed about the safety of the batteries. Uh the electric buses and charging stations have been in use and have proven to be safe. you will obviously look at the the plan and make sure that you have all of the necessary design precautions in place. Um, but I I just um I hope you'll keep it in perspective because uh the only deaths from fuel we have had in our county have been from propane explosions in people's homes. Fossil fuels are combustible. That's what they do. That's how they generate energy. And uh I just it's really important uh I'm just begging you to please have perspective on the technology and go with the empirical evidence on the safety. And I'm also happy I'm happy if it's helpful u for you all to talk to folks in charge of our uh EV um garage uh and also our

emergency services director Everett Ericson. He can certainly um just give you information about, you know, coordinated emergency responses across the county to fires or anything else. They do all of the trainings. We're actually doing trainings on on uh EV all all manner of fire. Um and I'll just say just on on a personal note, you know, I have been driving an electric vehicle for seven years now. I my charger is like hanging from a tree near my house. A level two charger and like many residents charge at home. And as a county, we have installed something like 96 chargers around the county. We're about to cut the ribbon Earth week on a high-speed charger at our building in Ellenville. This technology is here to stay because it is what we need to do to protect the planet. It's healthier and it's less costly. And um so anything I can do to help you all get you whatever information I can, I'm so happy to do it. And I'm very proud of my desperate still. And I hope this project goes through. we don't send it all back to the federal government and Austin Fair. So, thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. You want to talk a little bit on me about some of those specific?

Yeah. I wanted to thank Chen and she did a great job of uh you know covering like she said unlikely event of a fire and that is really the the key here right as per students we are carrying we're conducting almost 5.5 million trips carrying children um daily and so we are well cognizant like safety is our middle name and uh you know when we're transporting this cargo so when our company decided to go uh and invest into electrification. Obviously, safety was the first criteria where we completed a comprehensive risk assessment and that risk assessment really says that the the chances of a fire are it's a low probable risk but at the same time it's not that we are dismissing those concerns. We feel that addressing a low probability risk with safeguards in place with training in place is it becomes a managed risk and if you look at it there is nothing risk-f free but you can manage the risk and which is what we are planning to do in um in case of the award planning project as well. Um so all our deployments, our vehicles, our infrastructure meet all uh comply with all regulations, policies, NFPA, NEC standards, ISO, UL listing, charging stations. But for I mean given the concerns we heard from our uh from the local feedback in the fire department, we're also going above and beyond here. We're proposing to spread out the buses, give at least six feet between the buses. So to prevent uh escalation of fire from one vehicle to another, identify a 50-ft radius where an isolated bus can be or a burning bus can

be isolated in the unlikely event of a fire. Um we already provide training to our drivers, technicians and you know get PPE and shock tools for maintaining maintaining these vehicles. But we also provide training to first responders and totally willing to u willing to uh invest in that training for the local fire department here uh to to be able to learn more about these EVs and even bring our vendors on board to explain more about their vehicles and the safety of their vehicles. So um we feel that you know all these measures might we could successfully bring out this project for our customer and um keep the keep the risk in check.

I think I just you know I'd say add to that one um all the stats is that the the frequency is is actually less than it would be just the regular diesel

does burn different. Uh so we've made the adjustments to be at or above all the current industry safety standards for this. And after getting some feedback locally, we've already I think aligned to a couple things that are really above and beyond what we we would do in any other installation with some more space and some things that you know we've taken feedback on. So I think um you know the the frequency it gets better with EVs. the all the standards that have been flushed out by the industry and by our team are going to be met. And we have a few things that we've already talked about doing different here just to kind of double down on that a little bit and make sure because we have heard feedback around hey this isn't a this isn't a big city with a water tank 10 feet away and and so we've got a couple things we've already agreed to uh to to do on this and and the last part I think I'm going to say because it was a question we got asked a prior was listen if anything god forbid if anything ever happened the the training for what you do if there's passengers on the bus is no different than another bus you immediately get kids off and then then you know goes from there. The difference might be the the way the thing burns on this.

Okay. For what Peter, you wanted to wait till you heard. Yeah. Um are there other locations in New York where you guys have electric buses? New York City. New York City. Yeah. We have uh 10 buses right now down in New York City. We have several other projects. Uh Buffalo and a couple other places that are probably be done before this year's over. They were they were in when I said round one. Some of those are round three projects. So they they started Yeah. last year and they'll be done this year. The mandate where what is the mandate at now?

Mandate and I want to make sure I don't misquote this because it might have changed. Uh I believe that they have walked back the couple things have happened with the mandate. The districts have had the ability to apply for two-year delays on this. Now very openly. It's a pretty simple application, right? as long as you went in and applied and I believe you had to do the an a study, right? As long as you said, "Hey, we've looked at this. We're not going to make it." They've enabled that to back off a couple years. Uh so I think we're we're into 29. And I don't last I checked, they had not backed, it's kind of ironic, they hadn't backed off the 2035 deadline, but they have backed off the 27 deadline. And if you're doing the math at home,

those sooner or later the 35 deadline's going to have to move to. So they are, you know, for some of those reasons they they realized I mean 2027 sounded like a long time away 2021 and now all of a sudden we're here. So uh they've been sliding that a little bit and I believe that it's as simple as a district doing a study which either we provide or some other companies provide and then submitting it saying we're not going to get our uh we're not going to get there. I think it's a two-year waiver, right? Yeah. Okay. you you made me reference to this, but I just I know Rick and I were and David were involved some conversations, but the um there's a the grant is for 25 buses, but you only have 20 on the the plan

and and the reason for that is due to the the 20 buses, the limited site plan. So, does that mean you're not going to get those other five buses or is that they're going to go somewhere else? Currently, we we have we have explored a couple times whether or not there's a there's a school-based solution. We we don't we are still looking at that, but that is not solved and it's a long we might have to give up five until we hear otherwise it's 20 on this. Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah, in the site plan it said 20 EV charges on a K rail system and then seven EV charges on cement bases.

Yes. So there are based on because if the chargers are decided determined based on the routes and some of the routes are really long and so we have higher uh capacity chargers for those and the those are more like refrigerator units. Okay. So they are sitting on cement bases whereas the others are all mountable on jersey barriers. Okay. And where would those be in the are they are they indicated on that or they TBD should be in it. I think the closest to the equipment, the electrical equipment, are the first seven

along the road. Yeah. Okay. So, there's still only 20 chargers, correct? Seven of them are these special ones that Peter referred to, the other 13 larger capacity. Okay. Yes. Okay. So, there'd be just a total of 20. Okay. That's what I was unclear about. Um, and then you you made mention to maintenance. Um are you doing any maintenance on

so here's what we uh we're currently uh and I may have better when we started this out uh we were leaving all battery related maintenance to the providers because they had the expertise now that we're getting into this you know we 500 of these certain we're transitioning training some of our own technicians to become battery experts but I I believe right now our our safe bet we will start off with are high voltage I mean high voltage maintenance issues would go to the manufacturer right now but we have developed an in-house curriculum to train our technicians into high voltage and that's being rolled out as we understand okay so you're not going to do maintenance on sites

no um and then um so I know you mentioned the the 50 foot isolation radius and we we talked about this in one of the earlier meetings means the idea of pulling that in between between the Is there enough room to do that? How long are the buses? They're 40 feet. 40 feet. Okay. Yeah. So 40 ft and it's about a 100 feet from the bus to the to the buildings. Is is there enough room there for that? I guess that's the question. Yes. So this Yeah. This this area is what feels like sheet sheet C2. Yeah,

you can see that that that open area between where the buses are parked and the building itself. Yeah. So if you have a 40 foot bus, right, and then 50 ft on either side, boom, that's tied to it's 140 ft. Is there 140 ft there? Yes. And I'm just I read the I read the specs about the the isolating 50 ft safety. That's why I brought that up. Just the idea of is there enough room there to achieve that in the in that parking lot right

where where did that 50 ft distance come from? It came from their the safety information that they supplied that they that's generated by you. Well, I think uh we don't we don't typically do that. I think after having discussions with the fire department, we uh crafted a plan that was going to enable us to have that space. But that's I don't know where the 50 number came from. It's in the safety material with the bus. Yes. So, are you saying 50 ft radius?

That's what I That's what it said. It said in the the safety thing that they recommended and something you guys talked about, too, is providing 50 feet away from uh other buses and exposures. And so I I just wondered is is there enough room for that in that location? Well, I I guess I guess I could speak on that to a certain degree, but in regards to the 50-ft radius, I I may be talking out of turn, but the engineers may indicate that this is a 50ft radius, right? But it's not 50 foot clearance from the building and the musks.

Okay. So there's 50 foot radius within that area clear area and you can see that on C5 sheet C5.

I'm just I'm asking because I'm anticipating other questions coming about the Well, it depends on the orientation of the bus too. If it's north south, you can probably get there as opposed to what is orientated. But it said it said keep I get I get keep keep the buses 50 ft away from other exposures. So

So um I think what we need to do next um you need to give us a a total safety plan in writing that deals with um I mean the map is great. I I had a very simple question. Who's going to go in there and pull this truck out, this bus out while it's burning? I wouldn't do it. You couldn't pay me enough money to hop in there and pull it out. The batteries are in the back, right? Or in the front underneath under where? Back, front, middle, all between the axle.

So the thing is burning and you're asking somebody to go in there and pull it out. Can't move because it's been disabled by the fire. So then you're going to get a truck in there of tow truck to pull it out. You're going to have a tow truck on site. The answer is no. So you're going to have a tow truck. Who's going to I'm not going to drive it. I don't drive a tow truck, but if I did, I wouldn't go in there to pull it out. My point is you guys got to give us in writing a safety plan. Gota

Okay. A detailed detailed safety plan done by an engineer. Okay. Um and then what we're going to wind up doing um is finding an expert who's going to evaluate that and having the fire department evaluate it and possibly even the county um what's his name? Ericson take a look at it. Um, you can't be all rahrh about this. The rahrh point of the whole project has stopped tonight. Now we got to figure out how this is going to work and how are you going to deal with with the safety issue. How are you going to convince us from safety point of view that this thing actually works. So I need a total gent I can hear you.

Can I add something? Yeah, hang on a sec. I just I need a total safety plan from an engineer. How are you going to do this? all the industry information, the whole nine yards, and then we'll take a look at it. We have our engineer here. I don't know whether he's an expert in Ethan buses or not, but we'll find somebody who is, and we'll have them do the evaluation, a third party who's going to take a look at this and tell us, "Yeah, this makes sense. Here's why it makes sense or it doesn't make any sense." Uh, of course, we're not going to rule on what you're talking about as a practical matter. I don't see how you pull a bus out that's on fire. So, I guess from that perspective, you've decided or what's being recommended is um you're not going to fight this fire with water. You're going to let it burn out. Burn out. That's correct.

Okay. So, that's a big deal. I don't know how the fire department feels about that. And again, we need to know from the industry standard, industry experts that this is what the industry across the country, whatever, has decided is the best way to do it for the following reasons. And if that's the the story, then we'll get whoever we hired to take a look at your safety plan. We'll have them take a look at it and say, "Yeah, that makes sense or not." And the same thing for the fire department. Are they going to agree with that? Um, and then any other safety measures that you referencing? You said there's safety measures, some pre-warning. I mean, yeah. Got it.

Yeah. I was really impressed when you told us last time that you had a pre pre literally it was a pre-warning somebody I wasn't kidding in command central says oops the temperature has changed by a half a degree we got to do something well if that's the case you can get ahead of them if this thing starts I don't want to be penny penny chicken like it this thing goes on fire nobody's going to pull it out you don't have a truck on site to pull it out so it's like um and having said that I'm in support of EV this, EV that, but sometimes we get ahead of ourselves or we don't think through how we're going to handle something. Understood. Did I hear you say you have 500 of the buses in the states

um in between the states of Canada? We have a temporary back as well and we would want to know um we want references from people who are actually done this in New York State or even other states who's actually done this that we can talk to. U done this you may built had a facility where there's 20 exactly

I also would like to see the safety plans uh these these communities installed employees not understand so I I don't know and that's what I was going to say is that I can't imagine we're the first people to ever ask these questions I have to imagine there's something standard I can't imagine that this is a big ask um I you know the county is converting to um EV. I know New York City MTA, a lot of those buses are EV now and certainly that's thousands of buses that they're managing. So I have to think this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

And going back to what someone I can't remember who said it, but it's about this management. So the the more we can limit the potential for a fire, that also goes a long way in how we view what happens when the fire occurs if hopefully different. And and keep in mind, we've already addressed a lot of that stuff because this is not a standard layout for any of our facilities. We have buses like two feet apart, right, in in most of our installations. And so how far apart are these buses? 6 feet. She said six feet. Six feet. Thank you. And and they're some of them are aren't they like right next to the building as well? Yes.

