Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I call to order the June 8th meeting of the Land and Port of Santa Francesca, which stands for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Am I allowed to say go next or what?

HAB-Juliette Boone, Yes. HAB-Juliette Boone, Are we leaving at 830.

HAB-Juliette Boone, That was my.

HAB-Michael Leccese, yeah.

HAB-Michael Leccese, Okay, so we have a for. HAB-Michael Leccese, Jane projects before horizon and I want to get out of the out of the way and get some things resolved and the first two a lot lines, the first one is Jiro Gucci. HAB-Michael Leccese, who's representing that project. Chair Jones, member Nelson, member Roberts, member Penske, member Farmwald, member Duda, member Fetcheran,

We have Dave Gordon, Dave Church, myself, and we have Chris Mader and Chris Lapine from Lavella.

And I'm forgetting my manners. The two gentlemen that people may not recognize are from the engineering firm of Lavella. at Kipsy, I guess. And they're going to be helping us out with the first student project. If you remember, Greg Bolner, our engineer, had been applied to a conflict of interest, and so he asked to take a pass. So Peter and Stacy and Dave, while I was away, both worked on sorting through a number of different engineering firms, and LaBella was willing to take the pass. take up the mantle. The other two, one had a conflict as well, and another one was just too busy. So we've met before, Chris and I, on another project two years ago. So I think we'll be well represented by both gentlemen. Okay. Am I good to go? Yeah. Jiro Oguchi, a lot line. No? Sorry?

Elaine Bell, I think, is representing them. I did laugh, but I was not hired to do the representation.

All right, well, we'll wait. Maybe Elaine Bell will be here, but I'm not going to proceed discussing it unless the applicant or the applicant's representative is here. The next one is Benjamin Spoth. Do you want to represent this one? Do you want to? describe this one. Does everybody have the map in front of them? It seems simple. Bill, you can explain it, but you're moving a line in order to make one of the parcels a little bit bigger and more appropriate for eventual development, as I understand it. Yeah, this is on the Rocky Mountain Road.

And this is just past and on the other side of the road from the old Teglaig Bay Resort. And we have two parcels here that were subdivided in 2004. They're both in the same ownership. It's an existing house on the front parcel. And the owner is looking to take 9 tenths of an acre off of the rear parcel and attach it to the front. just to expand the size of that a little bit.

Anybody have any questions about this one?

Yeah, I have a question. Bill, on the left side of the map, right-of-way access for parcel food, that looks like it's outside the parcel. Is it owned by somebody else?

Morgan? That was a right-of-way that was established over that 50-foot strip there. It's all in the same ownership, but when they created the two lots, they set that up so you could come in over that strip and into the house, which is what they actually do. You see this small section of the driveway where it comes in? It's going over the other lot.

No, I mean the one on the other side.

The one on the left-hand side, Bill. Yeah.

Inside the dash lock.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I just didn't even realize they had done that. That was way back then. So I guess they kept the right-of-way. This goes back to another subdivision of actually three lots here. And when they created the original three lots, they provided themselves with lots of options. So they kept right-of-way over the adjacent lands to the left, to the northwest there, to get into parcel two in the back.

Okay. So that land is still owned by Morgan?

Yeah. Okay.

Anybody else? I don't see any problem with this one.

I just would like them to resubmit the map showing it shows a watercourse. Shouldn't we include a buffer with a watercourse? Correct.

Okay. Bill, do you see that?

Yeah, it depends on the definition. I don't think that that falls under your definition for a stream or an in-stream.

It's a watercourse in the town, so it's a watercourse and it needs a buffer. That's the indicator around it.

Okay.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- So we need a buffer around that what that was.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- I look at I think we look at the definitions for under which that hundred foot buffer Paul said that didn't buy but.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- i'll turn to my expert Dave.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- If it.

if it for whatever reason it doesn't qualify for the 100 foot buffer then we should define it accurately because we should define it define it on the map accurately this is the way it's mapped now it looks like we're not sure and bill what are you saying according to a definition what definition are you referring to protected streams

New York State DEC Environmental Resource Map, or defined as streams or small water bodies, is located in the course of a stream with a DEC classification of AA, AB, or C, where there is an T or TS trout spawning.

So this is a water course in the town of Rochester.

I'm just reading where the buffer applies.

And so the buffer applies to it. Is it one of those?

It's not a stream. That would be any ditch, any little ditch along the side of the road or something. You say that's a waterway. So is this a ditch or a stream? Well, we'll call it a ditch then, but it's not a elevated stream that's shown on the map. You have to look at what the map is that's referred to there. You look at that. There's a stream over here someplace. This stream is not shown on that map. It doesn't fall under the regulations.

Targeting the DEC regulations. The dividing line usually in the DEC regulations for permitting is if it's a sea trout or better.

Meaning B, A, or AA.

That's right, or C or CT. C and below is typically not protected under the DEC permitting program. The permit you're talking about is a protection of waters permit. So it's for doing physical work in or near a stream. And so... There's usually was a 50 feet. The stream itself has, as that may be defined in terms of the high watermark plus 50 feet. Laterally under that program for that permit and it's the cutoff is CT and above. Okay. I'm not sure if is this town code or state code and talking about. Well, then just depends what the code says and just read the town code, right?

Okay, correct. So, this is qualified under the family.

Well, we got to. Is it on a USGS plot? No. Is it classified by New York State? No.

It's got no identification at all. It's not a max stream. It's not a requirement for a law.

Okay, so then they'll relabel it to say intermittent stream or something else. Correct. Jennifer is that good enough?

Yeah. I mean, we should just. If it's a stream. Mark it as a water course.

All right. So we want to see the map change to say intermittent stream.

Sure. A policy item we talked about, assuming that the first one isn't coming in, you raised the question of, do they have to do an EAF for a lot line improvement? Do you want to talk about that now?

No. And the reason I want to talk about it, because it's a requirement in our application. Well, it's not in the code. The code has no requirements in terms of applications.

No, subdivisions, you have to do it. Site plans, you have to do it.

So for lot lines, are you telling me that there's no requirements for an application for lot lines in the town code?

No, there are rules for lot line improvements. but they're specifically not subdivisions. So there's no explicit requirement. It states in your code that they're tied to actions. It doesn't discuss the need for an EAF or not.

In your code. So we've just grown up over the last 10 years doing it. So he doesn't have to do it.

That's your call.

Does the board have an opinion? The issue is it's a type two period. It doesn't require any other action under CEQA. EAF is an action required when something falls under CEQA.

So going forward, we want lot line improvement applicants to fill out an EAF of this amount.

Why don't we leave that for a different discussion as opposed to take up bills of fine. But I would say no. Yeah.

I agree.

You know what? We just decided. Thanks for giving us the time, Bill. We just decided we don't want to do it. Do we need a resolution?

No.

It's informal.

Bill, I think, had raised the issue with another application. Why are you doing this for? Is there a requirement for submittal? You just said it wasn't.

They've just told me it's not a requirement.

It's thoroughly not required. Well, it's coming up required and we decided not to require it. You don't need a resolution.

Okay.

All right, we're done anything else. So, we need to change Stacey. We need to change all of our paperwork that has had that as a requirement. I will change all the department now.

Absolutely.

We just got rid of another step if you're in there. Anything else. Okay, so Bill, this looks good. Dave, can you have a decision ready for the 29th? Okay. So we'll have a decision for the 29th. Okay. And I just want a map before then that shows the words intermittent as opposed to what, of course.

Okay. Yeah.

Is anybody here to represent Chiro or Gucci? No. All right. I'll keep asking until we get to the whole thing. All right. First student. First student, better known as the EV stations at the bus garage. Mike, would you introduce everybody again? If you want to join the table, just move the chair up.

We have Brian Fitzgerald, who is our senior VP, along with Evan Matthews, who is our head of the legislature, myself, on scholarship.

And Paul Spandaro from the district. So just a couple of things to clear up. I got a note just sent to the board from Ulster County Planning Board. I got it from Rob. We've always said this isn't official yet. It's unofficial. But he indicated that the response to the Ulster County Planning Board to the project, five words, no county impact, no comment. So they have no- Are they voting tomorrow? They voted on Wednesday. I got wrong. So what happened? And he did last Friday. So that takes care of also the planning board. And as I mentioned at the beginning, LaBella Chris Lapine and Chris Meader are now representing us from an engineering point of view for the project. And myself, Peter, I'm sorry, Peter couldn't make it. Myself, Stacy, and Dave Church met with the engineering firm on Friday for a couple of hours. And there'll be a formal And much more, I don't know how to be much longer, but a longer and more complete set of information from the engineer on or by June 22nd. In the meantime, Chris agreed to put together some bullet points. And Chris, when you said bullet points, I didn't realize you were going to put 25 bullet points here. All of them pretty substantial. Can you possibly... goes through the really critical ones that we talked about on Friday. It goes through them so that these gentlemen have an idea of where you're going in your evaluation. And then if the board or if you guys have anything you want to talk about or if the board has anything they want to talk about. But I think today will be just a getting to know you meeting. You'll get an idea of where Chris and his team is going to be going in terms of questions they're going to ask. And then we'll get into it in more detail at the next meeting.

All right. I think the first thing we'll take with you, Chairman, is I'm. First, can you talk a little louder, please? Sure, I can do that as well.

Okay.

So during a curfew review of your application, one of the things I noticed is there's no foundry or photographic circle. So it's difficult to understand whether or not, for example, the whether that's encroaching within the DOT railways, whether it's meeting the appropriate setbacks, whether items such as your isolated area that's being proposed, is that impacting your septic defoilment system that's on the site, where in relation to the septic defoilment system, is your onsite well, will your well be isolated? So important things of that nature, because I think they tie into the overall site plan. the town site plan application. Ideally, we'd like to see a bulk table on the plan as well. Since the site's intended to accommodate EV buses and they're going to have 20 EV buses on the site, will you be eliminating the diesel tank that's currently on the property at all? And if not, what purpose it's understood that your dimensions are producing maintenance of the diesel deposits on the property in the future um there's no parking plan that how they will be parked on site um are you making just one out of the bottom or multiple that will be sage so we'd like to see how that is going to occur obviously that additional parking facing to it of an impact fire truck maneuverability on the site. Due to the partial location within an aquifer overlay protection area in close proximity to Randall Pre, we have this isolation area that's depicted on the . And from what we've been able to ascertain from some of this initial work that we reviewed, it's the intent possibly to hold maybe an impacted vehicle into this isolated area and allow it to burn. But in the event that there is some water that's used to contain this, how is that water being collected? And what are the methods of containment for it? If we can go into detail on that. Thank you. You mentioned within your The cover sheet here that you've implied that involves a 2020 applicable building code and standards, but there have been a number of significant changes during the 2025 upgrade, so that we would ask that you plan for your visit if you consider those changes. You have an area that's identified for storage, but when buses are parked there, you'll be unable to utilize that area. maybe to kind of reconfigure I think about how you can manage this in those conditions. The power cube appears to be separated from the site. I don't know if there's a security fence that isolates the power cube from the buses. So if there's a need for vehicle department along Room 209. How is that happening? Trying to understand that for safety reasons. You provided a photometric plan and it's unclear how many lights are involved. in the uh production of that four metric plan it doesn't represent the entire parcel or talk to you what's the property lines i think you kind of stop at the edge of the parking um and you've got some very high ranges that go from six foot candles up to 50 foot candles which are quite glaring and obviously at those levels they're they're not meeting with our buying The security fence that's proposed, is there a particular height to that? And if you can kind of delineate where that is on the property so that we can understand the location that's out of relationship with emergency access. I think the intent of what you've shown The screening takes the power cube. Since it's right along the front along 209, I think the screening is not of the concerning visualization of that. I think you would agree with the work to get an elevation of what your complicated landscape will look like in terms of certainly that structure. One of the other questions I had with regards to that particular structure, have you considered an alternative layout, sort of a single layout that's been proposed where the structure would be located along a scenic roadway in the, it's going to stick out, is there any other alternatives that might have been considered in the placement of that? Perhaps that becomes snow storage But once we have some additional information in terms of the isolation area, one of the questions I have is, what will it consist of? On plans, you have a radius, or I'm sorry, a diameter of about 100 feet. I don't know what's the surface of that depression. Just need some more details on that. I would be constructive for. me to let us speak to some of the high level of fire concerns.

So good evening, Chris mater code official we're working for the bell and also retired career fire chief gives the area. So we'll look at the documents that were provided. I did read them, go through them, and some of the comments may seem like some of that stuff's in those documents, but I really want to get a better idea as to how we're going to handle these things, because I think there's more information that really needs to be involved in those documents, on top of the fact of incorporating the stakeholders that are going to be involved if there is an emergency event there, including the fire department, law enforcement. I believe Ulster County has an emergency management division. So bring those people involved in the process of creating it. One of the biggest concerns, obviously, because of the lithium LFP batteries, lithium iron phosphate batteries, is the worry about the fire concern. So one of the things I thought that should probably help with creating some of these documents is creating a fire hazard analysis. So my first comment, essentially putting together a fire hazard analysis, not just based on fires, we're looking at thermal runaway vents, We're looking at charging related events, fires between adjacent vehicles, exposures, structures, all that stuff. Incorporate that to it. NFPA 551 has a document that could help you build out that really create a more robust document. So as we're building out these other documents, they'll be more comprehensive with what's going on here on the site. So, Got some questions about what's going to happen if we have a damaged vehicle. We do understand that sometimes these vehicles suffer damage during their normal routes. What are we going to do with those vehicles when they do suffer some sort of damage potentially to the batteries? How are we going to protect them? Stuff like that. How are we going to minimize exposure? What's going to happen? Your documents tended to focus on fire events, but what happens when we have off-gassing? What happens when we have smoking? What happens when we have... I did see some stuff in your documents about when we have a warning lights triggered into the buses, but I think we can get bring more information, so we do training and education for our staff, as well as the fire department, they can better understand what's going on there. So Chris touched on Chapter five and also kind of see about fire apparatus. Movement throughout the site. So. Create some sort of detailed site emergency response plan. We're going to be looking for parking, bus parking locations, which I understand it's on there. The charging equipment, the electrical service equipment, the transformers, all the stuff this part is. So when the fire department does show up, they know where everything is on this site. It's not really captured as well as I would like to see on one document. And later on, we'll incorporate that to an emergency response plan. I'll explain to you how this is going to type in that document. Electrical disconnects associated with the charging system and utility service. I'd really like to see a better narrative describing the procedure for isolation of storage and monitoring. My understanding, reading the documents, is if we did have some sort of problem with the buses, we're going to move the bus to the isolation area. What happens if that's not possible? So what happens if it is in a situation where the bus is not going to move? We can't get in the bus. It's not safe, whatever else goes on. create some contingency for that as well. Your document says that we're going to move the buses so that they're six feet apart from each other. Looking at the site plan document, I don't see how we get six feet between buses. I don't see that there. Maybe I'm missing it. I'd like to see it shown on the plans. So there should be three feet between the bus and the line. vice versa on the other side, give us our six feet. I don't see the six feet there. We looked at it the other night and we saw what, four and a half feet, I think we captured there. So maybe it's just adding a detail. Maybe I'm missing it. Maybe it just needs to be in the notes a little better. So, um, So looking at the building where we're doing maintenance on the vehicles now, are we going to do any changes there since we're going to be doing maintenance? Are we going to look at the existing fire protection system? Probably isn't any. Or sprinkler systems, fire alarm, ventilation system. What are we doing to protect that building? Training plan for employee training related to bus operations. I did see the documents there. I did see your PDF there. I think there's some more detail that could go with that. Risk assessment, identifying unique hazards. We're not just talking charging and fires. We're talking what happens if one of these vehicles gets caught up in a flood or some sort of water event, damages the battery. So I think we can be a little more comprehensive in potential hazards associated with the bus. Looking at NFPA 70, the National Electrical Code, identifying emergency shutdown procedures, disconnecting means, equipment listings, and other electrical protection systems. And then lastly, probably the most important one, the emergency response plan and how we develop that. Really should be in coordination with all those stakeholders that are gonna be involved in this. I look at these documents and I like to set up, you know, set up so that like the first five to 10 minutes of an incident or first five to 10 pages. And then after that, we get to meet the papers and the documents. But those first five minutes are key, not having to go through a whole document. So I think we can improve upon the documents that we do have. I'm willing to help with that part of this. So I've seen plenty of them over my years of experience. So get something together along those lines. But most importantly, include the stakeholders, fire department, EMS, law enforcement, emergency management, and anybody else who may be responding to this type of emergency. And then lastly, where those documents are stored on site, so when the fire department does show up, that they can get it, but they're going to secure it as well as keep them updated. So that's pretty much my...

So, Mike, what I would anticipate, some of these things you have in a variety of different documents, what I think should be done is... Each of these questions, get answers to them, consider them. You guys need to talk together now that we have an engineer representing us. Work with your guys to do whatever needs to be done in order to resolve these. What I heard in terms of the site plan is the issue, the biggest issues are, are you encroaching on the DOT right away, yes or no? That's easily indicated by just having the needs and bounds properly located. Where are you putting the electric cube or the charging cube versus where are you putting the snow removal? I think there was one suggestion that you flip-flop where the cube goes with where you're putting the snow, possibly. The issue of maintenance, are you still maintaining the diesel? A diesel repair shop there. You're going to be doing the electric repair shop there. Electrical repairs as well to the EV buses. So it's those kinds of things. And then these fire items, which are considered to be part of a safety plan. So I think in an ideal world, these 25 points would create kind of a major response document from you all to say, we agree, here it is, we don't agree, here's what we'd like to do, and to keep the conversation going in the next two weeks, a week between the parties. How does that sound?

Yeah, I think that's fine.

Okay, so this encapsulates a lot of what the board members have been speaking about separately. I'm going to ask the board if they have anything to add to it, but I know you had some things you wanted to talk about, so why don't you?

I think ultimately, I think our biggest thing is our time constraint here with the UPS. Right.

And we ask that the board public hearing for the next board meeting.

So let me open it up to the board. If the board has any questions about what has been spoken about so far and any comments on the public hearing. So I think what the applicant is asking is, can we set a public hearing for Monday the 29th? By that time, we'll have a full report from LaBella. We already resolved the issue of Ulster County Planning Board. So would it be appropriate to have the public hearing for that night? I did indicate to you, whenever we do the public hearing, it's not likely to be a single public hearing night. It's likely to lapse over into or go into another one at the following meeting after that. Does the board have any questions, comments?

I'm going to put on my project manager hat. Because I'm thinking about timeline and about I haven't had a chance to digest this stuff. So just based on what I'm hearing. And I feel like at our last meeting, we had a conversation about some of the safety concerns and that some of them were specific to our jurisdiction and what we need in order to vote. But that some of it was really more fire department. Do I remember that correctly? So then I guess my comment on all this is, and I have no answer, but Is any of this, like, can we carve some of this out and say, these are really great questions, but we should really give it to the fire department after approval?

I think what I read in the... is that pretty much all their concerns are site-specific. And some of them overlap into general concerns with EV vehicles. But pretty much everything I saw was very site-specific to that location.

I also think there is a collaboration process that needs to take place with the fire department. They have expressed concerns. available to pass it on. But I think as Chris alluded to, I think there's some information that needs to be forthcoming to make a meeting with the fire department so that they have this information on their hands. I would not want to waste time with the fire department if they're going to raise questions You know, whether it's the board's discretion to have a public hearing or not. Uh, the 1 thing I would add is if the review is still ongoing. And we believe there are concerns, uh. That rightfully need to be addressed before it's like random approval could be issued. But if you decide to close a public hearing. At the end, we can give you an extension beyond 62 days that you're normally required to make a decision upon closing the public hearing.

Well, we're not going to make a decision until after the public hearing. Correct. So I'm not understanding what you're asking or saying.

Typically, following the closing of the public hearing, you have an obligation to make a decision within a certain period of time. If you see that it goes to public hearing, there hasn't been a lot of input from the public, But if we as your consultants and maybe some of the board members still have outstanding concerns, I would just ask that if the

applicant would be willing to extend at 62 days maybe after 30 days or additional six and we've we've had that yeah issue before when we close the public hearing we have x amount of time to make a decision right and if we um so if we don't believe that we are going to be able to get to the decision we just don't close the public hearing okay or else we ask for an extension from So, Stacy, could we, you sent off something to the fire department asking for comments. Did I get any yet? No?

Yeah.

All right. So let's get this to the fire company, or fire department, right, and indicate where it's from, who it's from, what we did with it. And then I'm going to propose that the combination of you, Chris, Chris 1, as opposed to the other Chris, or Chris too. And Mike, somebody on your team approached the fire department. One of you decide it might possibly come from our engineer, more appropriately perhaps, indicate that we've reached out to you. We sent you the information that was presented tonight. We'd like to set up a meeting with the fire company.

specifically the chief and whoever else the commissioners um and then pull in uh mike and his team and get that done reach out mr davis david do you have any recommendations do you i think that's a good plan i'm sensitive the fact that this is a tiny matter i want to get the public hearing going but i also feel like there's a kind of stuff that's unanswered in this that makes a public hearing Not truly effective. So I would just say. The earlier we can get this information. Addressed the better it is to get it. So, you know, the public. Is it's a difficult subject, I think, for the public to understand. these e-vehicles as it is, especially e-buses, and until the fire department has responded. In a way, based on Chris's review, I'm glad Chief Davis hasn't responded because he's been very much interested. I think it could be a very constructive conversation between Chris, too, and one of you guys.

just to go meet with the fire department. I don't think this does it.

Are you comfortable asking Pat to meet with these guys?

We would prefer to be that point of contact. I can't hear you. We would prefer to be the point of contact and orchestrate that meeting if you don't mind. Fine.

absolutely okay that's fine that's perfect so let's get that done and then pull in um whoever from the fta needs uh to be there what about the anybody else comment on setting a public hearing and getting it started we'll wait until we have more information i would vote to wait because i don't think usually you would want to make people like 30 design when you have scope freeze and need for comments where things may be moved around on site and i don't think it's helpful to give the public documents with no answer, like right now we don't have answers. And so if you've had public comment right now, you get a lot of questions and you wouldn't be able to answer any of them. And I think it may just frustrate people. I think it's better to go to them, especially the nature of this to say, this is how, you know, and I would also propose that before the public hearing, we get the applicant an opportunity to maybe present on the site and explain some things if they want to. So I think that can also be helpful rather than just trying to mention any reports and safety plans and, So that was really fun.

Anybody else? Tsurin, you had some comments and or?

Well, the minor comments, it's no proper picture about the safety documents. You mentioned the lithium-ion battery instead of lithium-ion passport. But my most important comment is, when we're staying with the schedule and visiting the

I'll ask Stacey, now that we have our engineer on board, we'll schedule something where the engineer will be there as well. So we need to schedule that. Anybody else on the issue of the public hearing?

No, I mean, I agree with Jeff. I think it's too soon because, you know, we know a more comprehensive review is coming. We have to allow who to respond to that. Get all the information together.

All right, so I think you've heard from the board that they prefer not to schedule it for the 29th. Let's get the full input to them. You already have what the basis of it's going to be in bullet point form. Let's get response to this in a narrative form in one single document of whatever length and long enough to cover the subject and short enough to make it interesting for us to read and to understand. The next meeting after the 29th is July 13. So assuming that we get more information, or we get the information asked for, and everybody has an opportunity to digest it, the meeting of the 29th would be to discuss the details of what Chris and his team presented tonight. Discuss those with you. So whatever changes to the maps have to be made, whatever additional clarifications you need, feel free to put their contact information and reach out to them. So we're not going to do the public hearing on the 29th. It seems like it's premature. And we probably, if we did, we'd wind up extending the public hearing to July anyway. So let's have more information to be able to be discussed. Can you contact Stacy with a site visit date? And what we'd like to do with that is we usually do two dates and split it up X number of people, planning board people to each one of them and members of the engineering team. This week, next week would be preferable.

Okay.

All right. So just arrange that with Stacy and we need somebody. I don't expect you to come in from Ohio, but if you want to, you're more than welcome. Um, you're closer. Um, Kevin has to get where you told me you live.

Uh, DC.

Okay. So that's even closer than Ohio, I guess. So we want somebody there from the project team to, um, and we might even want to go in inside the building to see what, what it looks like. Um, so I think that needs to be done quickly.

Okay. All right. Question for me is, um, I can't remember what the schedule was.

So July 13th was a public hearing, and that has to go to the second public hearing? What is the date?

If it has to go to the next public hearing, we don't have a second meeting in July. We have enough large projects on the board's docket that we might have to set a second meeting in July anyway. Right. So there might be a second. We haven't decided yet. There might be a second meeting in July or not. If not, then it slips to August 10th. Yes. August 10th.

I think if just thrown expedite this. I mean, do we get information from you all and are able to do our site visit and be able to meet with Chief Davis and get it going? And I would say we could do, I would propose doing a second meeting in July to accommodate that.

That would be perfect for a workshop. I would support that for a workshop, exactly. And we'd write for a workshop. We also have the VA deadline for

So that, I think that consider, thank you for the consideration, if that's possible.

You know, just tell them what we're planning on doing and how we're trying to move quickly. We've had some, we obviously had a snag. I wasn't going to have our engineer involved if there was a conflict. So we lost some time there getting somebody else. It's unfortunate, but those things happen. Sorry, you had a question? Sorry?

Can I assume that the fire department

yet to formally respond to everything else?

I haven't gotten anything yet.

We haven't gotten anything from them. We did get something from them, which I shared with you this time last year, March, April of last year, to the original application that was presented by Mr. Morrissey.

Rick, as a kind of consultant, can you please let us know Organize those questions and group them rather than listing them. So the people question related to this aspect of society. In other aspects, I cannot read them, but they're kind of difficult to follow and discuss them. If you group them by a particular area of the site, what they're addressing, and then describe a particular site. Don't present them long list of the questions.

Would you prefer we do it by the document that was submitted? Bring it down by document?

No, no, no, by relationship. Some of them you can go and they reflect fire, not they reflect the electrical issue. Okay. Organize in that manner as in this list of,

themselves with items and if you wanted to you can cite the document um that's always helpful do you guys um did you ever get confirmation from central lesson that they can provide the power here and if you did can you share that with us from the board thank you thank you yeah um and then also i had asked previously for um references from other municipalities that had that was in the last document that was in the last document yeah we're sending them

We'll resend them. Do you know what date you sent it? It was after the last meeting. Okay.

We'll find it.

Could be our bad. I was gone for three weeks. Maybe it's still sitting in the ether. Did you remember getting anything?

I'm sorry, Will.

All right. Peter, anything else? No, that's fine. Anybody else? All right, I think we're good. All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you all. Okay, thanks, Mike. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Bryce. Thank you, Dr. Spadaro. Okay, next item up is Whiteboro, Rav Tom. Is Jeff Kaplan here? Here he is.

So in going through the details of how to go through a PODs deck with the Raptop project, there are an awful lot of steps for any of you who have done a

I'll pause deck now. And one of them is we didn't receive the draft scope last Friday. Friday, a week and a half ago. And so we need to put together the final scope of that 60 days in which to do that. One of the steps, and it's it's voluntary as it's written in the code, but is to get public input on the draft scope in order to develop the final scope. So I think it's important that we do the public comment. So I want a motion from the board to set a public comment meeting on this project on the draft scope for June 29th, our next meeting. And Stacey motion for second only enough. All in favor. Anybody opposed shambles? Yes. And the urgency and why I asked to Jeff Jeff to come is we need to get it in the newspaper this Friday to meet the requirement of the notice being in the newspaper 14 days before the 29th. So the only way to do that was to was to sell it tonight to get it off to the newspaper tomorrow. So the draft is out there. I sent it out. I'd have sent it out a couple of times. It's on Uniclap. Does anybody have any comments they want to make at this point?

I'll review it and I'll get comments. I'll submit them.

Okay. Anybody else?

I've already talked to you about that.

Yeah. 10 pages long, eight pages long. It's in one place. It's a lot more complete than what we've seen in the past. But we still have a lot of work to do in terms of coming up with the final.

Have we sent it to Greg to review? Yes.

He got it at the same time that you got it.

Okay. There were some details in there that I think we'll have comments on, but I want to make sure the engineers review it as well.

And Dave and Dave, we need to talk about when we, after we, or even before we get to the public hearing on the 29th, we need to talk about how the two of you, how we're going to work together to get the final scoping document done. And then Dave, you, Gordon, you were very involved in putting together the POS deck, the part three. So we're probably going to, depending on the names through the lion's share of putting together the final document.

Okay.

Jeff, do you have anything?