So So you have a lot of information, but we need the information because we don't have fair enough. Okay. And then we get the information. We're going to hire somebody. We're not going to we'll delve through it, but we're going to hire somebody that says, "Yeah, it makes sense." But we want to also talk to people who have done this already somewhere else in the country, in the state, in the county. And yeah, we'll take Jen Mezer up on her um her suggestion that we go up and visit their site. Um Jen, did you get your questions? Yeah, it was just commenting on the issues. Yeah, I don't think anybody here out of the box is against EPV technology, but what we want to make sure is that it can be applied safely on this site with no water. You should. Fair enough.

Okay. Yeah. And just to read one other thing is that you know which you guys Dr. Sparrow knows of course but we have a gigantic district

you know it 90 close to 88 square miles of district that we cover and school buses throughout the district. So the response time is an all volunteer you know personnel limited fire department can be extensive. It can take you know 15 minutes to get to the other end of the district with red lights and sirens. And so that's not just the um the charging depot, but the what happens in a remote area as well, which is I know that's a concern for for all fire personnel in the area. Um and u yeah the and then the other you know Rick mentioned that we're going to talk about seeker at a certain point but you know water is one of the things they're kind of leaning away from that is being you know it's more advantageous in a lot of these EV fires to let them burn out rather than water because the the the water is contaminated. It's toxic and you're just about 500 feet from the Roundout Creek. So we don't want to lose that and it's an aqua forer protection district. So we have to be you know aware of of of those things as well which will come under under seeker.

Um so

so the board give me some feedback to what I'm going to say next. David for the uh May meeting which is four weeks off. Could you do one of your writeups to deal with all of the code issues? Um, and also prefill a part two. We're not doing secret yet, but just prefill one of those from what you've heard, what you know, so that we can review it in a meeting to say or to share with you to say, "Hey, these are the things that we're going to be concerned with and that you you must deal with in terms of seeker because we do have to, you saw with the previous project dignified, we went through what's called a part three. um first did a part two, then we did a part three and we have to have those mitigating circumstances where we identify items that are a real concern uh high or low or no um impact on the environment. So, we have to go through that. Again, I don't think we're ready for it because you have to feed us feed back to us how you going to deal with these items. So, I'm asking Dave to simply begin to identify on this form what are those items that this board is likely to have a problem with or have concern with. Does that make sense?

Sure. Who I talked to about the we have to the board's going to type it under seeker as it's called. Which one of you could tell me the details of the sipling things like are you going to do anything on the building? That would be me. Okay. Yeah. I I'll follow up with you then. Okay. Okay. Um sir, so from May 8th, is that do May 11th the first? May 11th. One May meeting. Is that right? What's that? You're doing one May meeting. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Mr. We need that. Sorry. We need that. Yes. So, we're all right with that today. May 11th.

So, so just so I'm clear, David will get us the seeker along with a write up back to us like a week before the May date or Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And I appreciate many applicants read what Dave writes up. Some of them don't. Those ones that don't regret it because everything he says you got to do in there, you're going to have probably have to do. I can assure you we will.

So, and then the seeker, I want to make it clear that this is just we want to let you know the kind of seeker items that we're going to be concerned with. We're not doing seeker yet. We need for you to define how are you going to mitigate some of the items and then we can proceed with with doing the official seeker process and do I have the right to work directly with David through that you're going to pay for it but yeah

I I just want to point out that in in terms of critical path if if this is time sensitive you really want to start moving this forward I mean Dave is going to write it up based on the you know the A's and C's of the application and try to type it and put it into different legal legal boxes. But I want to emphasize again that that the critical path here is going to be the prep rate of all the the seeker issues of all the special use permit issues. The one that you guys can correct me if I'm wrong is the most obvious here in my view the critical path is going to be the safety plan and in particular to the extent that we can anticipate it. the safety plan that will make the fire department feel the most comfortable or the least uncomfortable or that we will you know that this will pass muster with them and also with the technical expert that we would hire. So, and Dave will not be setting you up on that other than, you know, he may talk about distance to the creek or something like that, but the extent you have the elements of a fire safety plan in your pocket or that you can generate one from your other experiences and your other experts, I would get started on that. That's that's in other words, if you don't want to waste if you don't want to wait a month until he drafts it and you talk to him and you come back in, get started on that and that will be able then we'll be in real time moving this forward because that's going to be the that's going to be what drives us in my view. Everything else is it's not a new facility and and that's the that's the one issue and we're all I think everybody's sympathetic to the the you know the concerns that were raised and the opportunity that's here, but the fire safety plan is going to be an advisor here. So you guys have that information, get it get it rolling

and and once we have that, which I think we have a pretty good chunk of it already developed, ready to to submit. So would that go directly to the to Stacy to Stacy administrative facility? I'm happy. Should I get it right? Well, you can load it up to community collab if you want or you can send it to and or you can send both. Okay. So, yes. Yes. Yes. You Craig, are you going to be able to find us an expert to review this stuff? Um, I'll let me let me I have to get back. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to need an answer on that. There are people that do you need

Oh, you have you need Amy's number. That would be a conflict. I had a couple other things that on your EAF that you guys submitted. Um there there are a few things that I think need to be added in there like the um aquifer protection is not listed in there and that's uh in the uh if it's mentioned in the application certain place um scenic byway. This is part of the scenic byway, right? The 209. Yes.

So that should be added in there. Um this is under part C2C3 parks. It's just all stuff that's in there that's part of the context for parks and rail trails and parks that need to be added. Um there is public transportation on 209 that should be added under section D um uh section E2 if we've not completed water soils because you're adjacent to an agricultural area. So that needs to be added and then of course we are going to need to do once the application is on the county referral and DOT referral as well. Yeah, I think when Dave goes through his review, all those things that Peter was mentioning that have already been filled out on the what we call the long form, Dave is going to point out that it's incomplete, which it is. There are things left out. So, you know, it's a yes or no. And you put yes, and we think it's no, and you put no, we think it's yes. We'll have a discussion about that, too. Um, I'm going to set escrow. Um, I'm going to set escrow at 10,000. So what the escro is used for um is to pay for our consultants whether it's Dave Church uh Greg Bolner our engineer whoever we hire to be the reviewer of the data the safety plan and any work that might be done by our attorney in regards to this. So um I don't know whether that'll cover everything everything or not but that's a good start. So we need that uh this week and that goes to Stacy. You give me an invoice for that.

Um, okay. And I think Does the board have anything else? We got We have to go vote on esco. Thank you. I'll make a motion. Jen makes the motion for $10,000. David, all in favor? I I uh Dave, it'll be referable to the county because of the special use permit. Yep. You want to talk gateway meeting? I've I've already reached out to the county for a gateway meeting. Okay. We had but well, we had talked about that. If you've already talked to them, that's great. Okay.

They're going to say to you, well, we need to talk to the planning board. They need to either authorize or request it. So, if you get their indication that you they'd like to do a gateway, um I'm fine with it. Okay. But thank you. You talk to them and convince them that it's appropriate. Okay. Okay. We'll do. Okay. Anybody else? Anybody else? Thank you guys. Okay. So much. All right.

Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay.

So, if everybody would get to their

what three days That's back on. All right. It works.

You want me to? Yeah. Just take a take. This is just Does everybody have internet? It's been on and off. I don't know what I'm having. No, I think the reason why it was so difficult is because there were so many people here before. A lot of people on at the same time. Yeah. And I think now it's much better. Is it harder? So, yeah, you need to go to Munich collab into the section called sneaker and pull up the part three. We're going to go I'm going to go through that in a summary fashion. And then right below that or above it on M Collab is the C the CND. I've asked Stacy, I can't get anything on my computer. CD. Sorry,

what did you just say about CMD? The conditional negative debt. The resolution for the conditional negative is also in it's in the seeker statute. It went away again. I have no problem. You have nothing. I have no problem. Oh, you have no problem.

Just the Swiss thing. You run like clockworks. So, just for the board and for Excuse me. Is this the uh document dated 49 2026? Yeah. So revis. You said 49, right? 49. 49.

Yeah. First generation. I'll eat his

You can br one for you. It's delicious. I can I love you. Thanks.

All right.

Just as you handed me this, we was able to get into the system. So, all right. So it's it's in the uh it says environmental assessment form EIF part 3 draft FEF dated uh 49 2026. Okay. So the last time we spoke of this um this has been significantly amended and I'm not going to read every page. I'm going to try to summarize what we have here. First page just goes through some basic information about when the project was brought to us. Um the steps that we're taking in terms of seeker have already been taken or are being taken. It makes notice of the number of documents that have been reviewed. The people who have um acted as guides to us as to us including Matt Allen, Doug Bishman, Greg Bolner, Dave Church and Dave Gordon. Just a comment as long as I mention the name Matt Allen. At some point when we when I finish going quickly over this FEF, um Dave and I have had extensive discussions about um the issue with Allen and potential conflict of interest. So, I asked him to be able to address that with us tonight at some point when we go through all of the other details here and the board will be able to ask questions about anything here or ask questions about the content. I'm on page two or three and that is a summary of the impact categories and it's marked as to number section subsection and whether or not it was a yes or a no um in terms of that section. And let's start uh with the impact on plants and animals. Um you see that on page four. And if you remember um we did

go over this last time the um the work that had been done um by Verizon by the um uh US Fish and Wildlife Service. Um how the Fish and Wildlife Service had reviewed the information given to them by Verizon. Now, um, for better or for worse, their lack of it, uh, definitive response signal that they had, uh, they had no response or signal that they had no problem with what was being proposed in terms of the application that was done by Verizon. Horizon. Um we talk on page five um the radio frequency impact on uh being impact on animals on plants and animals being preempted by the federal telecommunications act. We had extensive input from the um public on that. We had extensive letters written by Verizon and by our attorney uh regarding whether or not we could um consider or if it was preempted. We determined that it was preempted or we wrote it as being preempted in this document. Then we go on to talk about um some of the um or fauna that uh may be impacted and answers to that in terms of the purple wild bergamin uh plant which Dave Church um addressed as and the we have medication for that but Dave Church uh addressed it with the national heritage program. um information here regarding uh eagles and and other raptors nesting uh on the um on the tower, potentially nesting on the tower. Um we went through that. Um we went through and commented on the concerns exhibited or mentioned by the

public rather about um birds in the area that had been um noticed as being present in the area through a um a program that was used by members of the public. We addressed that. Dave um provided us with information through his contacts at Metawaska State Park uh concerning bird strikes and whether or not they have had bird strikes, how many uh bird injuries, bird deaths and apparently according to what Dave reported um they have none. the strikes and the deaths and injuries have been caused more by impact uh to um windows as opposed to any of the u towers that are on the property. Um that was a subject of Dave's inquiries. On page seven um we go through um what impact or rather I'm sorry page seven and eight we go through the mitigation conditions and those I do want to go through one by one um first mitigation under the section um section seven impact on plants and animals no external lights shall be placed on the proposed tower antenna to avoid attracting animals including migratory birds. Next one. Number two, u there will be anti- nesting design measures taken to discourage potential bird nesting on the proposed facility. The applicant provided us with some samples of that and believe the board had that. I sent it out sometime in the ne last week as to what that would consist of. Number three, all ground work including tree cutting will follow New York State DEEC protocols for construction activities within potential habitat of northern longeared bat and Indiana bat. Uh number four, land disturbance will be minimized to the smallest area necessary to