Yeah, one question. In the papers that were submitted was a proposal for a hydrological study. The hydrological study can't be done while camp is in session because you'd have to disconnect and you wouldn't be able to pump water. So we had proposed to try to get that out of the way this month. I was wondering if anyone had any concerns or issues with doing the hydrological study now. So they're kind of avoiding part of the review.

I have comments on that. So I'm not prepared. Yeah.

So we shouldn't do it. Correct.

When does camp end?

Camp ends probably late August. When does it begin? It begins late June. I also think it'd be good to have Greg's input on that.

Yeah. And that's the section where I have questions for him.

So attached to the document from Jeff that I sent out, there were two sub-documents there. One was the hydrogeological study, the proposal. and I'll have to get ahold of Greg to find out, has he read it? And then the other piece was the actual draft scope, sort of both things. And Jeff, I got your foil. We haven't responded yet, but as long as you're here, we will formally respond. There've been two hydrogeologic studies done in the past, and both of them were done by this board. One was for a project called Meta Lakes, M-E-T-T-A Lakes. And the other one was for a project called HAB-Jacques Juilland, Back at court social. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Which was a restaurant.

HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Can I make a note of. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Those scopes of work for those studies. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, The gist of them is similar, but I have questions for Greg because the the water use on the site is much higher. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, It will be probably some of the details will be different that we will ask for, I would imagine so don't. I just wouldn't want to say that we're going to copy face the, you know what I mean?

Jeff was looking more for how many of these have we asked other people to do as opposed to the technical way in which they were done. I assume that's what it was.

In response to that, this is with the capacity involved in this is much greater than what we saw for accurate, accurate social and or metal lakes.

By multiples of 10.

Exactly.

And we potentially have another one coming up. Another application is,

Yes, that's right.

So anyway, I'll get you that formally. One other question while you're on the foils. It was my impression that there was a petition submitted by people opposed to the project. I think I even saw it in the newspaper. And was that, in fact, do you have that as part of your record of petition in opposition?

I asked the secretary about that, and she is not aware of any petition that was submitted to us on the Rav Tov project.

One of the newspapers had indicated that I assume they would have submitted.

I don't remember seeing one.

I don't think it was submitted to us.

Okay. If we have it, Jeff, you have the right to have it, but it's not in our records. Thank you. Oh, wait, Jeff, hang on.

So you've got procedural requirements now that you have a draft still. Go ahead. You have to publish it in EMB.

Oh, that's right.

You have to circulate it to all involved agencies. You have to put it on a website.

Okay, it's been on the website.

And technically, there's probably arguably two drafts. The draft they gave you, the draft we do, and then the final. You have to publish all those. Okay. Do we need to do a draft before the scoping session? It's unclear to me. I mean, I've participated in this off and on. Thank God it's been decades since I ever wrote an EIS again. But if... painful work, by the way, in my experience. There's often two drafts. There's the draft the applicant submits, and there's the draft you put in front of the board to finalize. Do we need to do that? We need to do that. It's a question. It's a question.

So, Dave, I was thinking about this, and I haven't had a chance to read it in smoke, but I could potentially roll our comments and end up with it.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Rather you shut up because I can't hear you.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Need if we wanted to even roll our comments on the draft scope into the final. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes, rather than issuing as rather than having a round of review and then doing a dress so in a final we just comment on the draft that's been submitted. and issue everything edited as a final scope.

Okay. That sounds like a week-long wait.

But he's right. We do have to issue it.

It's a 60-day clock. Started when? Friday the 29th. Okay. So we're into it. We've got to get it in the EMB, which you don't do it on a Wednesday. You wait another Wednesday, right?

So, Stacy, we received a document from... Dave's office worried held and outlining all the steps that have been called. And I don't know that we've shared it with the board yet, but I will.

It would be helpful if you did.

So I say, of course, make sure we send it out.

Yeah, try and get it in for Wednesday.

Sure. Can you take care of that?

Yeah, I can. I don't know if you've got everything yet.

Well, you have the draft. Right. So that needs to go. That needs to go.

If you're okay, it'll be a notice that the draft's available and they'll be directed to the website.

Okay. So we have to get off on the website.

Does that work for everybody? And then we've got the involved parties from the lead agency circulation. So we've got to get this draft spoke to all those agencies.

So Dave, all the steps that we have to take, Stacy's aware of them. And we're working together to make sure we get it. So the EMV, we'll talk to you tomorrow about getting that done. And I'll share that link. SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE FROM LORRIE FROM BIG ENSORCEMENT STATE BOARD ENSORCEMENT.

AND IN THE PAST WHEN I ISSUED A DRAFT TO SPOKE, I USED TO DO A COVER MEMO AND SEND IT TO ALL BASINESSES. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

IT SHOULDN'T BE AS LONG AS IT GOES INTO WESTERN PROCEDURAL. IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH WORK.

I'M TAKING A QUICK LOOK AT THE REGULATIONS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A NEED FOR ANYTHING for this board to prepare any comments. to complete the draft scope that we send around to everybody and that we put up for comment. We can take Jeff's draft scope, put it up for comment, publish it in ENB, send it out to everybody, and then ultimately our quote-unquote comments will be the final scope after we hear from the public.

Yeah, that saves a step. Right?

I agree. Okay. Just looking at the words, looking at it real quickly, we don't need to add another step. Correct. So... The rooftop document will be the draft scope. And then everybody can just come on the mat and we'll finalize that.

All right, so let me get that document that outlines all the steps. And we're going to put it up on a shared drive so the board can keep up with it. All right. And the public will be able to see that? We'll work that out. Okay. All right.

Thank you.

We're going to take a five minute break and then get started with Verizon.

People with everything.

I don't know. I do. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I would see. Yeah. um Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know what I've seen today, but it's very simple. The table can fall apart. Thank you. I don't know what that means. Yeah, the cost of having bandage millions of dollars.

It's freaking frightening. So if they have a, they have this problem.

So they have a lot of money. I think it could be very easy. I don't know.

Whoa, what did you do?

Yeah, to me, the first. Well, I mean, it's like, I don't know.

somewhere, you know, you know, you know, you know,

We're just going to. Thank you all.

So what we're going to do now is we have a public hearing, continued public hearing for Verizon, specifically on any topic having to do with Verizon, but this one was set specifically the public to comment on the CMD, the conditional negative declaration. And the project. And the project and the site plan. So comments can be across the board in terms of subject matter. Sorry? You can't hear me? Okay. I will try to tune up as much as I can. Scott Olson is here. Everybody knows Scott for representing Verizon. And I also asked Doug Fishman to be here for later. Doug Fishman is our RF engineer expert that we consulted with. to evaluate the information from Verizon as well as from the public from the past. And so my intention tonight is to listen to everybody. If you want to make a comment, I would ask you to sign in on the sign-in sheet at the front there by the front door. Everybody has, I'm going to give everybody five minutes to speak. If you need a little bit more time, fine, but five minutes is where we're going to start in terms of time. Direct your comments to the board, and we're looking for items that we may have forgotten, factual matters that we may have forgotten in evaluating the project. After that, the board's intention to discuss the CND, discuss the comments that we hear tonight, and to make a decision. And I want to choose the right words, but to make a decision to confirm that CND that we put together is, in fact, approved by the board. I guess that's the terminology that we should use. So without further ado, Jennifer, would you mind getting this sign-in sheet from the table, please? So has everybody who wants to speak, have they signed in? If you haven't signed in, you can still speak. I just want to start with something. So the first speaker is Kelly Murphy.

hi sit with you absolutely it's fun that would be all so nice to just like different to talk to a square than a circle um just to be respectful of time i'm going to put a little timer on just so i you know because i know you said five minutes right i just want to be mindful so i want to start by just saying thank you all for being our planning board and all the work you do. I know this is a volunteer job and that where we've gotten with the cell tower is, um, it's just, it's a really challenging place where we have found ourselves. I feel like just like human to human. So I want to express my gratitude for everything that you guys are doing all the time that you have taken like hours and hours, emails and emails, comments, all the things. And, um, I want to also say that, you know, at the end of the day, even though you guys have to make this choice, like we're community, we're neighbors, we're, we're, we're in each other's lives and lots of capacities. And I just, I think it's important that that doesn't get lost in the sauce, you know, and obviously you guys know why, why many of us are here because we're, we, you know, we don't want the cell phone tower and, I just want to say that I understand that we need self-service for all the reasons that are stated. And I guess my question, I have a question, and is it okay to ask the question for an answer, or is it just that I share what I need to share? Is that a difference?

You can share what you need to share. We prefer not to get into Q&A or into any kind of debate about facts or anything else, opinions or anything else. For you to listen.

So some of the things that have been brought to my attention based on another cell phone tower that didn't actually go through up in halenville was just how close it is and i don't know if that's a zoning thing i guess i'm wondering is there any way that this can be lobbied in any way to the zoning board with how close it is the height of it and then the other thing that comes up and this is not about like facts i'm throwing out i'm just thinking about this this landlord that is having the ability to rent out this space for this cell tower, you know, the land for the tower. And just ethically, how he's treating his tenants, what's going on in this building, which has become public information. So, you know, I just think that that's something to be taken into consideration. I feel like the cell phone tower is like going into, opening into Pandora's box and who knows who's going to use it. So, you know, obviously this telecommunication act, we can't look at really any living being, whether it's plant, animal, human. That's very unfortunate though. I do understand it. And I understand that you guys are in this like narrow box of, we've got to go by code. We have to go by the law. So that I don't envy your, any of your positions being the planning board. I really, I mean that. And yeah, I don't think it's something as easy as a yes or a no. I just think that the bigger picture is really important when we look at all this. And my intention is just to come from a place of like humanness, kindness. I put out the intention that everyone that's going to speak tonight can come from that place because I know we've gotten to a high place of emotionality and frustration and even some exasperation. And it's important that we all are you know, treating each other with kindness and respect, especially because you guys are here holding the space, having to make these decisions. So, you know, that's the one thing that feels most important. And also just that I, with what came out the last couple, the last like 24, 48 hours with this new information, is there any possibility that we can get, you know, as a community, more time, more time to review this, that we as a community have time to read through it that you guys have time to read through it. And is there a way that we can find a way together, not like us, the residents, like fighting the planning board, because that just feels terrible. I mean, I don't want to speak for everyone, but I'm going to speak for myself. And I can imagine that we might be in the same boat in that place. And also, is there a possibility of a different location? So, you know, I don't know how far the rabbit hole we've gone down with that, but, but those are some things that, that are coming up for, you know, all the reasons that we've stated, of course. And I think, I think that's all I really want to share. I want to thank you for your listening and thank you for everything that you're doing. And yeah, so thank you very much. And then I think that most of the people that are on the list are here. Would you guys, do you want to know how many people are here to speak? Would that be helpful if everyone stood up or just to get a sense of?

That's fine. We're here for the evening.

Okay. So would everyone who is going to plan to share tonight, would you like to stand up? Just some. Yes.

Yes.

Oh, he has a list. Oh, so you have a list. Yeah, we have a list. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you guys.

The next person on the list is John Medesky.

I got to put these on.

I share your pain.

We live 1.4 miles from this site. We fell in love with the stony kill and moved here. This tower goes up. We are going to have to move it. We have worked our whole lives to be here today. And we're not the only ones. We take property taxes and invest our life savings into this community under the fundamental understanding that the local government will protect us and protect our investment from degradation. Government zoning exists to protect citizens from being compatible land use. And we are here because we don't have anything else to do tonight. We went to a town board meeting public hearing recently out of complete desperation because we don't feel supported by any word of this project. You know, I imagine democracy to be different. Our whole lives are going to be upended by this. There's something that isn't needed. This will be a serious tragedy for all of us living close to the proposed site. The other towers are placed more responsibly in the town, not right next to an apartment building and less than a mile from multiple houses. And as evidenced in the public record, Verizon doesn't have the coverage gap that requires a tower in the spot. You all were appointed to this board to protect zoning character and future of our town, not to act as a clearinghouse for a multi-billion dollar corporation. The SEC, whose match shows 100% coverage in our area, governs the airways. The New York State law gives you the sole authority over our land. Please don't surrender the town's autonomy just because a carrier submitted a polished application. Verizon wants you to believe that you have no choice but to approve this now or avoid a lawsuit. Passing a flawed approval doesn't protect the town from litigation. It forces the taxpayer-funded lawsuit with your own residents. Please look through the lens of your neighbors and take care of the town by forcing the carrier to meet our standards rather than the lens of protecting their bottom line. I just want to remind you that seeker law dictates that community character and neighborhood aesthetics are protected environmental resources. What will ultimately be a 145-foot industrial tower directly conflicts with the low-density residential zone. This is a major change to the visual environment that requires a positive declaration and a full environmental impact statement. Also, secret regulations explicitly allow a lead agency to amend or rescind a negative debt any time prior to final approval. Before the Board takes its final vote tonight, you must recognize that new, substantive information regarding the relief property values, and not to mention the complete absence of professional environmental studies regarding plants and wildlife, they've all been entered into the record. Because the final decision has not been executed, Warrensville has the mandatory legal obligation under Seeker to rescind its legal declaration and halt this flow. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, John. Debbie Modesky?