complete the equipment compound and to erect the proposed tower. This area shall be mapped and field delineated and advanced uh as to the maximum area of disturbance. Uh number five, all tree removal will follow protocols set by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for relevant bird species. Number six, the area of crown disturbance will be surveyed by an by an ecology or related expert prior to construction to provide the town with recommendations for any species of habitat mitigation. Number seven, construction activity will be monitored in the field by a qualified professional or by a staff person chosen by the town in cooperation with the town code enforcement officer. Number eight, any plantings with landscaping will use native species chosen in advance. Uh number nine, in the event the applicant identifies any permanent in the project area, it will be required to carefully remove and replanted in other areas of the property. 10, submission of an asbuilt uh drawings to be reviewed and approved by the town code enforcement officer was the town engineers. So that those are the mitigation conditions for potential impacts to plants and animals. The next item is impact on aesthetic resources. Um and I'll read the items. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points either seasonally um or year round. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing. The proposed action is routine travel by residents including travel to and from work and 9F there are similar projects visible within the following distances of the proposed project uh half mile half mile to 3 mile 3 to 5 miles and 5 miles plus. So uh we went through the people who composed this went through this um

talking about the impacts on the aesthetic resources talked about all the work that have been done in terms of the balloon test um defined what the DEEC rules and regulations are around how to evaluate aesthetic impacts. That's on page 10. So this is the um the standard by which um we need to evaluate what impacts if any uh there are uh to inventory resources. Um we also had uh we addressed uh the work that was done by uh Tectonic and um with respect to visual impact assessment references the work that Matt Allen did with Tectonic having um both two times told them that the work was inadequate and it was redone um once by Tectonic uh that was in early. Well, that was in mid spring of last year. And then again, in terms of some other work that Tectonic had done, uh Matt Allen had a problem with that. So, in fact, Matt Allen had to perform all the work that Tectonic um did not want to perform, did not know how to perform, whatever the case may be. So, Van Allen was uh employed in order to um redo all of that work. So, that's on page 10 and 11. on page 12 um speak about the um we spoke about the balloon tests. We believe that the balloon test was was done adequately. Uh later in this document we do address the issue of the um the use of the pictures. So we'll get to that in a minute. Um we also talk about uh the involvement of

Minowaska State Park and the um management of Minowaska State Park. They had initially indicated that they were concerned with visual impact and later on uh they wrote an additional letter upon pointing out that some of the pictures that they were relying on were not correct uh or needed different interpretation um because of the way in which they were they had taken the pictures or used the pictures. Um so we received a letter from uh Joshua Lad stating that um they were satisfied with the work done and uh Pipsy does not believe that the town will create significant negative visual impacts at the visitor centers along the ADA path or Stony Gill falls. Um and then we talked about the mitigation um conditions or rather mitigation um items uh to deal with the aesthetic resources. On page 14, um we going to require the use of stealth design monopime to camouflage the tower. No exterior lighting. By the way, on the stealth design at the last meeting, we decided what kind of stealth design it was going to be. that'll be covered in the site when we do the site plan portion of the um of the decision later on uh in May June. But we had decided would be the what we call the flat top um monop which would be at 125 ft with a center line of 120 ft. No exterior lighting. Uh use of nonreflective tower and equipment colors to blend into the background. Reduction of the maximum height of a tower at any and all times to 120 feet 25 feet above ground level. The minimum needed to meet telecommunication needs and demand. Um based upon independent advice from the town telecommunications

technical expert which was Doug Fishman screening of an equipment compound from Granite Road from nearby apartment complex and from all nearby residential structures. They're using native vegetation as well as fencing. Submission of asbuilt drawings and landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by town the code enforcement officer um and post construction inspection by the code enforcement officer at a time period suitable to ensure corrective measures will be taken to replace any screening and plings if necessary and then we went on to uh talk about

can I just uh executive director's layer layer's final letter did say they were still concerned about the visibility from the road overlooks and recommended use of the monopodine. Right. Okay. Thank you. And in fact,

Matt Allen was asked to do additional visual sim uh stimulations simulations um from 4455 which he provided in his report um and which this board will have to decide in its resolution whether or not we were satisfied with the results of that. on page 14 um section 15 of the um part three impact on noise, odor and light um and the specific item the proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. And on page 14 and 15, we go through the work that have been done by um a consultant to tectonic that evaluated the noise impact uh of the generators going off once every two weeks or in an emergency situation. that was revi uh reviewed by our engineer Greg Alner and it was found that the um it meets the town code um section of the count town code um 140-20 general commercial industrial standards. So it meets that code well within the parameters and the tolerances of that code. And so on page 15, we came up with mitigation conditions for any impacts on from noise. Number one, a dark clampboard style enclosure of an area surrounding any generator should be constructed of sound mitigation materials with additional native plant screening set with site plan approval. All generator exhaust shall be directed away from the nearby apartment complex. Two, additional sound mitigation may be required if there are colllocators. Number three, time of day generated bi-weekly testing shall be between 9 and five. Post construction sound testing with corrective measures required if

determined by town code enforcement officer um with the assistance of the town engineer. Additional additionally, similar sound mitigation will be required for any additional generators or sound producing equipment installed on the site. So um that's uh takes care of noise on page 16 consistency with community character. Um, we went through that. Dave Church and a number of members of the board went through a number of different documents um, town documents including the comprehensive plan, national natural heritage plan, open space plan, and um, their research found that there's no guidance um, given to help define the community character of the Granite Road neighborhood. So, the board acknowledges um that the town code requires us to take a look at it. Um we had at one point been advised by our visual expert that something local like this might fall under the DEC. um a board administration on DEEC rules uh regarding uh mitigation of um visual impacts and we decided that we would not accept that and instead um is part of the reason why we came up with the uh monopine as a way of uh getting around um any visual impact any local visual impact and impact on community character. On page 17, uh we address the uh needs analysis and we're relying on um study by uh Doug Fishman who uh indicated that

what the applicant had wanted in terms of 145 ft um was my words excessive and the needs could be met with an antenna. with a center line of 120 ft um with a maximum height of 120 ft. Um so that's exactly what we're going to be uh uh recommending in this conditional negative declaration. So that uh takes care of the issue of height and um the issue of actually the issue of needs analysis will be dealt with in the site plan uh because it's in the site plan that the needs analysis and the work done by Doug Fishman again input from Verizon input from Mr. Chamberlain and I believe Mr. Comey that'll all be dealt with in the um in the site plan portion of the decision. uh mitigation conditions for impacts on community character um on page 17 and 18 uh you see them there. So that's the the FEF part three and the one item that we didn't have here was the um the issue raised about um conflict of interest. So, uh, Dave, I'm going to let you, um, deal with that one. Signs ready. Um, we've got, as a board is aware, we had, I think, at least two submitts on alleging a conflict of interest against Matt Allen. one from Bob Berg who's the attorney for um Larry and Michelle and the other was um written in writing from Larry and we've had a couple of oral statements as well. Um

the requested um remedy for the alleged conflict of interest as the board is probably aware is to essentially not only um fire Matt or otherwise relieve him, whatever the word is, but also disregard everything that was done for us, hire a new consultant, which I haven't even begun to get my head around what that would mean. it would put us somewhere back near the starting point of ground zero because Matt advised us extensively on the procedure to develop the visual impact um evidence, the the photographs, the balloon tests, the the simulations. And so we'd be going back to some point um pretty far back unless we could cut it short. Um, what I'd like to do is I'd like to address the legal aspects of this and then both sort of let the board know where I think it goes and invite the board's questions because I do not want to be imposing my own um my own vision of of what the for quote right answer was here. It's it's this is the board's decision. This is actually now a critical part of our findings um because obviously the visual impact analysis is fundamental to the seeker review in general with respect to cell towers. It's um it's probably the most important single environmental impact and so um the board has to be satisfied where it comes out. Where I'd like to start with is the law. And I also want to point out as an overall here, I'm going to zoom out a little bit because conflict of interest questions, first of all, they can be somewhat emotional. They are um typically ad homonym and that they don't get to the issue. They get to the person and and what what the person's been doing. And you people can get sucked in based on

the facts that our attention is being focused on. But it's very very important to get perspective on conflict of interest issues. So where I'd like to start out is what the law looks at as a conflict of interest. And conflicts of interest are both described and also addressed in both state law and in um in uh um the town code. And couple of things to point out here is first of all conflicts of interest are almost always described in terms of pecuniary interest. So person's got to have money involved with it with with with the issue. Second of all, contra conflicts of interest are also typically described in terms of a municipal official um public official making a decision. And thirdly, conflicts of interest are typically described and I can read the portions of the definitions and this is this is somewhat odd for members of the planning board because it's not what the planning board does, but conflicts of interest are typically described as interests in a contract. So, and the and if you stop and think about it and again step back from where we're sitting tonight, the real concern for conflicts of interest, the primary concern going back to whenever the general municipal law was drafted was a public official, let's say the commissioner of a department awarding a contract and awarding a contract that he or she has an interest in, meaning that he or she's going to make money on, as in awarding a contract to his own firm, awarding a contract to his wife's firm or her or her husband's firm warning contract to his children. And that's why and I'll just read very quickly um the basic the basic prohibition in conflicts of interest which under the general municipal laws under section 801 says basically no municipal officer or employee shall have an interest in any contract with the municipality of which he or she is an officer or employee.

That's state law and the town code has a similar has a similar um definition. So the first first thing here is that under the law this is a little bit different. This is not we're not alleging that you know somebody on this board is letting out a contract and making piles of money off. This is a this is a series of determinations or a series of interpretations by a person who's here is a um is a municipal cons is a consultant. This this person is not at least arguably depending um I there are different interpretations but basically Matt working here is not making Matt doesn't have a vote. You guys have the vote and if you had an if you had an interest in Verizon however that interest is defined that would be one thing. But this is a consultant and that's going to be very important as we look at this going forward. And so the short message here is that under the basic definitions this is not sort of a stand a classic conflict of interest. Now there are some cases and it's a pretty um it's a pretty commonly known area of law where but the court the courts don't just simply consign the issue of you know interested you know conflicted interested decision-m to simply letting out contracts. There's also you know the vote that you guys take on various um on various issues and the town board as well. And so um if it doesn't fall within the strict definition, there's a concept of an appearance of a conflict of interest. And what that's reserved for is some pretty egregious examples of where there is some sense of self-deing on the part of decision makers such as such as this board. But it doesn't fall within the classic um definition, but they're also pretty egregious examples. And I'd like to just um and again I want

to do this real quickly and I want to turn to your questions because this I don't mean this to be a seminar on this issue. This is a an issue that every every conflict of interest and ethical question there's always very fact specific there's always a lot of legal and ethical themes that go into it and it always depends on the specific situation and we could spend there are literally seminars on this stuff and I don't want to burden anybody with that. It's already a fairly late hour, so I want to move through this quickly. And if you guys don't want me to, just, you know, if we can be done with it, but um I just want to give you a quick sense of how the courts view um an appearance of an appearance of a conflict of issue, which is interest which is serious enough to actually, for example, invalidate a board's decision. And I'll give you two examples in particular. And one was, and this is a case called Peterson versus Corbin. And it's a case where a county legislator essentially voted on appointee to the um the OMB board, not OMB, I'm sorry, the um OTB board, the uh offtrack betting, which is back going back, this is going back now to the um it's going back 25 years. And the problem was he was essentially an employee of OTB. He he worked in one of the OTB offices and he was also um a member of the union. And so he was basically appointing the board that would be overseeing his job and also the union and negotiating with the union that he was a part of. And the board ruled that that the court ruled and this is the second department the appellet decision that this was not a an appearance of a conflict of interest that in essence the alleged interest was simply too attenuated was too small really in terms of the decision that was being made. In other ca in the other case which is really the cornerstone case that established this appearance of a conflict of interest. There were board members of let's say a town board that voted to approve a project that and this

is a little bit complicated that essentially was for a major company that hired their employer as an advertising um uh a PR firm and that was ruled a conflict of interest. Part of the reason here was that there were very very egregious facts. these board members were essentially going out the door. It was in December and they were locking in the approval of the project before they got out. And so that was really the driver here. And I want to give you a sense of that for this is, you know, just because there's a pattern of somebody working for somebody else at some point doesn't necessarily jump to the level of the types of issues that perhaps the the commenters are alleging. That there's a that there's a a scale here that needs to be taken into account in the scheme of things. Having said that, so the first thing I would pose is that I don't believe as a legal matter this is a legal conflict of interest. I don't think it's at that scale. We will discuss that because what I want where what I'd rather turn the board's attention to is a couple of interesting things here. The commenters, particularly Bob Berg's letter, which um have it up here. I can get the date for you, but um he never actually alleged he never actually alleges that the board is viol that if the board were to continue with Matt Allen as their consultant that they're actually violating any standard of conduct. He he talked about Matt violating a particular standard of conduct which is the code of conduct for um I guess landscape architects. But in terms of the board's decision-making, he there's never really an allegation that the board is violating a standard of conduct. The good news is in his letter, he does actually cite the standard which I believe is applicable here, which is not the ethical standard of conflicts of interest or anything like that. It's actually this board make taking a hard look at the seeker issues. In this case here, the secret issue we're talking about is visual impact. And he does cite

that and I think he's right. So the question for this board that I really want you to focus on is that given the particular facts that are being alleged here which we can talk about at greater length especially depending on you know how far you want to go with it is are you satisfied that you that the board will have taken the hard look that is necessary in order to in order to fulfill our obligations under seeker. And what that really means is in light of the work that Matt did for the board and in light of the way that the the board has taken his work and otherwise gone forward with all the evidence that's been created, are you satisfied that you were able to take that hard look given the um given the facts that have been induced um I guess against him and against the board. Um with respect to the facts of the case um this is call it as it is. The facts that have been alleged is essentially that Matt um worked as a direct consultant for Verizon about seven years ago, seven years ago and that continued into a court case about that ended five years ago. I'm not exactly sure what the date of his affidavit was. That may have been back in um I think was it 2020

21? Yeah, David was 2021.