Good evening. My name is Debra Nadesky and I reside on Stony Hill Road in Upward. I would like to state to you that I stand with my fellow community members here in strongly opposing the building of a Verizon mega tower on Granite Road on the Lower Shawanong Road. I stand with our neighbors, the children and the elderly whose quality of life will be destroyed by having an industrial giant cell tower looming over them. Our home lies a half a mile from this proposed site. When my family moved here 20 years ago, I thought that this would be our home forever, a place that I wanted to spend the rest of my life, a place I wanted to die in, a place that we wanted to leave to our daughter in hopes that our future generations could get to live here in this beautiful place and continue to care for this land as we have. If this cell tower goes up, we will be forced to move as we do not feel safe living so close to a cell tower. And we will move. And others that we know here that have been and continue to invest heavily in this area are also planning to move this forward. There are many reports of the health risks of living near Salt Tower, and we did not leave New York City 20 years ago to expose ourselves to those risks again now. If you allow this Salt Tower project to move forward, you will be making a trade. You will exchange your residents, people who are invested in making this town of Rochester a beautiful place to live with socio-economic opportunities for growth that include real community interaction and connection for a cell tower. You will exchange a beautiful view shed for a cell tower. You will exchange the health of people, trees, land, birds, bees, and et cetera for a cell tower. You will exchange an increase of property and land values for a cell tower. I ask, how is a cell tower more important than community, togetherness, care for one another, care for the land that we live upon. So I ask you to ask yourselves this. I ask each member of this board to sincerely ask yourselves, how is this more important? After 15 years of caring for and loving this land, it is completely heartbreaking to know that this is even a possibility. What's even more heartbreaking is to feel that this board that is supposed to be the ones that are designated to protect this town doesn't seem to care about the housing values, the viewshed, the animals, the birds, the insects, endangered species, people's health, and the fact that low-income residents that include elderly and children will be forced to live directly under a mega cell tower. The Planning Board is here to protect its residents and to care about quality of life for the people that they are here to represent. So far, this does not feel like what is happening, but it's not too late. There's still time, still a chance to do the right thing. Each member of this board I know has a conscience, has a heart that cares about people, has a heart that cares about the environment and protecting this beautiful land that we live upon. So this is in your hands. If it goes forward, it will be on your conscience. If people get sick, if the bird population decreases, if good residents move away, if property values decrease, and this town turns into other towns that big mega corporations have destroyed, like it has happened all over this country, then you'll know that there's the possibility that that could have changed with your votes. It's a very unfortunate position. I wouldn't want to be sitting in the position that you are, but I know what I would do because I know what I stand for. I stand for community, for protecting the environment from for-profit corporations. I stand for social justice and the welfare of the people, including the underprivileged who don't have the means to just pick up and move from their homes. So my prayer is that each one will look into your hearts, one of you, and ask yourselves, what do you stand for? So our request is that this planning board needs to reject Verizon's application or at the very least require a positive secret declaration and extend the deadline for public comments. Thank you so much for your time.

Thanks. James Brighton.

Probably will not see the issue. No, ma'am, it's...

I'm sorry I didn't hear you.

I said, good job on the enunciation. Nobody ever gets my last name. I'm not a public speaker, so this is quite difficult for me. That's why I'm going to sit down. We're already starting to not sweat as much, so we're good. First time I spoke to you all, I had bullet points written down, so I didn't have real time to get any thoughts written down. My name is James. I live in the apartment building right next to the meadow where the proposed cell tower is planned to be constructed. I worked in the telecommunication industry as a line member for a decade. I want to speak tonight as someone who will be directly affected, not in theory, but in daily life. I myself am partially physically disabled. I was in a motorcycle accident and now have a paralyzed left arm. This accident happened six months after my 11-year-old son and only child, Benjamin Mark Brighton, passed away from a seizure disorder in February 2024. I was bedridden for close to a year and have been working on regaining a full functioning and fulfilling life. This area that I live, specifically my apartment, has been a cornerstone foundation block to my mental health and physical health recovery. The location being considered for this tower is right beside our homes, about 130 feet from my living room and bedroom and bathroom wall and windows where my recovery takes place. That's a shorter distance than the tower height will eventually be. If anything were to go wrong, a structural failure from high winds or any other kind of calamities, that tower could fall directly into our homes. That is a real physical safety risk to the residents there, not an abstract one. Beyond that, this field is not just empty land. It's part of our living environment. It's where a dozen children from our complex play every single day. They ride their bikes on a dirt road back there, chase fireflies in the grass, climb trees, and spend time outside where it's still safe to be near nature. That space is one of the few free open areas left for them and for all of us to enjoy. The report stating there will be no pollutants is simply false. Think about all the construction that will be needed to erect this. It's not like they come in and just plop a tower in the grass and that's that. The ground will be reformed for easy access to the absurd amount of construction and utility trucks that will be in constant presence during and after construction. for new fiber optic installations and constant maintenance. Surrounding trees that have been there for decades that make up a part of the view shed will need to be removed to make way for trucks hauling concrete, imported stone, cranes to lift the sections of towers, utility trucks and crews to dig out the underground pipes and bring power and endless service providers with fiber optic wires to the inside of the tower. Line crews will be disrupting traffic and all neighboring properties for years after to install meat fiber optic backbone that is not needed at all in this area. Then there's the maintenance that will need to be kept up with regularly. Again, line crews will be all over quiet roads unnecessarily. These line crews are made up of multiple diesel trucks and gas trucks that stay running, sitting in place, or slowly moving up the road, pulling lines outside of people's homes. We all sit outside and enjoy nature every single day. Just imagine coming up the road and just sitting outside your house for a half hour to an hour, hour and a half, depending on what they're doing there. These line crews are made up of multiple diesel trucks. All of this will put a lot of abuse on our already crumbling roads. I worked on hundreds of cell towers all over the state, and every single one has warning signs. Danger, radio frequency, radiation hazard. This sign warns about hazardous association with exposure to radio frequency radiation, which can cause severe burns from close and prolonged exposure. Most of that is from climbing the cell tower, the burns, but the frequencies are affecting. Why would any company put this sign up on their cell tower if there's no definitive evidence of harm from radio waves? The board must consider those effects. It seems wrong for the absence of absolute proof is being used as permission to ignore possible risks, especially when those risks involve our health, our kids, and the land we live on. Other signs of that high voltage signs or danger high voltage signs, obvious high voltage danger, No trespassing signs. Now that lot where kids used to play is going to be off limits and illegal to cross onto. God forbid one of the kids kicks a ball over the fence and his dad goes to get it. Video surveillance signs. All towers have video surveillance. They're usually put up at the top to watch the area around it. Again, my bathroom window is right there. And without... me having access to that feed, I don't know if they can see inside my bathroom, my bedroom, my living room. That's unacceptable. I did say at one point before I knew or got word that the hotel could be demolished, I said I felt that not all avenues have been looked at. JFT Tower in New Paltz has panels up on it, and that produces enough signal to encompass the entire town. I feel that that could be something that could be looked at, is putting it up on the fire tower, the stair towers on the top of the hotel. I don't know if they're rebuilding the hotel. That's something we'll look into. You can also make it the same color as the hotel. Hotels that would be as high as solar already. It would just blend in. Please don't let the corporate convenience outweigh our community's safety and peace of mind. The place we call home and the opinions of the residents deserves careful consideration and respect. Thank you all for all your hard work. And again, I know that it is black and white. You guys are following the rules and you have a path to take. I wish you luck and thank you for your day.

Thank you, James. Julie Rose.

I want to say first that I have done decades of volunteer work, and I say this because I can appreciate and respect the considerable amount of volunteer work that all of you do as members of the planning board. So thank you. We have lived in our town on Stonyfield Road for the last 42 years. We've raised our three children here. And as lucky homeowners living up against the beautiful Schlongunk Ridge, we have paid our town taxes and have voted in our town elections. I have worked as a child therapist for the last 30 years, and I'm currently clinical director of Ulster County A Home Within. A Home Within is a national organization that pairs volunteer therapists with traumatized children in the foster care system. I am extremely concerned about the nine children that live in the housing apartments that are so very close to the site of Verizon's proposed stealth test. The cell tower would certainly compromise the health and life quality of these children by, at the very least, destroying their outdoor play area. Outdoor play is essential for the growth and healthy development of children. Exposing them to noise, heavy machine traffic, harmful radiation, and by stressing their families. I'm also very concerned about all the children and their families who live in the residential area closely surrounding the proposed site. I have always assumed that our town government exists to care for our community. I feel strongly that we all need to care for and about each and every child in this world in any way that we can, especially at this moment, we need to care for the children in our community, our town. From that perspective, I feel that Verizon's bid to build a cell tower in this particular location So extremely close to the homes of nine children and very close to all the children in the surrounding residential area is deeply disturbing and unethical. I ask you please to give this serious issue more consideration and at the very least to return positive secret declaration. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Philip Rose.

Hello, my wife. Let the cat out of the bag. My name is Philip Rose. Some of you know me. And I live on Stein Kill Road, too. We've raised three wonderful children, goats, chickens, and bees. And we've all roamed and appreciated the beauty of the Strongham Ridge, which is basically our backyard. I'm a retired software engineer, former ASO soccer coach and referee, past president of several local boards, and possibly I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FINAL COMMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH REGARD TO THE SECRET PROCESS AND VERIZON'S APPLICATION BUILDING A NEW CELL TOWER AT 439 TO 445 GRANT ROAD THE TOWN BOARD IN THE MOST RECENT WORKSHOP MEETING HAS RECOGNIZED that the town's zoning code for wireless telecommunications facilities, 140-29 code needs revising, particularly with respect to setbacks for residences. And we expect the town board will address this need. The board seemed unanimously dismayed at the proximity of both site to the apartment buildings who share their dismay. Of course, code revisions will not feature names of the current application. However, a number of other problems have been identified during the course of your planning board hearings, the foremost being the requirement to demonstrate an unmet coverage need within the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The document from Verizon in early May and released late last week by the planning board posits a novel interpretation of coverage need that does not seem relevant to adjudicated standards of the FCC. And I know that there's been a response since the information that I saw regarding that. So that's an issue that we need to look into. The document, no, beyond that, there are mandated reports in town code that appear to be inadequate, at least to me, such as wildlife and vegetation assessment that was not done on site and property value impacts that were not based on local data. There's also the issue of the nearest tree line height, a parameter that's used to generate the permitted height of the tower which Verizon has also fairly recently asked to adjust in their application. To my knowledge, there has been no finding of that by the planning board to settle this issue. Finally, there are issues of the purpose and intent of Section 1429 statements to, quote, protect the town's health, safety, public welfare, scenic, historic, environmental and natural or man-made resources. And another quote, promote the location of new telecommunications facilities in areas which are not zoned primarily for residential use stand out. The last paragraph states minima, and this is a quote from the code, minimize adverse the natural features and aesthetic character of the town with special attention to the Schwamble Ridge, Womock Preserve, and Catskill Preserve. Frankly, reading this part of the code, I don't see how the application has gotten as far as it has. I'm proud to live in a community that practices democracy. Many of us have addressed you in the town board to share our concerns. More than 500 people have responded to our petition asking for a full environmental impact statement. We are people from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, not one narrow faction. What we have in common is that we share concerns for our neighbors, we want to preserve the character of our town, and we love the natural environment that we have inherited. Like others before me here, I would like to acknowledge that the Verizon application is challenging and it's a lot of work for everyone involved. We have tried to advocate in a responsible way and to provide resources to make their substantive case against granting a special permit at the Granite Road location. We do this in good faith. I continue to hope that if you disagree, that you will, at a minimum, recognize the number of issues that deserve further analysis. And for that reason, return a positive secret declaration. As it stands, this application seems to be deficient. The planning board needs the time that a full EIS will provide to make sure that we get it right. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for giving me and others an opportunity to address this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Katherine Kryback?

Thank you for listening to us.

Can you speak a little louder, please?

Thank you for everything you do. My name is Catherine and I'm a local teacher, wife and mother. Our family and fellow community members strongly oppose this potential cell tower on Granite Road next to an apartment building where young children live and play. I've been a resident of Cronongson and Ackford for 24 years. I fell in love with this area, especially Rookman-Vlaska State Park. Within the 24 years living here, I met my husband and had three children. We raised them to appreciate the beauty of our community and explore the magnificent outdoor spaces. We live within a mile from the proposed site. We own a home on Granite Road and plan to eventually sell and build a home on Bermuda. If this tower goes up, our property value would drop. There is no doubt in my mind about it. Both homes would be within a mile from the tower. We planned on retiring and leaving our homes for our children. And if this tower goes up, it would have a huge impact on that decision. What attracted me most to this area, as well as my husband, was the breathtaking view shed from the 4455 Overlook. I cannot count the times we pulled over with millions of other people visiting this area to gaze at the views. When Verizon did the balloon test, My husband and I drove around to see how it would affect the 4455 view, as well as the view from 209. The red balloons were as clear as day. We documented with a 50mm lens, but unfortunately the board did not accept them. I would ride my bike to Minnewaska and ride Granite Road and Stony Hill Loop. In my adventures, I have spotted so many interesting creatures, wildlife. There have been so many times where I have encountered rattlesnakes. They are all around this area, especially Minnewaska and the area where the proposed cell tower site may be. It saddens me to hear that there have been no environmental reviews to see if we have endangered species at that proposed location. It really cannot be overlooked. The most important reason that I do not want the cell tower in that location is because it would be so close to an apartment building with families and elderly people. It absolutely sickens me to think that this massive cell tower would be built so close to an apartment building. My heart breaks for them. It's the only affordable apartment building around. I know a few people that live there and they tell me what awful conditions they live in. Sometimes going without water and dealing with mold issues. I would never want my children living next to a cell tower and I cannot imagine anyone else wanting it next to their home as well and dealing with the negative effects from it. We're pleading with the town board to reconsider this proposed cell tower. There are so many more reasons that I do not want this hideous massive cell tower, but I know I need to be free. So I'll not talk about how I spent the last, almost last year dealing with trying to oppose it and spending money, valuable money and time that we do not have. However, we need to fight this in our small community because if this goes up, then I cannot imagine what may follow. This is our home. Good luck in making this decision. Thank you.

Larry Friedman.