2020 that appeared in the court case of 2021 I believe. So I think basically the numbers is Matt's um consulting was primarily in uh 2019. His affidavit for the court case was 2020. This is for Verizon directly and the decision was in 2021 if we're there's a possibility of off by a year in that um and that his uh his work for homeland which is a an independent um uh cell tower applicant and and and sighting agency that has extensive um contracts with Verizon in terms of citing Verizon towers continued up is continuing up is extensive and continues up to the present day. So the question for the board is whether or not these facts diminish the confidence that the board has in his work sufficiently to interfere with your hard look and alter and alternatively whether you believe we're better off um essentially dismissing all of that work and either starting over again or in some ways is patching it up with with another consultant. So, those are the basic facts and I would advise a couple more items to consider before we before I get into your questions. I promise I don't I'll just introduce it very quickly and then we move on to um where you guys want to go with it. Um the first is Bob Bob Berg's letter asked the board among other things to find out how much of Saratoga's business was dependent essentially on on homeland. Um, and Ri Rick had a exchange of emails with uh with Matt and I think it came down to three years in a row the last three years I think it was and it was between one and a half and 3% of

Saratoga's different for each of the three years but it was between one and a half and 3% of Saratoga's revenue was coming from homeland. So that's that may be a valuable data point. Also last month what I last time we spoke about this what I suggested orally was looking at Matt's contributions carefully. I viewed uh I viewed it in two separate batches. One was the technical advice that he gave us in terms of how to structure the evidence um and the ultimate development of that evidence, the visual evidence, the simulations, the whole thing. and then later on sort of the the overall evaluations um as to the significance really the ultimate questions and my thought was that this board um took the overall evaluations and wherever Matt was coming from um and we kind of made our own determinations on all of those. That was my thought on that. you guys can look within yourselves and decide how you how you handled that. But I thought there were some recommendations that we just cast aside because we wanted to move in a different direction. Obviously, I think we um and you guys again can answer that. It's really for you. I think we took a lot of his advice with respect to the structuring of the um of the uh um of the testing and and the development of the evidence. Um there was one more thing I wanted to mention but it uh it'll um yeah there there's also a minor factor which is that I think we're all aware that Matt's um Matt's advice especially on those technical areas resulted in Verizon having to double back uh for over the course of a couple of months spend a lot more money take a lot of time and redoing certain things and the question would be whether or not you know somebody who was I mean the the allegation is basically that he was in Verizon's pocket. It would have been um doing something like that. And there's

one more thing and I remember the one last data point I want to point out. I don't want to load you guys down with too much because you're going to have your own questions and there's a lot floating around here. But one of the things that interested me in all this was what the specific allegation was against him in terms of if somebody if somebody is is the commissioner of parks or something like that and they award a contract to their spouse's company for let's say $50,000 to do something. you know what the allegation is there that they are put taking public money giving it to some giving it to a firm that's going basically into their pocket and what I wanted to think through here is what is the allegation specifically about Matt I'll get to what Bob Berg said about it because he only said one thing I thought was interesting and I didn't actually really understand it you guys did better but what is the is the argument here that Matt Allen working with the board was somehow putting money into his pocket it by again this is the allegation at least reading between the lines and it wasn't always stated clearly for whatever reason but that he's essentially biasing or moving this out this this this application forward so you know getting it done for Verizon and how is the allegation that he's essentially putting money into his pocket how does it work um uh and because it's not the same as just awarding a contract and and And and I think it's important for the board to consider because they don't really get to it. And I want to mention what Bob said on this because I thought it was really interesting. And I'll mention that this is in in his letter. I think it was on page five or somewhere toward the beginning of his letter. And I want to read it. He says that Matt Mr. Allen and his firm have a deep business association, which I that's just a general phrase, but I want to get to the second phrase, a deep

business association and financial interest in the success of Verizon cell tower business. That is the specific allegation, the only one that I could see other than what we might imagine. Financial, I'll read it again. Financial interest in the success of Verizon's cell tower business. That's the allegation. and and presumably it's financial interest in Verizon cell towers business because of his work with Homeland which is ongoing. I when I read that and I and right now I don't really understand what the allegation is the most natural reading of that financial interest in excess of Verizon cell tower business is that if the cell tower gets permitted he's going to make money not necessarily on this specific cell tower which would really be a classic conflict of interest. let's say he owns the site or he owns an interest in this particular tower, but rather there's some benefit for the because of the success or the prosperity of Verizon's cell tower business. Maybe the allegation is that Homeland would get more contracts. If Verizon's got a successful cell tower business, they're liable to have more applications. They'll get more business. I don't really know what this means. I'm throwing it out to you guys so you can see and hear the specific allegation and you can figure out whether this allegation is sufficient to do what they are asking us to do. But I also want to mention what is not mentioned here. what's read is obvious because I think it's a one of the moving pieces of this and I think it's what many of the many of the residents have are are presuming and I think what the allegation is here and I don't know if Bob is just being polite or he doesn't

want to get there but the allegation I believe is that if Matt were to do anything other than box the board into producing a an approval that Verizon would functionally fire him andor fire his um his his uh his firm which is Satogue Associates. That's not mentioned. It's relatively impolite. Uh I don't know if that's why Bob didn't mention it, but those are the two things on the table for you to consider in terms of the specific allegation here. So having said all that, um those are the moving pieces that I see in terms of this board's determination, whether you took the hard look and whether what has been provided to you is poisoned enough to wreck that hard look. And at this point, if you guys have any questions, we can begin to think it through. And that's I I regret taking up a lot of time, but go ahead. So, I I I wanted to address this before I knew that you were going to talk to us about it because I feel like I feel very strongly that there's no conflict of interest here and that it's a complete non-issue. Um, we as a town routinely call upon consultants, local consultants who appear on our behalf and advise us and then appear on the behalf of a applicant on the other side of the table. and by virtue of their professionalism, those things are not an issue. And that's exactly what we have here. We've uh we vetted and uh professional who has dealings on both side of the table. Uh and he's actually an asset to us. That's the way I see it because he's he's bu he's he's provided information and advice and so on to Verizon in the past. So um uh what I

will say is that uh so that's the starting point. I just don't see, you know, you put it in legal terms, I put it in practical terms that, you know, just because he's worked on both sides of the table, that's how I phrase it, doesn't mean that there's a conflict of interest. But to back that up when you go through the methodology, his professional approach, um, and also the fact that not only have all of us sifted through all this material again and again, again, we've had hundreds of members of the public sifting through this as well. And I don't recall anyone actually saying, "Aha, you know, like there's a bias here." And so that's why I feel strongly that, you know, this is just a non-issue that we've been it keeps coming up. But I just don't think it's an issue at all because we haven't seen the bias. And I think that we've actually seen the opposite. And to your point, it's not as though we took on, you know, his recommendations and just went with it and he flavored the the our approach. You know, this was also just part of our analysis.

So that's all that's all I have to say.

I want to make two points that piggyback on that. And the first is there's an implication in the in the comments that this as you put both sides of the table is inappropriate and I want to point out to the board that there are different expect ethical expectations and standards for technical experts and you alluded to that a little bit I forget exactly your phrase and lawyers and most people are more familiar I think with sort of what the lawyer's ethics would be than than what a what a technical what an engineer's ethics would be. And when lawyers then find themselves on both sides of the table, that's a problem, right? I mean, it's an ethical problem that absolutely has to be addressed. And almost every law firm is going to have a compendium of who I've who we've worked for before. It's not just the individual, it's who anybody in the law firm has worked for. And the reason is there are two factors that that are important for lawyers. One is that our job is to be advocates. We are advocating for a zealous advocates for a particular person. And the second is that we have a continuing obligation of um of uh u responsibility of of loyalty. And so if you've worked for Verizon even back seven years ago as a lawyer, you have a continuing obligation of loyalty. And so now if I find myself on the other side of the table, we have to go back and reconcile that somehow. It doesn't mean we can't do it, but it means we got to start informing people and everybody's understanding that we're in a different place, etc. And Greg, you can comment on this, but engineers and technical experts have a little bit different set of expectations. They're supposed to look at a technical issue and and tell a technical truth and protect public safety. Now, we all know that the engine and we've seen this in these applications that engineers working on a particular side are going to focus a little bit more on the facts that are favorable to what they're doing. But it is but it is a different thing to just simply look at let's say an engineer or a landscape architect or whatever who

happen to be on different sides especially over the course of a couple years and immediately assume that it's a conflict of interest. It it and Greg you can comment on that but to to further Dave's point this board and other boards we are constantly hiring experts and we don't always grill the expert on how far back in the past you go. We expect that when you step forward in here, the advice that you give us is is honest. And um and so I would just throw out that the idea that Matt worked several years ago for Verizon directly is not a particular issue. We do have to look at the the Homeland Towers issue and look at, you know, what is he doing now? You you do want to be careful about something like that. And the question would be given the facts that we have that he's continuing to do this but that it's essentially one one to 3% of his business on a particular year how much that affects uh what we're doing. One other point to get to what they've said is I think it's very important here to look at the people who are objecting to Matt's uh contribution to us is setting aside the allegation of a conflict of interest is what are the specific criticisms of that advice and of the board's determinations. To what extent have they pointed to either something that Matt has said or something the board has done generating, you know, generating the photographs, the the posit the the the locations for the balloon test, the balloon test itself, the simulations, the whole bunch of it. And to what extent have we been told, you've done this wrong. You've got you missed this particular vantage point. This is obviously an important issue. which is ob, you know, and um I've seen the I've seen the the overall attack as a conflict of as a kind of what we call in law law conclusory. But if you were to instead of just throwing the whole thing out and starting all over again, if you were to decide, well, we're going to toss out particular things that they're upset about and rethink those, what would they be?

Yeah. Yeah. So there's one other thing and that is the point that was raised that Matt had somehow obscured his past relationship with Verizon. He's responded to that. I'm more than satisfied with that answer. I don't think that there was a you know like a a real attempt to hide that he'd worked for Verizon in some capacity in the past. I I I that once again it's not borne out in the the methodology of what we're saying.