Thank you. I will address two subjects. First, Verizon's continued failure to prove this need for a fourth cell tower in our town. And second, Verizon's failure to comply with the zoning code's requirements that Verizon submit an economic study of the property value impacts of the proposed tower on adjacent properties. First, with respect to Verizon's failure to prove its need for the proposed tower. As we all know, in order to prove that need, Verizon must prove that there is a significant gap in cell service that its proposed tower will fill. That's what the zoning code says. Verizon's most recent filing on this subject is a May 4 report by its engineer, Mr. Hennessey, which I note the planning board mysteriously withheld from the public for one month and did not disclose until last Thursday, June 4. Even in this most recent filing, Verizon still has not proven that there's a significant gap in cell coverage. First, Verizon continues to rely exclusively on its propagation maps, which are merely computer-generated, theoretical, and unvalidated and unverified prediction models. Verizon has never disclosed the parameters of the inputs that it used to generate these models. Even more significantly, Verizon has never provided any real-world verification for them. This is despite our and your, the board's, repeated requests for Verizon to produce any dropped call data, any failure to complete calls data, any signal drive test data, or any other objective evidence of a gap in coverage. Any of these would easily identify real-world significant gaps if such a gap exists. The Planning Board cannot lawfully conclude that Verizon has proven that there is a significant gap in coverage based on theoretical and unverified knowledge. Second, Verizon's most recent submissions, as recently as today, confirmed that it is applying a largely invalid, a legally invalid definition of need. In Mr. Hennessy's May 4 report, he finally admits that Verizon is defining need for this purpose as, quote, whether users can obtain reliable in-boat building service. No gaps in service outside, according to him. He is admitting what we've been saying all along, that the reason Verizon is doing this is that it wants to get signals in our homes. As our lawyer, Mr. Berg, shows in his May 5 letter, that standard of need, that notion that need is satisfied by showing a desire for in-building service is not consistent with the controlling legal standard for a finding of need under New York federal court rulings of that the zoning code requires the planning board to follow. As Mr. Berg explains, Verizon's claim of need based on its business strategy to provide in-building coverage is similar to Verizon's unsuccessful claim of need in the Extinet case. In that case, a New York federal court case, Verizon wanted to improve the quality of its existing wireless service without showing a true significant gap in service. The federal court ruled that, quote, improved capacity and speed are desirable and no doubt profitable goals in the age of smartphones, but they are not protected by the telecommunication tax. They are not what is legally considered to be mean. The governing legal standard states that there is no significant gap and thus no need so long as a remote user can place and complete a cell phone call from a given location. And Verizon does not dispute that, according to the National Broadband Map, such a call can be completed from the area around virtually every home near the proposed tower site. Mr. Olson's letter on this subject of earlier today is simply wrong. He argues that the planning board is not obligated to define need as it is defined in the federal court decisions we've cited. including the extinent decision from which I just quoted. That is contrary to the text of the zoning code. The zoning code expressly requires the planning board to apply the code in a way that is consistent with federal law. That's section 140-29B3. Specifically, if the board were to define need as including Verizon's desire to provide in-building coverage the board would be acting contrary to the principles stated in these federal court decisions. And as a result, it would be violating the zoning code. Mr. Olson says in his letter of earlier today that the zoning code just prohibits contravening the Telecommunications Act. That's not what it says. It says federal law. And federal law includes the decisions of federal courts, such as the extant decision conclude. Therefore, under the zoning code, the planning board and not define need as Verizon proposes. In sum, Verizon is relying solely on non real world data, theoretical unverified data to satisfy the wrong legal standard. The bottom line is that under the true legal standard, Verizon has not proven that there is a significant gap in cell service that the proposed tower would fill. With the Board's indulgence, I'd like to address one final

You'll be on your five minutes, but how long do you need to do that? I'd say about two to three minutes. That's too long.

He can have my time.

Fine.

Go ahead.

Thank you. The board cannot complete its consideration of Verizon's application because Verizon has not submitted an economic study of the cell tower's impact on property values on all adjacent properties within 500 feet as the zoning code explicitly requires. The two studies Verizon has submitted clearly do not satisfy the code's requirements. The first one, as you know, is about property values in other counties. You sent them back to the drawing board and they came back with a report about properties within one to two miles of the Kerr-Hongson and City Hall road towers. Nothing about adjacent properties within 500 feet of the Granite Road sub-tower site. Verizon's letter of last week on this subject, which again, mysteriously, the board did not post on the Munich Lab portal until this morning, five days later, does not change the fact that Verizon's studies do not comply with the zoning code's requirements. Verizon continues to argue that the absence of home sales to support a before and after analysis of property value values on impacts on properties within 500 feet of the proposed tower precludes doing anything more and supports relying on analyses involving other supposedly analogous sets. That argument is founded on two fundamentally false premises. First, this argument is based on the false premise that the only type of economic study that could be performed here is one based on a before and after analysis of sales of nearby properties. But there are other kinds of economic studies that the geniuses and callers can come up with, I'm sure. If there's an insufficient number of transactions to support a before and after study, Verizon needs, under the zoning code, Verizon needs to procure and submit another form of economic study of property value impact. A before and after study is not the only type of study. The zoning code requires a specific kind of study. They have not submitted that study. This board can't waive that requirement. They need to perform and submit that study before this board can move forward. Furthermore, Verizon's argument is premised on the false notion that the Kerhonsen and City Hall Road tower sites are analogous to the proposed Granite Road site. They're not. We all know that. The Kerhompson Tower is in the middle of a large field with no nearby homes. The City Hall Road Tower, which they didn't even disclose until we called it to their attention, the City Hall Road Tower is in a heavily wooded area, again, with no nearby homes. The absence of impact on property values within one to two miles of those two towers is not indicative at all of what the impact on property values would be expected to occur as a result of the Granite Road Tower. Bottom line is Verizon's studies don't comply with the letter, let alone the spirit of what the zoning code requires. The bottom line is that Verizon's application cannot proceed until Verizon submits and the board has considered the type of economic study that the zoning code requires. Thank you. Ken Lieberman.

Good evening. My name is Benjamin Lieberman, and I live in Ackroyd with my wife, Emily, and our daughter, Love, who was born at our home here in Ackroyd, March of 2025. I'd like to thank the board for the chance to speak tonight, for its work on this application, and for you all doing that well. Before I start, I'd like to note for the record one correction to my written comment that I submitted earlier today. Page nine, I refer to conditions 14 through 20. That should read conditions 11 through 17. Tonight, I'd like to focus on one central point. This is elaborated in more detail in my written comment. The board's own fee identifies moderate potential significant adverse environmental impacts to plants and animals, aesthetic resources, noise, and consistency with community character. The question before the board is therefore not whether the impacts exist or has already recognized that they do. Question is whether the mitigation measures in the conditions negative declaration actually eliminate those impacts to a level that is no longer significant. I believe there are substantial deficiencies in the mitigation conditions listed in the CND. That the CND therefore does not satisfy the requirements of the secret regulations. According to seeker regulations, a CND may be issued only when the lead agency, quote, has imposed seeker conditions pursuant to section 617.3b of this part that have mitigated all significant environmental impacts and are supported by the full EAF, any other documentation. The regulations state that, quote, the conditions imposed must be practicable and reasonably related to impact identified in the BIS or the condition negative declaration. I believe many of the proposed mitigation conditions do not satisfy this requirement. A number of the proposed mitigation conditions do not actually specify mitigation. Instead, they require future experts, future surveys, future recommendations, future monitoring, or future approvals. This is particularly notable regarding conditions for mitigating the impacts to plants and animals that's identified in EIF Parts 2 and 3. especially conditions 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the CMU. Condition 6 is perhaps the clearest example. Condition 6 requires that, quote, the area of ground disturbance will be surveyed by an ecology or related expert prior to construction, provide the town with recommendations for any species and habitat mitigation measures. If the recommendations for mitigation have not yet been determined, How can the Board conclude today that all significant impacts have already been mitigated? CEQA rules make clear that potential impacts must be mitigated by the conditions in the CND, a condition that requires appropriate mitigation measures to be determined later, after issuance of the CND, after approval of the proposed action cannot satisfy this requirement. That same pattern appears elsewhere in the conditions. Important decisions and determinations are being deferred until after the CMD has been issued. In the interest of time, I will not read through all of the conditions and the forms that I've elaborated, but I will direct you to my written comment earlier today. I respectfully submit that this is exactly why CEQA provides for a positive declaration and an environmental EHAG statement process. When there are still unanswered questions about impacts and mitigation, the purpose of the EIS process is to answer them before approvals are granted. Secret regulations require that both the lead agency must rescind the CND and issue a positive declaration requiring the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement if it receives substantive comments that identify potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously identified and assessed or were inadequately assessed in the review, or to a substantial deficiency in the proposed mitigation measures. I believe the comments of record in the application file, including those submitted by myself and others, as well as many of the comments voiced tonight, constitute the kind of substantive comments that trigger the Board's obligation to rescind under CECRA. I respectfully request the Board to rescind the CND and issue a positive declaration requiring draft is in accordance with its obligations under secret, thank you for your careful solution.

Thank you, Julia Walsh.

Oh, yeah. Usually, well, I've been a taxpayer and I've been here for 20 years in the town of Rochester. I want to start off with what I said the first time I made a public comment on this issue. I served as an elected official in the village of New Paltz for four years. And I made some decisions that I look back on and I regret. But those decisions are minor compared to the decision you're going to make today. Because as you all know, it will impact people's health. Many people will move and leave this community and those that can't but are concerned will live with the anxiety knowing that they're being exposed to radiation from the cell tower. If you vote in favor of this, you will individually be responsible for it. That's the unfortunate part of being an elected or appointed official because you have to take personal responsibility for this. While health is not an issue that we can comment on, community character is, and we are supposed to be a community that protects our environment and protects our neighbors. That's why I imagine most of you are on this board. I believe that a majority of the board members here are against this project, but you feel that your hands are legally tied. Contrary to what I believe you've been legally advised to do, you have a very strong legal case right now to reject this application. I spoke to an RF expert recommended by my lawyer, John Brown, who's been widely used by many municipalities in this area. And the whole legal case for this application and any cell tower application centers on need, which would be reviewed in a positive declaration and a full environmental impact statement. He looked at this and he said, this is a capacity, not a coverage issue. He cited as Larry and Michelle's lawyer has done that the legal precedent of Brent Spectrum versus Willeth in New York in 1999 and established in 2004 of Xnet in court versus the Village of Flower Hill is clear that a municipality is not required to approve a cell tower based on capacity. Whether they need it or not, it's not your job to give them a cell tower. This is the same exact situation you are in. You are not legally obligated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act to approve a cell tower for an applicant for capacity only for a coverage gap. To our surprise, after saying how much there was a coverage gap, Verizon posted documents saying there was a capacity issue because the coverage does not include in-home use. That is not the legal precedent. Furthermore, it is deeply frustrating that all of us are taking time out of our lives to protect our community from this talent and the planning board did not post Verizon and Doug Fishman's submissions for over a month and posted them less than three business days to the community lab for the public to comment on. Whether this was a mistake or intentional, it is imperative that the board not close the public comment period tonight and leave it open for the next month or at least until the next meeting so that we can read this. We can have our lawyers review it. We can have experts review it in order to make a substantial public comment. It is unethical to move forward tonight having posted these critical documents that the entire case of the cell tower rests on with less than three days to make a public comment. I mean, I have not even had a chance to read this. In short, for those of you on the board who believe your hands are legally tied, it is clear that they are not. It would be one of the greatest travesties of our entire lives in this community that you would approve a cell tower that is actually needless and that you would win in court based on precedent. You have the authority to stop this. The issue of need is a reason for a positive declaration or for outright rejection of this application. I also want to state for the record that over 500 people have signed a petition for a positive declaration and the business community signed a letter requesting the same. Businesses, including Saunders Hill Farm Market, Arrowwood Farm, Flying Goose, and many other local restaurants, farms, and realtors, including Taft Realty. In that letter, and as I raised at the last meeting, it is a farce to state that lowering the tower 20 feet is a mitigation number. Under the Spectrum Act, a federal law that you will be required to follow if you so choose to move this tower and citizens are not able to win an Article 78, that once this tower is built, you can't stop it from being raised. Peter asked that question after I raised it. He answered. Your lawyer answered. You cannot stop it. It will be brought back to this board and you can mitigate it with another plastic branch, but you cannot stop it. That is the law. Furthermore, we went to the town board to raise these issues because we have been saying them over and over again to the planning board. We do not feel like many of these issues have been addressed. This is another reason why if you choose to move forward with a positive declaration, all of this would be reviewed. And I know it's been 18 months and you've gone through a lot, but there are a lot of gaps. There are gaps in the need. There's not one wildlife expert has ever stepped on that property. Hudsonia was reached out to by the planning board chair. We've been in touch with Hudsonia and Eric Kiviat. He has a proposal and a scope for $5,000. It was never followed up on. How is this board environmental? If you don't have one person there to see if they're endangered species. The community is extremely frustrated. So we went to the town board and we raised these concerns and we were met by Overwhelmingly, a very positive response that the town board is also for the record. So they did not make a recommendation on a positive recommendation and all they did was send all of our documents that we sent to them to you. They said in public meetings that they're concerned with the siting of this property. They don't understand the finding of that. Why is it so close to these buildings? They're concerned this is an environmental justice issue. And they are concerned, the same thing I just said, why are we raising, why are we using the mitigation measure of 20 feet lowering it when the Spectrum Act, if it's built, would raise it 20 feet? We did not go to the town board to kind of create any kind of animosity toward the planning board. I think this body of people have been more than respectful to you at every single meeting. I heard rumors that we were being painted in another light, which I really did not appreciate because I think we've all gone out of our way to be very respectful of this board. But we are upset. And we're frankly scared. People are scared. They do not want to live under cell tower. And I want to ask each and every one of you, if you have children or grandchildren, if you would want them living in James's position, less than 200 feet under a massive cell tower, which there's plenty of scientific evidence to state that there's an issue with radiation. But even if you don't agree with that, there's enough there to suggest that you wouldn't want to live there. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I will say. HAB-Masyn Moyer- In closing here. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That the Community, as I stated in previous public comments is overwhelmingly against us the town board is against this, the citizens, if you drive around. Stone's killing, Granite Road. We didn't have enough. We put over 100 signs out. We don't even have enough signs for all the people that want to put out signs. Many people aren't here tonight. They've got small children. They can't come here. People are very concerned about this. Businesses are concerned about this. And you should be concerned about this because at the end of the day, you're the ones that are going to be responsible as a body legally, but individually, your own moral conscience of whether or not you think this is appropriate. And you have plenty of reasons to deny it based on need and many of the other reasons that we've gone into at great lengths to explain as far as the sighting, the aesthetics, the wildlife, all these different issues, which could be, and I put in my public comment what I was advised there could be changes on. If the board moves forward tonight, it will be a major mistake, both because you sat on critical documents that the public needs to be given time to review and comment on, and because this conditional negative declaration is wrongly based largely on a mitigation measure to lower the height of the tower when it will be raised. There is no doubt it will be raised. So I'm asking you once again, like, please look at this information. Please advise this body on these other lawsuits that we know about that we've brought to your attention. And please give us the time to review about five different documents that were posted since Thursday night that no one has had time to read besides Larry and Michelle's lawyer. Thank you.

Dave Ford.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Dave Ford. I live in Accord with my wife, Jessica, with my daughter, Juniper. I'm also a veteran. Uh, I I've been sitting here trying to put myself in all of your shoes. Uh, my work is at the intersection of working with some of the biggest corporations in the world, like Exxon and Dow and Coca-Cola and environmental NGOs, like Greenpeace and break free from plastic and. I understand firsthand how difficult it is to be sitting here and to be taking all this in and to be volunteering your time. And I would imagine that sometimes this can be a really thankless job. So thank you for your service. It's really appreciated. For the last 18 months, you've been asked to weigh competing interests. conflicting information, concerns from neighbors, environmental considerations, visual impacts, and just questions about the need for this tower. And that's not an easy responsibility. And as I mentioned, I just really appreciate all of you showing up and doing this job. What stands out to me is that there seem to be a lot of unanswered questions. Questions about the environmental impacts on the wildlife along the ridge, Questions about impacts on nearby residents and property owners. Questions about how this structure will affect one of the most important use sheds in our community. I remember vividly the first time I came to Accord over the mountain 144-55 and just pulled over in awe. And I would imagine that everybody in this room has had a similar experience. It's really, this town, all get to experience and enjoy. And once your view shed has changed, it's changed forever. And I want to be clear, I'm not arguing against the need for reliable cell service. We all benefit from better connectivity. The question before you tonight isn't whether cell service is important. The question is whether every reasonable question about this proposal has been fully examined before a decision is made. And when there's significant unanswered questions, that's exactly when SIGRA is supposed to work. And that's why I'm advocating for a positive declaration. A positive declaration doesn't determine the outcome. It doesn't mean this hour is approved or denied. It simply means that we take the time to turn over every stone and fully understand the impacts and make the most informed decision possible. This tower, if built, would be a part of our community for decades. If taking a few more months today gives this board and this town greater confidence that the right decision was made, I believe that's time very well spent. I want to thank you all for your service, and thank you for your considerations. Thank you. I have to accept that.

I'm pretty sure.

Linear.

Did I get that right?

Thank you for letting me speak today. I really appreciate it. I'm going over some of the other speakers.

It's just a very short presentation. Good evening. My name is Patricia Simon, Linear. I am a resident of Accord. I lived here for 48 years. I have been a school teacher in this valley most of my career. I really agree with Julie Rose about the impact on the children. The nine children that are living there and all the children that are in the vicinity near the cell tower will be impacted. And I tell you, it affects their learnings. My last job was in Rosendale, and I worked as a reading specialist, and I worked with the children in our community that have difficulty with learning. This stress will impact the children's learnings. I understand the importance of reliable communication services, but I am concerned about the proposed location of the cell tower in . This will have an impact on the nearby property owners and the character of our community. For many families, their home is their largest financial investment. The apartment complex that will be next door to the cell tower will have a negative impact on the families in personal and environmental ways. It will impact all the nearby property owners of our community. For many families, their home is their largest financial investment. Studies on cell towers and property values have produced varying results, but many have found that towers negatively affect property values. when they are highly visible and located close to residential properties. I have spoken to a real estate broker in our area, and she has confirmed that there are many people who will never buy a house near a cell tower. And some people might buy a house near a cell tower if the property is reduced significantly. Perhansen is valued for its rural landscape, scenic views, and small-town character. Once a large tower is constructed, the visual impact is permanent. I urge the planning board to carefully consider the placement of the current cell tower Verizon is wanting to place on this location. I respectfully is that the board place significant weight on protecting homeowners, preserving our community characters, and ensuring that all responsible alternatives have been thoroughly evaluated before any approval is granted. As of now, there hasn't been an evaluation of the effect on the property value. I hope that the board will consider this important study. I thank you for your time and consideration. And I really appreciate all the time you have given to this. And I want to have faith in the people who represents all of us that you're going to do the right thing for the community. Thank you so much.

Robert West question.

Good evening, everyone.

Very brief. Very brief comment of my own. I've been asked to read a letter. So I'll finish my time with that. You know, it's important under the circumstances with the documents that you've received as recently as today and the documents that the community had seen only over the last few days to prolong this process, prolong the open comment process at the very least to give yourselves and to give the community more time before a vote, which I know is your intended activity for the evening, to actually take a vote on the proposal and to postpone that vote. So I feel that it would be in very, very best interest of the board and the community to postpone that vote. Again, because of the voices, the many voices today that have pointed out disputes in the type of information that would be used as a decision-making material. The decision to enter into a secret process will allow unclarified, unresolved issues around things like the height of the cell towers, so impact on the beauty shed, real estate, all of these many issues, the need, all these many issues that have been mentioned here tonight, that will be flushed out by a global environmental impact statement, should you be willing to make that declaration. Okay, I'm gonna just read this letter. This is dated June 8th, 2026. To the Chairman of the Rochester Planning Board, Rick Jones, Vice Chair Peter Nelson, and Planning Board members, Duda, Barnwell, Roberts, Petchernan, and Finsky. Copies to the Town of Rochester Supervisor, Enewin, Town Board members, Alba, Smicev, Coleman, and Nguyen, and Zoning Board of Appeals Chair, Zafotsi Zorofsky, ZBA members, Roy Cote, Davis, Stevens, Vlasel, and Environmental Conservation Commission members, Messerschmidt, Measley, Dell, DeBoer, Ortiz, Anderson, and Rich. Thank you for your volunteer service to our community. We are writing to you today as business owners in the town of Rochester regarding the proposed Verizon self-seller on Granite Road. We are very concerned that the Planning Board appears removing or approving this proposal without an environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We are aware that you have unanimously voted on a deeply flawed conditional negative declaration in which your main mitigation strategy involves around lowering the height of the proposed cell tower from 145 feet down to 125 feet. We are writing to you today as part of the public comment period to request that she vote on June 8th against the conditional negative declaration and vote for a positive declaration. That will result in a full independent study being done on how this project will impact the aesthetic of the viewshed and the socioeconomic impacts that the CEQA process requires the board to consider, as well as balancing test as well as a balancing test as to whether the benefits outweigh the costs to our community. Further, we ask that the Board conduct a full economic analysis as required in the Town of Rochester Zoning Code on the impact that the proposed cell tower would have on the local property values. As business owners who greatly value the scenic beauty and world-class new sheds, of both the Shawangunk Bridge and the Catskill Mountains visible from the Shawangunk Mountain Scenic Byway. It is imperative that the impacts to our viewshed be considered and how they will impact our tourist economy. The proposed cell tower will be in the Catskill Mountains viewshed from the Shawangunk Mountain Scenic Byway from both Route 209 moving toward the Shawangunk Bridge The two scenic overlooks on Route 4455, looking out towards the Catskill Mountains and the Minnewaska State Park. That will make the tower a pervasive feature in the scenic landscape with a massive cumulative negative impact on our regions. Under CEQA, the aesthetic is a major factor in a positive declaration. We are asking that it be considered as such. It would be short-sighted of the planning board to issue an additional negative declaration with a mitigation strategy to lessen the negative impact of the cell tower by reducing the tower 20 feet when Verizon can, under the Federal Spectrum Act, raise that cell tower by 20 feet after it is built. Under this federal law, the state and local governments are forbidden to deny a bus from cell phone and cell tower corporations to modify wireless equipment, including raising the height of this cell towers up to 20 feet. If the cell tower is built on Granite Road, there is nothing that can be done to stop it from being raised to 20 feet. And therefore, the apparent compromise that the board says it has reached its horizon will be temporary. at best. We, the taxpaying businesses of this town, believe that the conditional negative declaration is not acceptable and that the board should issue a positive declaration with a full EIS must be done where our businesses and the public can participate. Furthermore, the secret process with a positive declaration And also take into consideration the social economic impacts that the tower will have on our view shed and community character as a pivotal component in the balancing test. We should like this to be done. We would like this to be done. Finally, to our understanding, Verizon has not completed, has not complied with the town zoning codes requirements. that Verizon prepare and submit an economic study of property value impacts the construction and operation of the proposed cell tower may have on all adjacent properties within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries on which the facility is located. The board cannot proceed unless and until Verizon applies with this requirement. The planning board has implied that they cannot delay approval of Verizon's application because of the federal shot block end quote. We do not believe this is the case. The planning board as lead agency on this project must follow the law. We believe that requires a positive declaration on behalf of the business and the cluster businesses and the customers whom we serve and live in our town or visit it because of its natural beauty, we ask that the planning board issue a positive declaration on this project and require Verizon to prepare and submit an environmental impact statement under CEQA. We must ask that the planning board conduct a full economic analysis as required in the town of Rochester zoning code on the impact that the proposed cell tower would have on property value. Sincerely, Arrowwood Farms, Braxton Alexander and Company, Gold Valley Creative Arts Therapy, Flying Goose, Hans Auto Service, Lindsay Arnold, Nutshell Realty, New Earth Permaculture, LLC, Sacred Traditions, Saunderskill Farm Market, Stars of the Meadow Flower Farm, Tall Tree Realty, Incorporated, and Tributary Farm. Thank you for hearing me.

Ira Stern.

Hi, I'm Ira Stern.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and leave service and consideration. I want to speak just directly to the CMD in two sections, community character and zoning, which you included in your write-up. On community character, you have two bindings. As you know, 18E, the proposed action, is inconsistent with predominant architectural and 18 proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. I agree with those findings, but the document doesn't go further to define or describe the community character in which you have produced these findings. And instead it states, and I quote, this research found no guidance to help define the community character of the Granite Road neighborhood, and there it is left. Certainly, if a planning study comprehensive plan didn't do neighborhood characterization, one should be done. What do you define as the boundaries of the community? What are the characteristics of that community? Why do you find they propose the action to be made consistent with that community character. So we heard tonight a number of details of characterization, an apartment building that is probably the largest multifamily apartment building in the town, and a number of details about who lives there and the types of people that live there. But it's not included in your findings. The town of Rochester comprehensive plan focuses on housing. I won't read all the quotes. I submitted this to you on a public weekend, but there are three places in the comprehensive plan that shows the town's intent on preserving and creating affordable avenues for housing. We should be trying to preserve and enhance one of our largest multiple town the impact on housing is not covered in the cnd and that impact on housing should be included and considered and mitigated if possible it doesn't expressly acknowledge the residents of the apartment building and the impact of the loss of open space on the parcel what the loss of the open space will mean. And that's contrary to the zoning code, Section 14026H, multifamily housing. Any new multifamily housing in the town should have 50% of the land set aside for open space. That should be reconciled in the CND idea. The Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan also states, quote, on page 20, community character, prevent intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas. Losing open space to a 14-story silt tower could reasonably be considered an intrusion by the planning board, and it should be noted in your CMD and reconciled with the comprehensive planning. EAF number 11, impact on open space and recreation is inconsistent with your own findings. So I don't know how you can say no impact on open space and recreation when your findings 18E and 18F are opposite to that. I feel that should be reconciled. There's also very little mitigation in your community character section. So if you have two findings, TAB, Mark McIntyre:" The only mitigation that I saw there were screening of equipment in that 50 by 50 foot and scenario and submission of as bill drawings and landscape. TAB, Mark McIntyre:" respectfully request that you revisit your Community character section. realign your findings with the EAF and reconsider the regulations, all leading up to further study, really sort of characterization of the community and looking into some of the impacts on housing and open space in that area. And then finally on zoning, the resolution mentions some zoning issues, but the zoning issues are not specified. They've been raised here. You're acknowledging them. They should really be specified what are the zoning issues. The end result of that section is that there's no zoning analysis. And we've spent time projecting to you what is the density, what is the zone, what's already built on the property. And I won't go through that again. I know that you know them. They're mentioned here, but they're not detailed. They're not mitigated. And so therefore, the zoning issues remain unresolved. And the residents of the same parcel that this tower is building on deserve a full zoning review and analysis and the full protection of the zoning code. The CND is silent on that. And I think you could do a better job. And one of the ways to do that really for community character and zoning out analysis. Further study is warranted. I hope you will take time to consider that and include that in an EIS, which could go deeper into community character, deeper into zoning, and justify why this tower should be built in this area. And then finally, just because the zoning code allows a cell tower in an R5 zone, the planning board is given discretion on issuing a special lease permit for it or not. It's up to you. It shouldn't be something that you push through because it's allowed in an R5 zone. You have the discretion under a special lease permit to consider the exact location of the entire R5 zone Or apartment building in the town it's a poor location and. I also. made to hear that more reports are filed today and we haven't gotten a chance to look at them, I don't know how you have been able to, but I think all of this warrants. Further consideration and just urge you to reconsider the conditional negative declaration. and issue a positive declaration for more study and also to really reconsider your discretion. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Brandon Hurts.

So I just want to start by thanking you all for hearing from me again. There's a lot of places I know I can be right now and feel relaxed and happy. I'm really proud. This is community character, in my opinion. And you guys too, you're here, you're spending hours on this topic. I know this is a really tough one. I appreciate that you did close the public hearing, that you did not close it, even though the applicant asked you to. I really do appreciate the time. I mean, I know I would rather be, I guess, where I am than where you guys are in a way. But there's a lot of places I could be right now instead of here. And I'm sure a lot of people go away. And we've been doing this for months. You guys have been doing it for months. But when Ira talks about community character, I feel like there's a community character. You're hearing from all kinds of characters in our community. We're a really diverse group. We really care. I know you guys care. I just feel it. I just really feel that you care. I'm going to sit. So you guys know I'm Frannie Hertz. I've been a teacher and a therapist in our community since I've been here for almost 20 years. Thank you for letting me comment again. As I've stated in the past meetings, I remain perplexed as to why the members of the planning board would vote for a negative declaration. Given all the requirements to mitigate the negative effects of this cell tower, it would remain a blight in the community. Obviously, community character, use shed, and property values will be adversely affected. I stand together with my neighbors, the children, and the elderly whose quality of life will be adversely affected by having an industrial giant cell tower too close to their homes. removing their access to open space as a life-sustaining resource, and always looming over them and all of us who live here and cherish the beauty. After attending zoning board and board meetings, speaking to you guys, speaking to hundreds of neighbors about the cell tower, I've learned a lot, more than I probably would want to know, but actually some really cool stuff, because this is a great community. But I learned a lot of stuff I never really, I guess I was interested in being educated. I'm always happy to learn. But for one, the cell tower in this location is problematic for the majority of the residents of the town of Rockminster. I haven't had, I mean, there's been two people who have been like, yeah, it could be good or I need better service, but I live like in Long Beach. So It's all very perplexing that individuals on this board would be in support of the cell tower, given all the evidence that you guys have heard from us for all these months. But the thing I really learned a lot about was environmental justice. And that was raised, we learned a lot about environmental justice when we went to the town board meeting. Um, and so I educated myself about it because it's something I cared about, but I never really knew the definition of, and I just felt I should be educated. And I know you've asked for new information. I don't feel like we really talked about that much here. Environmental justice. This tower proposal is an environmental injustice. I don't know the laws like Larry and Julia and Ira and all the numbers. I don't know all that, but I do know. So environmental justice is defined by the Center for Sustainable Systems as being experienced through heightened exposure to pollution and corresponding health risks, limited access to adequate environmental services, and loss of land and resource rights. So having been a teacher and being a therapist now, I know what kids need. It's like the one thing I actually do know. I know what kids need. They need to be outside. They need space. I'm sure all of you feel that way about kids in your lives. This cell tower will take away the open space for these kids. There's no question about it. This is where they go sledding. And we've heard this from residents. We've heard this from neighbors. This is where they have thickness. This is where they put a wall. They won't have space out. So it's like basically you're taking away their park. Now, okay, the landowner didn't say, oh, I'm giving you a park because I love you. No, it just happens to be there, but that's what it is. That's what that space is for. So given all this information and new information just posted apparently, which I personally have not had time to review, the community-wide disdain for this proposal I just wonder how the members of the planning board could approve the special use permit for this tower and at the very least not vote for a positive declaration and require a DNS. Thank you for your time.