That's a that's a collateral. I mean to just put it again in the box of the board can at least the way I understand it that's a secondary issue where the argument is that he has not been fully forthcoming. The two areas where that becomes a an important issue are um does that c does that lead to suspicion or um uh a sense that he you know that that therefore he's got something to hide which I believe um I think Larry alleged it in there was written comments or there was oral comments or or both. Um so does that indicate that there is more a hide here than what we're otherwise seeing? And also it's it's an it's a aspect of the ethical standard that that Bob Berg cited in his letter which is that if you look at the ethics for the profession where there is enough of a potential conflict so to call his judgment into question he has to disclose. There's a number of reasons why I would suggest that that's it's going pretty far out on a limb. Number one is it gets back to is there that much of a a judgment problem. Number two, it's not actually the law in New York State. Um, and number three, as an ethics problem, it's the ethics. That's something for, you know, if they want to go ahead and bring Matt up before the ethics board for his own, I guess it's a state education department. But the the issue for this board again is the um are we taking a hard look and does the issue that Dave raised, which is the argument that he hasn't been completely forthcoming affect the hard look. I would also give it as a counterpoint to that that um the commenters have elevated this quote unquote conflict as an issue of you know primary importance that you know they uh they they've expressed that it's so obvious that a judge would would would you know force us out of the um force you know get rid of the uh the shot clock force us back into it. That's their that's that's

their viewpoint. But again, looking at it with a little bit more perspective, I don't think it was that much of a compelling issue as to exactly when he worked for Verizon, whether it was the seven years ago that he was um working uh as, you know, directly advising them or six years ago when he did his affidavit or five years ago when it was published. if he didn't, you know, if he missed one of those details, it's up to this board again to determine whether that um incomplete disclosure is enough again to to to to ruin your confidence in the in the advice that he give that he gave you and on your reliance on that on your reliance on on that advice. So that's the way that's how I would frame all that.

Anybody else on the board? I would add I can add um so for context I've spent maybe 10 years of my professional career authoring environmental impact statements and or um working on very large capital infrastructure projects and in that time I've worked with many many many subject matter experts on everything from noise to aesthetic resources to I mean everything you can imagine under secret and my experience and this again in my day job, but my experience is that um if you're seeking out a very good subject matter expert because they're a very good expert, they have worked for everyone.

And so the best experts will always have private sector, public sector, they're going to have everything on their resume. And what I've seen from Matt Allen is reliable work. I I don't believe he has a conflict of interest based on the resume and what he's given us. But to further that, his quality of work, in my opinion, is very good. Um, and I think that speaks to the fact that we didn't have material comments that were, you know, changing the scope or the nature of his submitts um, in terms of the quality of his work and reliability of his work. So that's kind of my perspective on it. I'd like to make one more point and I promise it's going to be really quick here. Um I spent a number of years as you guys may know essentially working for citizens either for a a um a citizens group uh on among number of things but including land use applications representing citizens representing citizens group and later on in my as an independent attorney also working for citizens. that's been clearly the um the bulk of my practice in terms of time and I understand the frustration that occurs when the consultants for the board are also consultants for industry. And this does not relate to whether Matt was working for Verizon or Homeland or not. He could could have been the same as if he was working for AT&T or or anybody else because what you worry about is whether or not the consultant actually gets your perspective. And very often the perspective for citizens groups is and I'm not and not in any way being poratives. We don't want this being built. It's it's an intrusion into our area. You need to start from that starting point instead of some other starting point. And the concern is that if you hire a engineer or a consultant

whatever that goes ahead and works for a industry in some other town or whatever and so it's not a direct conflict of interest could be a completely different company and they're piggybacking on that and I don't know if this is true or not. I'm just saying I get this perspective and so that you're going to come in with a suspicion of of independent consultants working for the board that go that whose firm or they go back at night and the next day they're working for industry because it creates an approach to all of these issues whether it's a cell tower or a subdivision. And I I live with that for years. I mean you try to get a subdivision stopped because it's going to mess up the area. It's it's going to cause too much traffic. And depending on the particular consultant you try to hire particularly uh as a as a citizen I mean good luck trying to find a traffic engineer for example that doesn't work for industry I it's not a thing with in some types of um consulting it it's easier than others and I was lucky enough to find um environmental engineers that were good with runoff issues etc. But I I I understand that um that level of concern and I do not know whether that is driving this particular issue. Uh it it could be other things too that I that I don't speculate on, but I do respect that problem. But it's it's the way it works. There's just a lot more, you know, money coming from industry on these applications than there is, you know, in terms of the environmental protection. um end of things. And in fact, the the citizens to the extent they hired environmental experts, they were basically mostly national experts that they were able to bring in as as part of um that were very active with certain in certain types of advocacy than necessarily local folks who were always, you know, who who hung out of shingle and then went around and helped citizens deal with planning board issues. And so I do understand that. I

don't know if that's what is going on here. They've certainly they've they haven't made that allegation. made the allegation of um of conflict of interest. But to the extent that that is this concern, you're talking about a bias issue that's just pro-industry bias. It can be a problem, but I don't believe something that's actionable in any way under the conflict of interest laws. Let's get it. Anybody else? I'm in agreement with everybody. It's very common. Yeah. So, let's I also I mean there's a very limited if you're in this industry like Matt is there's a very limited number of customers. It's it's a finite number that you cannot serve. So, um,

has the interveners hired a visual uh a a visual consultant to dive into this to say that there's an actual conflict or or flaw or a flaw in the in this work and and I correct me if I'm wrong. I think Matt Allen's group made sure that they thought that all the testing and uh that Verizon was doing and the photo simulations were correct and were of the most current data. I don't believe that at the end of the day Matt Allen said he came to a conclusion of what we should do. Correct. Right. Well,

he just provided the information, made sure that the data was cor collected properly and

he did make he did make certain he did give certain advice partly because we asked him for it. Um, but as I think I think Dave mentioned, this board took an independent review of the advice that Matt gave us. for example, when he he said that the that the state um the state rules required a looking a look at the vantage points from um inventoried resources and and and the board made a determination and I I was I think involved in this. I think I advised the board, but you know, as a local seeker agency, you have also to look at the impact on neighborhoods and things like that. And so, you know, we we took his perspective. He was giving it to us. In fact, he wrote it up in his in his determination. And then he said he he he he did recognize that ultimately. Um he also gave us certain advice relating to the um the submitts, the the the the photo submitts from from citizens. Yes. And um that was something that one of the commenters directly objected to uh I think it was last month or two months ago this comment and we've we set that aside and we said we're going to take a good look at those at those photos but to the extent that you know we need to have verification of them that that that that there may be a problem. So the point is I think on his the overall issues I think that we did take an independent look and you guys can determine that for yourselves but I it was certainly apparent to me but on the nuts and bolts of this I think we did follow him and so the board's determinations whether or not that that's that that post

So do we need I think the board is in agreement that they don't see a conflict. Do we need to add a paragraph in um part three that to craft right now? Do we need to add a paragraph? You know, I took a look and we we do have a summary paragraph in the part three and I don't think we need to add anything more, but if the board wants to, we can. But I was a summary paragraph. Okay. It was right at the end of the visual. Or it might um hold on. Maybe it was in the um is it in the same document?

It's might have been in the in the draft CND. I think it was in the draft CND. It is. We have a whole um page three starts. Let me go. Hold on. Page three. Here it is. Don first. The attorney letter signs no state or local law. The last two paragraphs addresses it. It's starting on page three. Yeah, we have an extended breakdown of um Matt's contribution starting in 12.3, which is uh

Well, you know what? Let me answer it this way. I don't I'm not hearing the board having any concerns um and agree with your analysis of whether there was a conflict or not. Is that true? Okay. I go ahead. I would just say, you know, it might not hurt to reiterate the fact that we had the discussion and considered it. Let me read the paragraph that we have and you guys can decide if you want have another sentence put on it because on page three or four

right above number four the last thing in number three on the on the CND at least in my we've had a few copies going around so hopefully this is the correct one it says in each of these instances meaning all of the issues that we had broken down the board has complied with the elemental seeker requirement that the lead agency be responsible for its own evaluation of prospective environmental impact rather than deleg delegating such determination and in this case we're talking about delegating it to Matt and there are there are cases that hold that the board itself as a lead agency has to make its own determination and so that is that satisfy Peter

yeah I mean I I just we're spending a lot of time on this and I agree I I don't feel there's a conflict of interest here based on my interactions with him the work that was done the lack of um you know u problems that anybody had with the stipulations of locations at the time we laid out all that work and we didn't have any problems with it. The fact that I just don't see that this is a conflict of interest in a lot of ways but I think that we are spending a lot of time talking about it because it's it's it's gotten been a big part of the discussions and the comments and I think that you know I I I just suggesting that we may want to somewhere on page three when we talk about the conflict just say let the board discuss this. So is it a one sentence? It says warress.

Yep. I mean you can add concerns about there being a bias and and agree what I would say this.

Oh wait, hang on one second. So Peter is this on page three. On page three if everybody could go to the bottom of page three. It says so I think it might be there. Next to last paragraph, Mr. Allen's contribution to the board's review is largely completed. the board has the technical visual impact information it needs to make the instant determination of significance to the extent that the complaint the complaint being that he um had a conflict to the extent that the complaint can be read to demand that the board discard Mr. Allen's consultation. Today, the board makes the following findings and determinations. First, the attorney letter, Berg's letter, cites no state or local law or municipal code of ethics or case law that could would disqualify a technical expert's contribution to the board. And it goes on and on and on to talk about why um we're making our own decision.

Okay. And yeah, you know, yeah, the record, the record carries the fact that we just spent an hour almost talking about whether the board feels that there's um a robust discussion with our attorney, whether we agree that there's no conflict of interest. And I think as long as it's in the record, I think we're good. Yeah. Okay. If you want another sentence, I can I can give you one, but I think, you know, we're just building the lily at that point.

All right. So, what I want to do is uh go to the CND, which is also Let's go through this. I'm going to skim through this. You've read it already. Um the CN D includes the uh the um the conditions, the 25 conditions that we came up with. There's 25 of them amongst the the items. So if we we decide to approve this, the conditions are here. So um we don't need to approve the part three. We don't need to vote on the part.

I think again just like the other one, it is um it's in the uh we're the first resolve is probably that we're approving the part three. Let me just take a look. Take a look. First resolve. The board hereby adopts number one the detailed analysis findings of the FEF part three and also the findings in there's another section here called um uh

uh further reasons for support of this determination. So the first result here adopts the part three and adopts the further reasons determination of which we've just discussed one which is the analysis of Matt. There's a couple of others there too. So you so if you vote for this you are specifically adopting the findings in the part three and that whole those four or five paragraphs we have at the you know not the conditions but right after uh the resolution. Can I make another comment about the it says um at the back FF part three exhibit A. Could we or would it also be useful? Do you recall that we had a single document created with all of the analyses that were completed as part of this review and include the visual spreadsheet?

It do you remember it was like 400 pages long? No, it's the one that was 600 pages long. Could we also reference that as an appendix because that what um oftent times when I do environmental reviews we include everything right pit and kaboodleoodle so that if somebody wants it'll be in the record if you wanted to create a reference we could we certainly could I think it would be good to reference the document where it can be found. It might be it might be a trick to draft that um in real time. What? Well, if you want to pass the resolution, we'd have to draft it. It would just be it would just be um exhibit B the reference to the location of it. Oh, in the in Munich Lab.

Yeah. Or wherever. I mean, it's publicly available, right? So, we'd be adopting as our record first application, correct? In the binder or the second? No. No. It was a document that Scott put together at Jennifer's request. I remember way back August, July, August. came out to about 60. Can I change my mind? If we feel like that's too much, if we could just maybe add a sentence to the document that references that it's probably you know what you would typically do in that situation because I would be very nervous about adopting all the findings and all those. Exactly. I hear what you're saying. So what you would typically do is you'd have a a a section on documents referenced by you know in in this application or you could do it either in the part three or here but again it's going to we we just need another session to do that.