Michelle, I'm not going to let you give up your time to your husband. So if you want to speak, go ahead.

Actually, I will say one thing.

I disagree with what everybody has said here. I think that you all need to look into your hearts and really consider this. You will be making a decision that is going to change people's lives so intensely. And thank you.

Larry, you owe your wife three minutes.

I owe her a lot more than that.

Troy Harrison? I'm sorry, Troy?

I gave it to Larry.

You gave your time on?

Yeah.

I'll give it back to you. Okay. Okay. We're going to take a five, ten-minute break. Let the board... Why don't you ask if anybody else wants to sign up? Anybody else who didn't sign up? Barbara? Thank you.

been a school teacher, 35 years, retired for quite a few. And I wasn't involved in this until I started attending town board meetings again. And then my concern is, is that if you have families and children living in a building that has no running water, has all these violations, how no one is concerned about that. So I contacted Willsburg County Board of Health, And it could be that that building will not be allowed anybody to live in there if it's in that bad of a case. So my concern is, are we having people live in that building and no one has reported the violations, no running water for two weeks and they don't school from just granted. So I'm in contact with the Board of Health, Health and Sanity Board of Health wanting to know that and also seeing what I can do with our workforce help.

Thank you, Paul. Anybody else? Okay, so then we are going to take a five or 10 minute break and then come back and it'll be the board's time to discuss these items. Obviously, everybody's welcome to stay whenever we're finished.

Yes. No. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. All right. Yeah, I've worked very well Well, you know, that and I don't know if you want me to be so good. I always have the same thing. You wouldn't know for them. Right, right. Well, even a sense from that night. Okay. . . . check in with your lawyer, please. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please. I'm sorry. Yeah. Oh, thanks. Yeah. I mean, I grew up. I like it. Yeah. All right. I'm sure. I'm sure. I don't think so. I don't think so. So now you should say Yep. Yep. That's why they decided the same spots, you know, and it's how they might air. You know, that's the benefit of that. You're raising a little bit more money. I know what you mean. I see a week one, but I don't think it's there. But the base of the general meeting that we should make sure that that's what we're going to worry about. I think that's right. I think it's right. Right. Right. . . . . Yes. Really. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yes, right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right. All right. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Absolutely. Okay. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you don't have to put up with the same concern.

Oh, nice.

Oh, oh, you don't.

Thank you. No, we got into trouble. We've been separated. Thank you very much. Okay. All right.

There was a lot said tonight. And I have quite a number of things. Hey, can everybody hear me? I have quite a number of things that I want to address. And then I'm going to ask for input from the applicant, Scott. Also, Doug Fishman, I'm going to at some point ask him to comment on, it's not a lawyer, but to comment on the whole issue from his perspective of needs. And then I'm going to have quite a number of questions for our attorney. So I'm going to come at it. I'm going to jump around the notes that I was making. First, I want to address for... personal reasons, the whole comment that was made about mysterious emails. And by the way, this is not gonna be a discussion between us and the public. The public hearing is over for tonight. And I may even ask for a motion to close the public hearing permanently. with the possibility of continuing with written comments, but I'll see. So this is for the board, but I am gonna address some of the comments that were made by the public. The comment about the mysterious missing emails or letters rather, one was from Verizon and one was from Doug Fishman. I had asked for those back in early May, as I recall, when I began to the process of putting together the the outline for the decision. And one of the items that I did not understand enough about was the issue of the needs analysis and the technical pieces that were presented by Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Comey, Mr. Fishman, by Verizon, by Mr. Hennessy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I asked for, I had six questions that I asked Scott Olson to answer and to get his technicians to answer. The answers, they still wasn't completely clear. So I asked Doug Fishman for a letter, which I got. And I got both of those at the beginning of May. I think by May 9th, I had both of them. On May 11th, I had a meeting in this room that I had to prepare for. And on May 13th, I went away for three weeks. So the mysterious, missing, not appearing emails were not purloined deliberately for any reason, but I was on vacation. And so when I came back from vacation, I immediately asked our secretary to get them up and running. The exact dates of those inquiries was February, April 23rd, I believe, was the date that I asked Scott to give the answers to the following six items. May 4th, I got that letter back from him. And then on May 9th, I got a letter from Doug Fishman. And as I said, May 11th was a large meeting that needed preparation. And I left. for the wonderful West Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota for three weeks. And so it didn't get done. So there's nothing mysterious about that, I can assure you. Period. I'm concerned with, I am concerned with this whole issue of the space that Ira, the, I'll call it, and I kill it when we, play space, open space, green space, whatever kind of space that Ira mentioned tonight. But he didn't mention just tonight. He had sent us a letter last week. And by the way, some of the letters that everybody's complaining about not having time, really, we got a slew of letters from the public which is fine and i believe everybody from this board probably read them in the last two or three days so things move quickly and if you want to stay on top of things you have to put in the time uh which is exactly what this board has done put in the time to read stuff even though it comes in uh quote unquote the last at the last minute um but i am concerned with that comment that ira made to us some time ago and there were actually two One had to do with zoning, which we discounted, if you would, perhaps the wrong word, but we decided we were not going to deal with because the purview of zoning is the purview of the building inspector. And we made that clear in the CMD. And I can read you the exact words of the CMD. where we referred to it, and it was not a matter of we ignored it, it was a matter of it's not a wheelhouse on the issue of whether or not there was too many uses on this particular piece of property, as I recall, was the issue that I originally raised. The issue, however, of Section 140.26 is a new issue, and I guess you could say we perhaps missed it. And And it is correct that the town board in their meeting was concerned about a tower next to an apartment building. To characterize, I could be wrong, but to characterize that they were in support of no tower, in that location may be a wrong characterization, but for the boards, you did get the letter from the town board where they made no conclusions. So that's how I characterize the town board's conclusions. So we are gonna have to visit, I believe we're gonna have to visit the whole issue of green space, play space for the entire community of that apartment building. We're going to have to deal with that in the CMD through an amendment to the CMD. I'm not quite sure how we do that, but it will mean asking the applicant who is only leasing the space, asking slash demanding that the landlord do something in terms of open space. I don't know enough about when that apartment building was created. whether it was in the 70s or 80s. I don't know whether the landlord has ignored the code. I don't know whether they've been cited for the lack of play space in the past. I have no idea. But certainly one of the tenants of what we've done here in the past, if somebody comes in to us with a revision to a site plan or where we categorize it from a zoning point of view or the building inspector categorizes it as a special use with site plan, we have the ability to go back to that site and to say, oh, by the way, you're going to have to comply with all the bits and pieces of the new code with respect to this site and site plan items. A good example of that is First Student. You saw them mumbling a little bit, perhaps, that they don't really want to have to change their lighting, all the lighting in the property. And we told them they have to, because there's new code, New York state code, as well as our code, which requires a compliance with dark sky lighting. So they have to do it. The landlord is going to have to comply in some fashion with providing adequate space because there is, if there is any now, it's not officially official. It may or may not comply with whatever the numbers are, percentage numbers are in the code, code 140-36.

Can we as policy AD require the landlord to make those changes or is that making the I'll play lawyer.

We're going to have to ask the applicant, in my opinion, to insist that if he wants the revenue from the South Tower to be on that site, the board is insisting that they have to provide for this space. I don't know how that flies legally, but that's a good question.

You can ask the lawyer if you want. Okay.

Hold that thought.

I have other things I want to address. Well, an extension of that might be if the building is non-compliant. I mean, could it extend to the building as well?

Okay. We made a point a number of months ago with respect to Scott's wish for a changed height. And I've made this point actually in other contexts as well. And it's a hard one when we get into situations like this, but we don't do zoning. And I made it actually when Iris spoke here several months ago, and we got into it a little bit. We don't do zoning. It's flat out in the law. Now, there are times when it looks like we do because we have to judge whether things are consistent. We're going to have to deal with some of those issues. But the short answer here is, we can still say that we don't zone things out, we don't zone things in, we don't do zoning. But when we talk about the issue that was raised and it is mentioned, it's defined in the zoning where you're dealing with the loss of the alleged loss of recreational space, that's a seeker issue. And the way that the two dovetail is that very often, and I've made this point also, here's another application of it. Sometimes you don't see it happening, but it's there. Sometimes you define seeker issues, you define what the parameters are for something being too much of an impact, let's say, by whether it complies with the code. As an example, if a bar is too loud, we tend to define that as a secret issue by whether it complies with the code Delta at the property line. If there's runoff from a site and we have to figure out whether the runoff is too much and whether we've got to do, whether we have to pause deck it, what we'll look at is whether the developer is building a detention base and that complies with DEC standards. And if it does, we typically don't pause, we typically neg deck it. it we deal with seeker issues that's that's clearly our jurisdiction we don't do code enforcement we do seeker issues but very often the seeker issue is explained or defined or or or guided by the code and in this case we have the allegation can be easily interpreted as the seeker issue because you're arguably losing recreational space for children And it happens to be defined in the code. And so we've got a pretty clear guidance before us. We could actually choose under SEEK a different standard, but we're not going to do that. Well, you could, obviously, if you thought there was one. But at this point, this one's right here before us. The town board decided this was important. We do that all the time, whether it's noise, whether it's runoff. There's a lot of things where we, when we approach CEQA, we use the code as very important guidance, but fundamentally it's a CEQA issue. We're looking at a CND. We need to figure out whether there's an issue here that requires us to take a second look at it. And code enforcement is actually, whether we enforce it in the site plan, whether we go back for the building inspector is we've been around that a lot. We're probably not going to physically go back to the building inspector for zoning determination, but that doesn't mean it's not a CEQA issue. And so it's there before us. And we know that that's the way I would approach looking at it and not deal with the concept of code enforcement or the building department or any of that stuff.

Isn't it easier than that? Because what we do is site review, right?

Well, again, but site plan review is not zone enforcement. The courts have said we cannot deny a project because it does not comply with the zone enforcement.

The next thing I want to get into, and I'll be coming back to you in a second, Dave, is I sort of want to... This whole notion that by doing a POSDEC or an EIS, is it somehow going to give us more information, and that the conditional negative declaration and the route that we chose is not the proper route, I just completely disagree with that. We have more information... We have enough information to choke a horse and having a POS, a positive deck rather, does not, I think some people are mistaken, does not guarantee that we're going to be denying that all the information, extra information gathered we're gonna be denying the project. We've gathered every bit and piece of information you could possibly, or at least I believe the board believes that we have every possible piece of information that is necessary to complete the review of this, including enough information about environmental impacts that we can look at, which is impacts on plants, animals, birds, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. have information from Fish and Wildlife, we have information from New York State Heritage, and the whole notion that we should go to Eric Kiviat was considered at one time on a 50 by 50 plot of land. that we're gonna charge the applicant six or five or $7,000 to look at a 50-foot plot of land 50 by 50 just doesn't make any sense to me, nor did it make sense to the board when we discussed this. If we discussed it, I don't remember, but it just doesn't seem to make any sense. But to that point about, particularly about the environmental issues impacting plants and animals and birds and so on. I just reject that notion. And I'm concerned that the public thinks, and I don't know what the board thinks, that we deliberately went with the CMD because we had gathered so much information and felt that the POS, FOSDEC, would not get us more information. And in fact, the steps involved in it are somewhat burdensome on everybody, the public, the board, the applicant, I'm sure it would be used to be burdened by extra steps, but would not yield any different, in my opinion, and I'd like to hear what the board thinks, in my opinion, any different set of decisions or a direction in which we're moving in. And I don't know what the board thinks about that. Jen, you have a lot of experience.

I have experience preparing environmental impact statements, and I'm of the opinion that the analysis that we've done largely matches the analysis we would do for an environmental impact statement. I mean, there's hundreds and hundreds of pages of analyses that we've prepared. I don't know that we would have gotten anything different or new if we had done it in GIS.

So if anybody else has a comment on that.

No, I agree with Jen. I agree with Jen. I mean, I've done a lot of POSDAX for mining related, and we have all of the data, but we have a a lot of data that we've gotten. I don't think we've missed anything. And we've had an applicant that has provided the data, whereas in the case of an applicant that does not want to provide data, that might be the time for a postdoc.

So I'm going to put that one aside in terms of changing our mind about that. So, but let's go back to the things that I am worried about is this notion of recreation space. The other thing that continued to be involved, concerned about, and here's where I want some input from the applicant and perhaps from Doug Fishman, is that of, I'll call it needs analysis, the actual need for a tower in that area. Whether the location is the proper location is of course another hot issue, but do they need it in that area? And that was part of the reason why there was the flurry of requests by me of the applicant to make sure I understood it, and then of Doug to make sure I understood it, and in turn got much input again from the experts that have been hired by some members of the public. But I'd like to hear from the applicant who happens to be, in this case, a lawyer and from all the way about the legal standard having to deal with the needs analysis. What I've heard is ranged from. It's all over the place. You can't take a look at whether you have coverage in a house, outside of the house, in the car, outside of the car. The whole notion of the template that is used for the nationwide system that we were exposed to is not adequate because it doesn't deal with the level of granularity that you have to deal with. There's just a whole host of things I keep hearing. I've made some conclusions based upon stuff that I've read from the opponents to the project, as well as material that I've read from Doug Fishman. And I have, because the board has to, I have concluded that the applicant has made his case for the need for the cell tower. But what I'd like to hear is on the issue what the federal standard is, or even if we have to follow the federal standard. There were some claims made recently in one of the letters that we don't follow the federal standards. The standards that we follow are the standards that are set in the town code in terms of has a need been established. So I'm i think the board would be willing to listen to the applicant tell us about that to our attorney um reference that and then for doug to talk a little bit about the technical aspects of that so thank you very much um i'll try to keep it brief so one of the first things and it's very nuanced i was kind of telling my wife over the weekends like explaining this is not

unless you've been doing it a long time, it's a very nuanced situation because you have a federal standard and you have state standards. And one would think they'd be the same. Well, they're not. First things first, the FCC gives very broad discretion to each licensed carrier who basically build out the network the way they seem deemed fit to build it out. You can choose the technology. They could put, you know, 5G small cells in, they could put large towers in, they could put a Whatever the technology is, they choose it. They also choose the signal strength. The FCC simply cares about, you have a license. You need to make sure that you serve the area pursuant to what our standards are. Just don't go over our thresholds. So whatever signal strength you want to use, you can do it. On the federal standard, I was quite shocked to read Bob Berg's letter. I was equally shocked to hear Larry Friedman talk about the federal standard. because there is a federal standard. Unequivocally, it does not apply here, and let me explain why.