You don't need to. I think you could do it in the introduction and say that the findings herein are predicated on and then you reference that. I think what the attorney is saying to redo this in real time right now. It's one sentence. The findings are predicated on maybe it would go I don't know if it would go in the CND or we would put it in the EAF, but it would be a sentence in like upfront that just says these findings or maybe findings is the wrong word, but this is predicated on a document and you just reference it. You just make reference to the fact that it exists. But it's not the only document. This is this is predicated on a whole host of different documents

in addition and this is one of them. This is you know it says on uh on page one of the draft EF during all of part part of the year 2025 2026 the planning board has overseen extensive deliberative process reviewing the public application includes retention of professional consultant multiple planning board sessions the applicant multiple public hearings and received of over 300 documents including written public comments but that okay

I mean I mean I'm I'm a little nervous about adding something that we haven't really gone through with a fine tooth comb. Jed, I can name right now not the exact names but five documents that went into these two documents. It was the one for 600 pages. It was the one for 400 pages that we got fairly recently where Scott answered a lot of the questions from the town code, not necessarily seeker related, but site plan related. We had multiple manuals. the first manual that came out in November 24 which was hundreds of pages. Another manual that came up out which was the VIA and then another one which was the VR the visual all those documents. So I I think it's covered here.

Okay. I don't want to name a document that we're referring to as supporting this when we don't even we don't remember what was in there except it was useful in compiling this law. Yeah. Okay, I have I have two other questions and then one is a question that came up about zoning density. I just want to put that to bed what and understand that there's a paragraph in here number five in the CND. Is that what you're referring to? It's on page six of the CND. Can I read it for you? Yeah.

Okay. Zoning concern. One commentator raised concerns relating to the project 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 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 and the CDA on appeal from the CEO determination. Um and when we had when this was brought up, Dave Church also indicated or maybe it was Dave Gordon that you know the time period for referring anything back to the CEO is is in their opinion long past. And it was at the point in time where we were talking about going back to the CEO with this whole issue of the height 45 ft, 90 feet, 100 and a half ft. And we we thought, "Oh my god, we got to go back there and ask them for reinterpretation." Um, but it was in the context of that discussion that we said,

okay, time's up, so to speak.

No, the time that's up, the time that's up is for the is for an appeal. There's a right when the CEO makes a determination. There's a right of appeal to the ZBA. That time is up. Anybody at any time can ask for a CEO reinterpretation. Uh, and it's ask the CEO to go back and check his work. this board could do it or um any of the citizens can do it. It's just you just go right. He may the C the CEO may not want to do it and if he doesn't then you're kind of out of luck because you haven't taken that appeal but the citizens that that are concerned about it could could have done it. We could do it and um but what we can't do is we can't make that determination nor do we cons we don't nor do we consult with the we don't go sit down talk to the CEO and then come back and make it or make a determination. So I think what we're saying

it's flat out the CEO's determination and whatever inspires him to I think what you're saying is that if we approve this we're deciding that we're not going back to the CEO is the bottom line. Yeah.

Okay. And then my other last question is and this was actually covers two different things is um is the height and collocation that came up again tonight um because we're setting as one of our conditions at 125 ft ACL a camera which is um what is the deal on collocation in the future and what what would that process be? Well, um, first of all, we have the same problem even if we went to 145. It's just, you know, it's the problem is is is there. It's embedded in federal law. Um, although I think the applicant had uh they were they were making a representation that the that the um their landlord would have committed to not go above what would have denied would have denied a lease. Secondly, the way, and Scott can comment on this if I don't have it right, the way federal law works is that the planning board does not have jurisdiction to deny a collocation application and go up another 20 ft. That does not mean, in my book, if you want to just read, you know, drill into the actual black letter, it doesn't mean that we don't have jurisdiction to permit. It means we we cannot deny it, which is not that dissimilar to some of the rules regarding regarding the tower. um if it comes before us again do we have seeker jurisdiction for example can we go through an environmental impact analysis and require treatments on you know require a certain treatment on it I think I don't see a denial of that authority and so there may be some ability to do certain things with it but ultimately could they could they go above it probably yes

would they have to come back to us to do that well that's that's the argument and and I think Bob Berg had an uh had an interpretation of I'm not sure what Scott's interpretation of. My interpretation is that they would have to come back before us for the simple reason that we have permitting authority, but we don't have authority to deny it, but we have permitting authority for site plan approval for an amended site plan approval and seeker jurisdiction over it. In one of his submitts, I think Bob Berg expressly disagreed with that and we can get into it in a little bit. Did you have any thoughts on that?

I would just say that not Not only can you not deny it, if it's not approved in 60 days, it's deemed approved upon a letter from the applicant. So, you have 60 days to So, the shot clock gets put down to 60 days. 60 days. And I and I would question whether Seeker really applies. Uh there's an argument that it's waved or it's been preempted. But what's the argument that it's waved or preempted? Can you do it in 60 days? Give us a try. I won't be. Believe me, it's going to be another carrier. It's not me.

U you know your your client has been has accepted the fact that this uh this application has taken longer than 150 days because you have viewed I assume the environmental review process as being useful toward feriting out these issues. It could well be that that the other that your rival who comes along to build on top of the tower might view it the same way. This board I I would this board has done its job and maybe in everybody's interest for the board to do its job. So these are my guess is that these are issues that are somewhat unexplored and to the extent that the citizens have been asking us to push the envelope a little bit on the law I think that's one area where we'd probably do it a little bit. So I will say though the safety case goes to your point to the extent that another carrier comes along. I'm not saying they will or will not. If they do and if they need to go higher, not saying they will or they will not, but we do have a lease amendment where from a real estate perspective, the tower is capped at 145 ft. And that we did that specifically because we took it out of the realm of the federal law. federal law can affect your ability to do zoning, but they can't control the real estate process. So, we you that was a concern of yours. So, we addressed it in that manner.

Okay. Yeah. This is this is not perfect, but I mean, and then also related to this, the ZBA uh on Thursday, what is that about? Can you decode that for us? Uh you know, a lot's going to depend on what you do. I I'm making the argument that if you come down to 125 a week, I don't know that we need a height barren. So I, you know, I I may table it.

We've we've uh we've disagreed. I would point out one other thing to the extent the citizens believe that the zoning is inappropriate. Um I would go to that ZBA hearing and tell that to the ZBA. ZBA has ultimate jurisdiction over that and they may not be all that they may they may get past the idea that that they should only do that on appeal and start asking a lot of questions about that but that you know that it's on that side of the town in terms of the you know the the CEO and then the ZBA they are the zoning people and so I would just use the opportunity just go right in there and make the zoning case to the ZBA I think that's probably

and when I spoke to the ZBA was public meeting I explained that my position and their response was, "Will you withdraw the application then? Do you believe it's not needed?" Now, I'm not saying we got to a resolution. I'm just saying honestly haven't thought about it. Well, I'm I'm the zoning issue I'm talking about is not the height issue. Um there were allegations regarding um not uh uh not was it it was not non-conforming use, but a second use on the property that the property is essentially already built out. Okay, let's uh let's that's not an issue before them right now. Yeah, I they wanted us to pick it up and I kind of told them that that it's in the building inspector. If you're not going to go to the building inspector, go tell it to the ZBA.

Okay, let's um so I think it I think we should I should go through this to some some degree of detail. Um so let me do that. This is the CND. It's uh

it's on the system. It's a resolution conditional negative declaration April 13th. Um, this conditional determination of non-significance is issued pursuant to section 617-7D uh of the state environmental quality review act regulations. Whereas Granite LL, Granite LLC and CH uh Celco Partnership doing business as Verizon have applied to the town of Rochester planning board for special use permit and site plan approval of a proposed 145 ft monopolic tower related antenna. improvements to an existing gravel access road and a new 50x50T fenced equipment compound on private land to be leased at 439 to 445 Granite Road, Gahhongen, Town of Rochester. And whereas the applicant submitted part one of a full environmental u assessment form and other relevant information and updated the form in light of new information. And whereas the board circulated on 12825 a notice of intent dated 12725 to be secret seeker lead agency and became lead agency after 30 days on 22725. And whereas the board conducted numerous public meetings during which evidence relating to the project was presented to the board by its consultant and the applicant. And whereas the board has held a public hearing commencing on 101425 and extending through the through the date hereof at which numerous comments from the public were presented to the board and in the course of which numerous written comments were received from the public and its legal and technical consultants relating to the project and whereas the board and its consultants have reviewed the application and supporting materials. input input from its consultants and comments from the public completed parts two and three of the FEF and review the appointments of seeker and other

information in the record with respect to the project. Now therefore be it resolved that the board hereby adopts one the detailed analysis and findings in the FEAF B3 and next tier two and made a part here of and two the findings in the section below entitled further reasons in support for this determination and be it further resolved that the board asse agency determines pursuant to 6177 of the seeker regulations of the project with the imposition of the conditions set forth herein will not have a significant adverse environmental impact requiring the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement. And be it further resolved that the board hereby directs that this conditional negative deck be filed and distributed in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. and be of further resolve that pursuant to see a public comment period on this conditional negative declaration is hereby established to run through the close of business on May 2026 and notice thereof shall be published and filed in accordance with applicable provisions of law. I want to stop there, Dave Gordon. When it says to run through the close of business on May 2026, the public comment period is going to go for 30 days and it's not and we're not going to take up any matters until about until June 8th. My intent in drafting this and you can change it right now if you want was to run the public the public hearing in the public comment period actually this is just the comment period public comment period goes is is at least at least 30 days from publication in ENB. So you should run this date out so that it's at least 30 days beyond when this document gets published in the ENV however that time frame works. And then the next resolve relates to public hearing.

Okay. So, I'm told by uh Dave Church, Dave you can weigh in, that we're going to get this published on the ENB if it's approved this Wednesday or it's going to be put up onto the system and that's then published officially the following Wednesday. So, this Wednesday is the 15th. That would make it April 22nd. So, 30 days from a April 22nd is May 22nd. So, May 22nd is 30 days. Does May 22nd date have to go here or should it be just May 30th? So I would give I'd give you May 30th. Yeah. All right. So even what whatever

whatever you think is useful, but I I wouldn't just I wouldn't constrict yourself too much depending on how the email works and things like that. You know, you need 30 days from publication. All right. So I'm going to do May 30th to give us plenty of time in case something gets fouled up. Okay. So I'm inserting the May 30th,

but I would also point out and this is up to the board in the in the last in the next resolve, my intent was in drafting this that the public hearing which is an adjunct to both the the the ENB publication, it doesn't have to be, but I I just viewed it that way. And also to the extent the board wants to have should have a public hearing after the determination of significance which could be coming in a few minutes um that that should be extended out to the next um planning board meeting. Give the public a chance to speak at the next planning board meeting. So the earliest that we could do this given the 30 days and the fact that we don't have a May meeting a a second May meeting is the meeting of June

11th or 8th 8th June 8th then then then that that list resolved I would replace April 13 2026 with June 8th that's when the board is going to um have the continue the public hearing and then if you want I mean I would use the same date for the public comment period I don't line. I don't think it cut short. Could you align them both? They they typically would be and probably change that May 30th or June 8th. Is that what you're suggesting? Yeah. So, we're going to make the May 30th June 8th and we're going to make the date in that last resolve instead of April 13th, June 8th. So, let me read that gives the public functionally two months to comment.

So, let me read this last result. Resolve that the public we changed the May 30th to June 8th. Resolve that the public hearing on this application which has been continued to the date hereof shall be further continued to the board meeting on June 8th and shall further afford the public the opportunity to comment on this draft conditional negative deck and the FEA FEF part three attached here too. Now we go into further reasons in support of this determination. One, Telecommunications Act. The 1996 Telecommunications Act and related authority, including case law, regulations, and administrative rulings, impose obligations on the planning board that do not apply to ordinary site plan obligations. Substantively, the C T C T C T C T C T C T C T C T C T C T C precludes the board from unreasonably discriminating among pro among providers of functionally equivalent services and prohibiting or having the effect of prohibiting provision of wireless services. Procedurally, the TCA requires the board to rule in the application within a reasonable period of time, which the FCC has ruled is generally 150 days after the application is complete, often referenced as the TCA shutdown. The board's review of the proposal under Seeker and the town code has eldested longer than the federally prescribed 150 days and is currently proceeding under extensions of the shot clock which the applicant has renewed on a bimonthly basis. Two, need for the facility. The board finds that there is a need for the proposed cell tower to remedy an existing gap in coverage in the vicinity of the site. The need for the facility in the gap was confirmed by the board's radio frequency consultant, Doug Fishman. However, in his review, Mr. Fishman noted that the gap could be remedied by a tower whose antenna are at a center line of 120 ft ACL with the top

uh tower top at 125 ft above ground level or AGL. The board adopts Mr. Fishman's findings as the minimum height necessary to close the coverage gaps. Three, the board's consultation with Matthew Allen of RLA. Due to the importance of visual impact in the seeker and site plane review of the project, as well as the detailed New York State DEEC guidance for such reviews, the board retained Matthew Allen, RLA, of Saratoga Associates to consult and assist in the project. Mr. Allen has many years of experience in the conduct of visual impact reviews, including cell towers. Some of the residents objected that Mr. town had a conflict of interest that would destroy the board's ability to rely on his analysis and advice. On March 20th, 2026, their attorney submitted a letter argumenting

augmenting

augmenting thank you some of their allegations and demanding that the board disqualify Mr. Mr. Allen as its consultant and retain a substitute. The alleged conflict involves Mr. Allen's prior consultation with the applicant on an unrelated cell tower application and course of consultation up to the current time with a telecommunications sighting company that the applicant works with. Mr. Allen's contributions to the board review is largely completed and the board has the technical visual impact information it needs to make the instant determination of significance to the extent that the complaint can be read to demand that the board discard Mr. Allen's consultation to date, the board makes the following findings and determinations. First, the attorney letter cites no state or local law or municipal code or of ethics or case law that would disqualify a technical expert's contribution to a board as a result of that expert's prior consultation with the applicant or ongoing consultation with entities that cooperate with the applicant on project projects elsewhere. nor is the board aware of any such requirements for disqualification. While Mr. Allen's consultation may raise concerns relating to the appearance of independence discussed in more detail below, the board notes that absent more professional consultants on technical matters are presumed to provide accurate information regardless of their outside engagement with industry on other applications. Technical consultants commonly work for a variety of consult of clients including private commercial entities some of which are applicants before public agencies as well as agencies themselves. Second, the board is conscious of the impact of the shot clock on its discretion to unilaterally extend its seeker site plan review of the project. The applicant has already indicated that for a variety of reasons that largely track those discussed here,

it does not view the assertions against Mr. Allen's consultation with the board as a basis for extending the shot clock. Third, the board views Mr. Allen's advice on this application in two categories and considering public confidence in the review considering the issues raised by council. By far the most significant is Mr. Allen's technical advice on reviewing the tectonic visual submittals, structuring the balloon test, generating the simulations, and related review procedures under New York State DEEC guidance for visual impacts. The board finds that disregarding Mr. Allen's technical advice relating to these would be unnecessary and counterproductive to its review. Because of the shot clock, the board cannot hire another consultant to start a new, and Mr. Allen's consultation has proven invaluable to the development of useful data for the board's review. Equally important, nothing in his recommendations indicates any bias in favor of the applicant. Instead, as discussed in the accompanying FAF 3, his advice resulted in the applicant having to repeatedly revise its submittance to comply with his interpretation of industry standards. These revisions came at a considerable cost and time delayed to the applicant which belies the notion that Mr. Allen was impermissibly biased towards the application. Overall, the board is unaware of any substantial objection to Mr. Allen's technical contribution except to the extent that the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to avoid reconfiguring the required data. Accordingly, the board finds no benefit for its review of the project and substantial detriment leading to residents concerned about the impact of the project if it were to disqualify Mr. Allen's technical contribution on its visual impact review procedures. In certain instances, Mr. Allen offered opinions that merit individualized discussion considering the public's concerns. Mr. Allen find that state

standards for seeker visual review focused on impact on inventory resources generally officially recognize scenic vantage points and views. However, the board has determined that the impact on the affected neighborhood and quality of life required the conditions improved here in large part due to the proposed height and visual impact of the tower beyond the inventory resources. The board also required the reduction of height as mitigation of the impact of inventory resources in light of the tower's location and close proximity to the Shawang bridge. Contrary to Mr. Allen's advice solicited by the board over his initial reluctance to provide it that no such mitigation was necessary. In each of these instances, the board is complying with the elemental seeker requirement that the lead agency be responsible for its own evaluation of prospective environmental impact rather than delegating such determination. Four, before you jump to four, there's one thought that I have on this in terms of adding something that was considered and discussed tonight that if you think it's useful, you can still put in. I think from everything that I've learned over the last week or two, it one of the facts here that I think is very very convincing in terms of defending Matt Allen's contribution to this or at least um really to put it negatively blunting the criticism of him is the fact that his firm gets between 1 and 3% of its revenue over the last three years from consultation with Homeland. um the idea that he would have essentially um altered his his opinions that he was expressing to us in order to benefit the applicant in light of this particular financial but even if I mean even if they did turn around and fire him which I which might be considered far-fetched anyway but the idea that he would alter his opinion to try to save

one 3% 1 to 3% of his firm's revenue I think is a is a pretty significant fact here that would tend to back up the board's judgment and I'm wondering whether the board thinks that that's worth inserting because and in particular because the the commenters attorney asked us to develop that fact and just wondering whether you guys think that that's worth putting in. What do you think? I I don't I think it's a bit of a distraction. I would agree. I agree. On 30 that's we don't have his financials. We don't have his financials. It's just based upon his his u

I take him at his word but it's also I think it's completely representative otherwise. Okay.

Number four consideration of public submissions and photographs. The planning board encouraged the public's observation of the balloon test and the submitt of photographs taken during it. While all the photographs provided were reviewed and helpful in setting context and overall analysis, as noted in the F feaf, their essential purposes was ground truththing the locations from which the balloon would be visible rather than implicitly simulating the severity of the tower's impaffected views. Additionally, the utility of majority of the photos was further limited for visual impact analysis for several technical reasons. First, absence of verifiable metadata metadata. Many of the submitted photographs did not include reliable metadata establishing the precise location, orientation, focal length, or other relevant camera settings used. Without such information, it was not possible to confirm whether the images accurately re represented the human eye perspective from the stated vantage point. Second, use of excessive zoom or telephoto lenses. Several photographs appear to have been taken using significant telephoto zoom. Telephoto compression and magnification materially distort apparent scale and distance enlarging distant objects and altering spatial relationships. Such images do not reflect normal human visual perception generally 50 mm in focal length and therefore cannot be relied upon to assess real world visual impact. For example, some of the photographs appear to have been taken at a focal length of approximately 400 mm. Photographs taken under such conditions do not accurately represent the perspective of the human eye. Period. A photograph taken at 400 mm greatly exaggerates the subject's perspective and misrepresents the overall effect. Third, lack of technical analysis. No professional visual assessment, GIS

analysis, or other expert report was submitted to rebut the applicant's visual resource evaluation or the planning board's professionally prepared analysis. There was no sub there was no submitt that demonstrated a significant adverse environmental impact that would not be mitigated by the conditions herein. Despite these concerns, as noted above, the board considered the photos from the public on an individual basis, particularly where they credibly confirm the visibility of the balloons from an identifiable vantage point. And five, zoning concern.

Before you move on, the very first sentence of item four, I recall that we provided guidance to the public photos. I think it might be useful to reference that here because we're talking about why we couldn't use the photos, but we don't say we gave them we said it needs to meet these criteria. So, it might be helpful to add that. How about this, Jane? Um, just after the word it right at the end of the sentence, comma, and provided guidance to do so. Yes, something like that. That's good. That's perfect. Okay. So, did you get that right? It was taken during it comma comma and

provided and provided guidance to do so. It's good com. Thank you, gentlemen. Um, number five, which we read before, um, Peter, I read this to you, but I'm going to read it again.

Zoning concern. One commentator 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 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 and the CBA on appeals from the CEO determination. And then we go on um on page six. seven and eight, nine and 10, uh, eight and nine to list the 25 um, conditions that had been previously listed in the at the AAF under each one of the um the items.

I have a question. Were these copy pasted so they're the exact same language or did you is the language different? They are the same exact language. coming.

And just so everybody knows, this is the core of of a CND. This the reason why we do a CND is because this allows the board to um impose conditions that the applicant may or may not agree with. And obviously the most fundamental one was the height. Scott has indicated that his client didn't particularly want to agree with that. and I think was something that was central to the board's analysis and we should be we should be understanding of that and that's why we've taken the step that's obviously very unusual to do a condition negative declaration and that's this board's vision of what should be built and not necessarily the applicants Rick on item 14 there's a clause that was dropped the words are not the same can I point that out to you if you look at the FEF part three item 14

yeah you know Larry when Jen asked that question I immediately went to it was copy and pasted. I don't actually I'm not sure I can actually attest to that because I didn't do it myself.

I compared them and I was going to suggest if I may that the words in the resolution item 14 says maximum. Now actually in both of them the words at any and all times should be added because they're in the text of part frame so that it says reduction of maximum height of the ta tower antennas. The text of the FDA actually says at any and all times 225. I don't think that will be controversial. You said

okay. So I I have it in the FDA on page 14 and I have number 14 in the CND on page eight. That's what you're referring to, Larry. It should read reduction of maximum height of the top of the tower antennas, at any times, comma, to 125. Yeah, they are different. That's an interesting catch. Um, and because what that implies is, and this gets back to what we were talking about before, if it gets above 125 ft, say if um if another if AT&T wants to come in and raise that, that would violate the um the CND, right?

And therefore, it would give us an argument to require an environmental impact statement. Again, I I think that industry might have a counterargument, but it certainly puts another gives us another arrow in that quiver to have that argument over what what the board's jurisdiction is to to regulate and perhaps even to do an EIS on the um expansion of the tower. And that's what that means. So if it's an indication that the conditions here survive this particular um consent that it can survive this particular u u um motion or this particular resolution that's our finding and so it gives industry something else to answer for if they try to go above 125. So, the one that should be in the C and D adding that adding that phrase at any and all times. I think it's what Larry's saying.

It's in the It's not in the CND. So, it has to be added to the CN and the CND is actually the more controlling document here in terms of the conditions. So, so do you need to verify that all the language is identical? Well, what I'm wondering is if that was a mistake made here in translating from the FEAF to the CND and that happened with this item, is it the case with any other items? You should check. Um, they all have to be exact. Correct.

No, the um the FEF is our findings. the C and D is our conditions, but if they're if they're different, we'll have some explaining to do. If it's if it's um if it's important, we you know, uh we we have some explaining to do, but the CND is the are the conditions that'll be ultimately in the site plan for the FEAF is our findings, but yeah, they should be. Do you have a printed out version of the FAF? There I have it right here. Yeah. So, why don't why don't we read through the CND and we can David can verify. Well, you know what? In addition to that, there are 25 I'm even concerned that we have the right number.

There's 25 items in the CND. Why don't you confirm with me? Let's go back to the FAF page eight. There are one, two, three, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 items on page eight. I'm flipping now to page in the FDA app again. I'm trying to get to the docu on a different page.

I'm flipping to page 14. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There's seven items there. Page 15. One, two, three, four, five. Five items there. Two. Uh, and one, two, two items. So, that's 24. And there's 25 here. Let's go through each one. Starting from one second starting with page eight on the FBAF. Yeah, I'm having trouble here. I have it open.

You have it up, John. All right. So, work with me here. Do you want me to read a little bit? Why don't you read what do you have up the FEF? I think it's the right one. Draft FAF part three for meeting of 4306. Yes. Right. Right. So, you read the items starting there on page eight. No external lights shall be placed on the proposed tower or antenna to avoid attracting animals including birds. Okay. Next, there'll be anti-existing design measures taken to potential bird nesting on the proposed facility. Right. All ground work including tree cutting will follow state DEC protocols for construction activities within the potential habitat of northern longear fat and Indiana bat.

Right. Land disturbance will be minimized to the smallest area necessary to complete the equipment compound and erect the proposed tower. This area shall be mapped and field delineated in advance as the maximum area disturbance. Okay. All tree removal will follow protocols as set for as set by the near state department of environmental conservation for relevant species. Okay. That area of threat disturbance would be surveyed by an ethology evaluated expert fire construction to provide the town with recommendations for any species or given. Yep. Construction activity will be monitored in the field by a qualified professional or by staff person chosen by the town in cooperation with the town code enforcement officer. Yep.

Any planning for landscaping will use native species chosen in advance and approved by the town by any board. Yep. In the event in the event the applicant identifies any purple wild burgmont in the project area, it should be required to be carefully removed and planted on other areas of the property. Yep. Well, it says replanted. Is that what it says? Yes. Okay. Y uh submission of asbill drawings be reviewed and approved by town code enforcement officer with the town engineer. Y um that's it for that section. I move. Okay. So now go to question aesthetics. Question number next, which is aesthetics on page 14. Go ahead, Jen.

I have it. Oh, that's different. Okay. Uh, required use of stealth design quote monopine unquote to camouflage the tower. Yep. No exterior lighting. Use of non-reflective tower. Wait, hang on. That's there's no exterior lighting except this may be required to meet FA requirements, but there are no FAA requirements, right, for that. So, that's got to come out of the uh and there's going to be I've said this a number of times, there will be a light on the ground equipment. So, I just want to make sure that there's no discrepancy. We have a light on.

It's not going to be on the tower. If they have to come there during dark hours, they flip the switch and it's on a timer so it automatically goes off in I don't know 60 minutes or so just in case they forget to turn. No exterior lighting on the tower with the exception of the um FA requirements. No, no, but the drawing will plan. It's going to be on a train basically. Okay. But the the issue is the FAF has just no exterior lining. The CND says it no exterior lining except as maybe required to meet the FAA. Right. regulations and and he's and Scott has a third version. Yeah. Which is no exterior lighting except for ground mounted lighting.

Yeah. Just a work light for the technicians. There are no FAA requirements for lighting on this. We've given you that information. So, okay. So, I'm forcing that out and we can deal with that actually. I don't know can the site plan. Well, yeah, but you don't want to have a condition in the C and D that you have to work around in the site plan. You want you want to get it straight. So, how what's what's the language? No exterior lighting except as maybe required for except except a it's a light that's in the plans per the specs. I think it's a 25 watt whatever it is that's there. So, that'll be mounted basically on a portion of the ground equipment.

So, except ground except ground mounted a ground mounted light. Sure. as specified in the site site. So I believe this condition was trying to get add a light at the top. Correct. Right. I completely agree. I just this is gets approved and we put a light down there. I don't want someone to come up with light. So I'm changing it to say no environmental impact statement. Changing it to say no exterior on both documents. No exterior do exterior lighting except round mounted lights. on a timer. I mean, I think you should. Yeah, I think that's good. One ground mounted light.

Is the timer going to be specified as we can do that as part of the cycling approval? One, one. Is it one light, Scott? It's one light. So, one ground mounted light on a timer. Except a ground mounted light. Mhm. As specified in cyclone approval. A to be specified in cycling approval. Yeah, I'm sorry, but when you get it's up to you, but your number 11 about the stealth tower monine,

do you want to put a limit in there about because I think you had that conversation the last time whether it was 125 total because I think there's some inconsistency between number 11 and you didn't get to number 14 yet, but you can decide that. Yeah, it needs to be either an 11 or 14 to not putting the um the coin on the top. Well, just whether it's, you know, the two designations as to whether it's to the center line or to the very top. So, wait till we get to 14 then. Yeah. So, just so everyone knows, I have bullets. So, when you talk about numbers, I have no idea what's going on. I have bullets, too.

All right. So, I made the adjustment on both documents. Go ahead. The Use of non-reflective Use of non-reflective tower and equipment colors to blend into background. Yep. Reduction of maximum height of tower at any and all times. Oh, we did we did this one already, right? To 125 ft above ground level. The minimum needed to meet telecommunications user demand based on independent advice from the town's telecommunications technical expert. It's it's different once a little. the top of the tower antenna. That's aliterative, Rick. One of them says reduction of maximum height of the top of the tower antennas. That's in the CNT, but the FAF says reduction of maximum height of tower. So

at any and all times, right of the top of the tower in tendance. That's what I was trying to top of tower antennas is correct. Yeah, that should be Yeah. So don't cross that out. Leave it but take it back. That's correct. Has to be put into the FA FDA. This is not correct. And leave it at any and all as L pointed out before at any and all times is useful because it it it'll project into the future and will help us. It could help us if somebody else comes along. So use use both phrases in both places. Yeah. I have it. You got it. I have one. All right. Okay. Ready? Uh yes.

Screening of equipment compound from granite road from nearby apartment complex and from all nearby residential structures using native vegetation as well as fencer. Yes. Submission of asbuilt drawings and landscaping plans be reviewed and approved by town code enforcement officer with town engineer. Yes. Post construction inspection by code enforcement officer at a time period suitable to ensure corrective measures will be taken to replace any screening or plantings necessary. A little bit different there. That's different. So what we don't have in here at a time period suitable to ensure

corrective measures at a time period suitable. So we need to add Okay. Okay. The next uh I guess goes into noise. Uh no, I'm sorry. Right there. Down here on the bottom. Go ahead. Ready?

Yeah. A dark clapboard style enclosure of an area surrounding any generator should be constructed of sound mitigation materials with additional native planting screening set with site approval. All generator exhaust shall be directed away from the nearby apartment complex. There was a difference in 18. Yeah. Yep. Um, yeah, it just dropped off. Uh, set with site plan approval. All generator exhaust. Oh, you know what? There's your extra one. That's That became number 19. That's what happened. You broke it out.

That's what happened. So, we're going to cross out 19. And that's why we might have had we might have been short. We're crossing out 19. And this will go to the end of this line and then we're good. Yeah. Okay. So the next point, what's the language? Let's just read it for you. So the language should be a dark clampboard should all be worn. 18 and 19 should be combined. Right. And it should say a dark clampboard style enclosure of an area surrounding any generator should be constructed of sound mitigation materials with additional native plant screening set with with site plan approval. All generator exhaust shall be directed away from the nearby apartment complex.

Okay. The difference is that there's a uh the way you read it uh just surrounds a generator. In the CND it says the entire 50x 50T compound. Yes. Which I think is preferable. Yep. Yep. So in the FAF Wait, hold on. If the if that is intended for noise mitigation, the intent of that is for noise mitigation.

In noise mitigation in the FAF, I think the last time we talked it should have said a dog clampboard cell enclosure of an area of entire 50x 504 compound. I I thought we talked about the enclosure should be around the generator, not I think they changed their mind.

Yeah, agree. I think there was concern about like accessing generator but And I think my client after the fact said it was probably I just wasn't sure here. But so the way I have it, a dog clapboard style enclosure of the entire 50x 50 ft compound should be constructed of sound mitigation material additional meter plant. Yeah. Okay. Does that make sense?

That that's what the board wants. I mean it it's when you get into sound mitigation it's typically better to have it closer to the source. Correct. I think the meeting that we had last time that you missed Yeah. we went the other way. Yeah. And said we weren't going to have because of the possibility of colllocation. We weren't going to have individual little com uh containments around each of the generators if that's the way it's going to go. Would be better to have it around the entire 50 by 50. Okay. Okay. So, that's the way it reads. Um, 19 is now in the CND has been collapsed into 18. Go ahead, Jen.

Additional sound mitigation may be required if there are colllocators. Yes. Uh, next. Time of day. Time of day of generator bi-weekly testing shall be between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Yes. Post construction sound testing with corrective measures required if determined by the town code enforcement officer with town engineer. Yes. Additional similar sound mitigation will be required for any additional generators or sound producing equipment installed on site on site due to collocation. Yeah. Yeah. Additional similar sound mitigation

similar is not contained in the CN. Well, but um can I just clarify that since we're not doing uh I think this one actually goes away because we're doing the entire thing. So you can delete it. So take out the word similar and then that whole bullet earthquake because if you're doing the whole enclosure you don't need to account for additional right all right so in the generator being in the whole enclos right the last board comes out alto together y and in the cmd that also comes out

because earlier it says additional sound mitigation may be required for colllocate Okay, go ahead, Jen. Uh, so character two here. Screening of equipment compound from granite road and lower portion of tower from nearby apartment complex and from all nearby residential structures using native vegetation and fencing. Hold on. It's different. That's different. The CD says using whatever methods needed including but not limited to native vegetation, fencing, or other methods. I like that one better. Yeah. So, which one do we want to use? The one for change this one.

Change the Okay.

Ready? Yep. Last one. Submission of asphalt drawing landscaping plans be reviewed by town code enforcement officer and town planning board for any corrective measures. Replacement of any screening and plantings found damaged or ineffective within six months and 12 month sorry six month and 12 month intervals from initial construction or plan. There's a typo intervals. Yeah.

Okay. So we do have a total of 20 three because we condensed one and we got rid of one. Okay. So we have 23. All right. So just I'm sorry. Did you ever address the top of tower or the height? Yeah. It's maximum height. Maximum height is that okay antennas though. I just make sure you're we have both the antennas and the maximum height at 125 which means that in the cone as long as you're clear, right? We're doing a flat top. That's that's my understanding what you you decided. I just want to make sure it's clear. Yeah. 125 HL and 120 U ACL.

Yeah. No, that was my understanding. You know what, Scott? We can we can we can write a whole story in the site plan approval. It's be completely consistent with this if we want to. We can No, no. I'm just trying to I don't want to go along. I just want to make sure and if there's any doubt we put it in sight plan approval. Okay. Okay. So, what's an ordinance to ask for a vote?

Yeah. But I want to just make clear clear to the board what they're voting on. You're voting on a declaration of significance here. That's not really a negot negative declaration with conditions that we just those conditions are conditions. I'm not doing an environmental impact statement. I'm not doing a cause deck most of these conditions all them probably and more will be also in the set approval. You're also voting on all the findings in the EA act the whole the whole banner of them and when shot you're also voting on the the additional findings in the resolution where we say further reasons for supporting the application and you're voting on these conditions. That is the entirety of what you're doing here. So that's it. Take a roll call. Make a motion.

Are we ready? I'll entertain a motion to approve the uh CND. CND and you're also setting a public hear. You're extending the public hearing and extending the public comment period as we said the results. That's part of the that's all part of the CN. You made the motion. I'll second it. U all in favor. Anybody opposed? Chair votes sign. and there's only six. Okay. So, the next time that we'll sit around the table talking about this is probably June. June 8th,

if it gets published, well, it gets by. No, the rule is the DEC says if you get it in by close of business Wednesday in the next Wednesday, May 8th is in a month. Who knows what happens at all before we if it's not in the V. They have one more thing. We have they have they have three weeks to squeeze it in 30. It's always been fine. We We've given ourselves a pretty good push. Yeah. Do we need to We're not finished. Oh, we're not doing this. We're not finished.

Passmail. Okay. We're not going to states I don't think we'll finish yet because there's a provision in 617-12 that a provision for public notice to be published in the newspaper about what we just did tonight. That has to go in when relative to

I'll let Stacy Stacy's handing something out. Well, I don't uh wrong. What is the What's It's the Shangham Journal, right? Yeah. What's their rules? We have to get it to them by Tuesday. It's publication on a Friday. Tuesday, tomorrow. Let's see what the rules are as far as what we have to publish. I

think it says it just can publish it. It says, "A notice of hearing must be published at least 14 days in advance of the hearing date in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the potential impacts of the action. So we got to publish at least 14 days in advance. So pick a date plenty of time. We can do it we can do it in early May at the May 8th meeting because we don't if we don't do this. It's up to you. I just lost I just lost power. So we'll It's May 11th. No internet, no power.

May 11th, not soon the lights will go off signals. Need a better battery. Does anybody want to retire? See you, if not sooner. Um, does anybody want to go into a a client uh attorney session? Well, the attorney doesn't do that to talk about why Rav don't Oh, we'll figure it out. Three and a half minutes. I could do it in three minutes. Okay. Three and a half minutes. Oh, me. You have to stay.

We have to move to a journal. I mayor, would you close door? Larry, would you close door? Thank you. I second the motion to adjourn. All in favor? I also need a motion to enter the five minute discussion. I make a motion to start. I don't know. I'm hanging around too long. I don't know if I can do anything in five minutes or less. I do maturing things. Do you not want to do that then? Who's talking to me if we do this? Yeah. Anybody?

What is that? Is there a motion? What is it? Establishing for the application council. Oh. Oh, this is the town board's um law. Did anybody get a chance to read it? I didn't get to send that. Okay. So, we can do each time. All right. Okay. So, what happened on the top? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You're still live. No, take it off.