It does not?

It does not apply here. The federal substantive needs standard was developed by the court system, the federal courts, when their actions brought pursuant to the Telecommunications Act. That's after a decision has been made, typically a denial has been made, the carrier sues under the Telecommunications Act, and the court has come up with this standard of, well, It's called the effective prohibition standard because that's in the law. That's statutory. It's federal statutory. Right. So the courts have said, okay, what does that mean? And the courts basically said, yes, you have to demonstrate need. And Bob Berg pointed to the Willa case and said, the standard's in here. This is what you have to do. It's the federal standard. So board, you local board, has to apply the federal substantive standard. I then read the Willett case again. I've probably read it a number of times, and I want to read you something, because it is directly contrary to what Mr. Berg says. It says... Well, let's read it. These are the court's words, three sentences, I think. The TCA imposes limits on the authority of state and local governments to restrict personal wireless services. The TCA itself does not provide the legal basis to deny an application to construct a personal wireless facility. That authority must be found in state and local law. So what I wrote to you, I think it was today, was on the one hand, Bob says, this is the case. This is it. But the case says you can't apply the federal standard. You have to look at your local law and you have a provision that talks about need. There are other cases. I say it's not that this isn't the only case. Can I jump in? Well, I guess.

A lot of the discourse that we see in here is, and this is true actually on a political level as well, is people have gotten very, very good at talking past each other and not drilling down to what the issues are. Before I get to this argument about the federal basis and all that, I want to talk about what the requirement is, the fundamental requirement. The fundamental requirement that the board has to evaluate, we will need to talk about that in a little more depth, because it's actually an application requirement and part of what the board needs to do is to figure out whether we're going to consider it a substantive standard and there's there are some moving pieces there but assuming that we do it is in the town code that's what the board has to do. And I want to break down a little bit about what Scott was saying so we understand what we're talking about. The fundamental federal statutory requirement is that the board can't be denying essentially shutting off cell service and we can't be discriminating. That's the basic statutory requirement. And so what happens in some of these cases is that a board denies a project. And the job of the federal courts is to determine whether that denial is legitimate and or in particular, specifically is a violation of the federal standard, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, which is you can't be basically denying self-service. Now, the problem here, and again, this is, I haven't, I also want to be very clear. I have not read these cases in anywhere near the detail necessary. I offered to the chair, if he wants, I will pick them up starting tomorrow and break them down and understanding precisely how it applies here. But the bottom line is, and this is always a problem with zoning because zoning is almost always a local code. So what the town of Rochester says, whether it's for a cell tower or for a apartment building, or for something else, it's in a local code. And the town of Rochester's local code almost certainly is different than the town of Marble Town's local code. It's almost certainly different than the town of O'Harsin's local code. They all say different things. And so to interpret what the local code means is going to be primarily the local boards. And if you have to go running to a court, the court's going to have to look at your local code basically kind of on its own. Now, that's not totally true because there have been literally hundreds and thousands of cases over the years interpreting these codes, so there are similarities. But you've got to understand the law of zoning is fundamentally local. So the question... That's the core of it. So we have to decide what the code means. Whether a federal case or not addresses that is basically happenstance. If they're interpreting, for example, a local code, which I don't think they are in those two cases, they're interpreting federal law, which is a whole other issue. But if they were interpreting a local code, the question would be, do those local codes say the same thing? And if not... you can have, again, a lawyer's gonna argue, well, in this case says you have to do this, but if it's interpreting code that's not your code, again, you're talking past each other. And we're actually at a further level of abstraction because they're interpreting federal law, which has nothing to do with local zoning. It has to do with the question of, did the board in that case where they denied the permit, are they basically denying cell service? And so I'm happy to look at these cases in more detail, but the bottom line is, the citizens have constructed an argument, and it may just be largely constructed on an idea that once you drill into it, this doesn't apply. The question is, what does our code mean? And now we're also getting into sub-issues like, are we talking about capacity or help? capacity or coverage, right? That's not in the code. I don't know to what extent it's in the federal decisions and whether they are interpreting anything close to the code or denials. We haven't break down all this stuff, but the bottom line is whatever that argument is, I can let you guys know what its relevance is, but there's no reason to assume a priority that is relevant. The critical thing is, and there's one more thing here. When the town board passes a code that says we need to look at needy, and again, this is not, if you ask what the Telecommunications Act requires us to do, there's a bunch of things. And the assessment of need is not the first thing. It just isn't part of that process. We need to do that. And what the town board is saying, unless they drill into it very specifically and say, we want you to look at this issue of capacity. We want you to look at this issue of coverage. It's a more generalized thing. Have they shown in any reasonable sense that there's a need for this thing? And it's going to be up to us to interpret what it means and how it applies. And if it comes down to a question of, you know, in cars or not in cars or in buildings or not in buildings or in an open field or not, Unless there is some really strong guidance that we can find, and I am not convinced that either of those cases has it, but I will certainly take a look if we need to. It's going to be up to us to figure out what that means.

And I'm just trying to reinforce that there is a federal standard and there are state standards.

Is the federal standard you're talking about a refinement of what it means to be denying service?

Yes. So under the law, it's the Telecommunications Act, whatever it is, Section 332, C-Sub-B. One of the things that is prohibited is a town cannot prohibit or effectively prohibit A lot of case law on that. But I've litigated some of it, and in the case that I litigated, it's the same thing.

Those cases that Bob cited and that you're citing, they interpret that question, whether the town, denying the permit, is violating the Telecommunications Act because they would be effectively denying service. That's what those cases are about. What we have to figure out is whether Verizon has demonstrated the need for their service, which I don't know if that's the same thing, my guess is it's not.

Can I ask, Doug, I know you're not a lawyer, you're a technical resource. I know what you said in your two documents you've sent me within the last month, as well as the documents you sent last year, I guess. Could you give technicians a comment on whether or not, in your opinion, Verizon has proved the case for need and why you believe that to be the case?

Sure. Verizon and the other sub-characters designed their networks to provide to their customers where they use their service, which is outside, it's in their cars, it's in their homes. Matter of fact, most usage is in building today. So to say that, you know, considering coverage in building, in homes is not a valid metric is just, you know, not true. That's part of the service they're trying to provide. So Verizon looks at that. They look at the signal levels that are necessary to penetrate the buildings, to penetrate the cars, to get to your cell phones, and to provide you with reliable 4G and 5G, not only voice service, but data service, right? Because people use their phones for a lot more than just you know, calling their wife, right? It's, you know, doing, acting as motives, you know, to hook up to their computers. It's doing, you know, watching videos on YouTube and all that stuff, right? So to provide that service, you know, they, in this case, came up with a series of maps, predictive maps, using, you know, industry standard tools that showed that in the subject area, the signal levels that are actually there are below the level that's necessary to provide the reliable service. And, you know, in my reading of their analysis multiple times, you know, it seemed reasonable to me that this site is required for not only coverage reasons, but there was a capacity consideration as well, which, by the way, is just as important as coverage. So you can have great coverage, and if there's not capacity in a site that's serving you, you're still not going to get service. Sure.

I have a question. Sure. In your reading of the materials, did you find any either omissions where there was, they were silent on an issue or a relevant component or any red flags that kept your attention?

Nothing that's, nothing that I recall. They were pretty thorough. I did, especially my first report, ask for additional information. The time I had, I don't recall exactly what that was.

with what you receive?

Yes.

Thank you. That's a good question. Go ahead, Scott.

If I could just add, and I've heard a lot of comments, and a lot of the comments from the public I get is kind of like playing telephone. They're hearing things and it comes out different at the end. But, you know, Larry Friedman is saying that it's because the propagation maps are basically just theoretical. That's not true because the modeling software that we use has been used for years and the courts have approved it. So especially in your town where you don't specify needs. So there have been court decisions where people say, you didn't provide drop call data. And the courts have said, yeah, but the code doesn't require it. And we've explained why we don't, didn't provide it. But if the code, it's not required in the code, the courts have said, it's not a requirement just because the town, and in that case, the town said, we want this, we're going to deny your application because you didn't provide it. And the carrier sued and the town lost because the court said, it's not your code. You can't just make things up. So my point is that the detailed and comprehensive analyses that we provided, they've been approved by the courts. I had decisions. they say you have propagation maps it was done by modeling software and of course says that's sufficient um so and the drive test data that was requested like our like our uh engineer said yeah that was important 30 years ago but if you're looking to put service into houses drive test data doesn't tell you what So, and the software that we have now, the modeling is significantly better than the drive test data because it gets further penetrates. It's just more realistic. And I would also just add that the FCC maps, although initially, you know, the Dr. Chamberlain, I think his name was, he provided only the outdoor service. that showed you, although it wasn't very clear because it included AT&T and other carriers, but that it didn't show you when you zoom into in-vehicle service, and you can't look at in-building service because the FCC doesn't even provide that data or doesn't call for it. But if you look at the in-vehicle service, which is actually lesser than in-building, there are clearly service gaps. So even the FCC information, That's one of the reasons why Dr. Chamberlain didn't want to provide that. He's stuck with the outdoor stationary condition, because otherwise he would have had to admit, yes, there are gaps. And it's there. Don't believe me. Look at it. We've given you the excerpts.

And that's what Doug Fishman, that was what confused me. There was hexagonal maps with colors all over them. And that's why I asked Doug, could you, would you reinterpret this and tell me what I'm looking at here? So I concluded the same thing that the two experts concluded in terms of having proved the case for need. Zoran.

Yeah, Victor, new alarms, they're all some things coming in the, bringing on this federal standards? Can you explain this, please?

Because, again, so the federal standard, according to basically the Telecommunications Act, says, listen, and it's set forth in the Willis case that he cites, it says you determine need basically by if a remote user cannot connect, you know, someone with a cell phone can't connect basically to the landline system. That's how it was developed 34 years ago. If that doesn't happen, Under the federal law, there's a need. And then you'd have to also prove that it's the least visual impact. So the Willis case says that, but then the Willis case says, but local municipalities can't apply this standard. You have to rely upon your own needs standard. That's why Mr. Berger's wrong. And that's not the only case, because I was involved in a case in 2015 with the town of East Fishkill. Same issue came up. We won. And the court said, you can't, you don't apply this. It only gets applied if there's a case brought pursuant to the Telecommunications Act. That's the only way it gets applied.

Could I, so I'm going to shift gears just a little bit. I made the statement before it occurred to me that I don't think the pause deck, if we had done a pause deck, it would give us any place other than or deeper than what we have gotten already. You're probably the most knowledgeable, secret person in the room right now. So that's actually a compliment. I expect you to pay for breakfast next time we have friends. But would you comment on the...

difference of POSDEC versus the CMD that we chose relative to the results namely the information that you well I want to pump the brakes on that because that's not the statutory standard so I think that's a practical issue for the board is you know if we POSDEC something are we going to be getting what's going to happen with the process we're going to get into more and better information that was one of the reasons why we gave a POSDEC on RAFTAB is we felt that unique among the applicants we'd seen before us, the course of time was not giving us substantially more information. It just wasn't working. We needed an EIS to track that information. And we typically don't see that with other projects. We get more information as it goes along. But I want to be careful. That's a very practical way of looking at CEQR, but it's not the statutory standard. So I want to be really careful. The statutory standard is whether there's at least one significant adverse environmental impact that has not been mitigated to the extent that it's no longer a significant environmental impact through the course of time by the applicant coming forward with more studies or modifying the project and get below that threshold. That's the standard. And so having laid that standard out, and that's why I want to be careful what you were saying, I want to take this opportunity to tell the board sort of what I would suggest we do in this particular framework right now. The issue before us right now um is whether to basically ratify the cnd that that was drafted last month or whether we'd want to work on it some more and modify it and um the most critical the most critical one the core of a cnd that which is what we did is that it's a determination to do a negative declaration and to not require an environmental impact statement but only as long as certain conditions are met and those conditions must be listed in the CND and they were listed in the CND. We've listed what, 20, 23, 22 conditions. The core of the CND with all the verbiage that's in it, which is important, but the core of it is we've made a determination to not require an environmental impact statement because there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as long as these conditions are met. And so I believe the best way for the board to understand its charge here is to determine whether or not that needs to be changed. And do you have the information necessary to make that determination? In other words, the citizens have raised a number of issues, a number of criticisms, maybe a number of other observations about impacts. the question to the board is not whether there's more information that maybe could be looked at or maybe in a different place should be looked at. The question is whether we are aware of any information that makes us think that the impacts may rise to a level that could be a significant adverse environmental impact. And therefore we either have to revisit the negative declaration at the core of the CND or add conditions to the CND that ensure we don't, get to that level where there's the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. And I would make one other point. If there are issues that are raised, but we still don't think that however the issue would be resolved, that we'd have a significant adverse environmental impact, we could still go ahead with the C and D, but if we wanted to have another condition, we could always make that a condition of site plan approval. And I'll just give you a specific example. That sounds like there's too many complications and moving pieces. One of the allegations that was made was that there might be an impact on species here. And the chair made the observation, which may make sense to you, that what we're talking about here is 2,500 square feet of real estate, which is somewhat similar to basically the clearing that would be required for a house. So the board might think that no matter what we did, and I'm not saying you should do this and I'm not recommending it, I'm not evaluating it, I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility. The board might think that no matter what we do with that 2,500 square feet, it's not gonna rise to the level of an environmental impact. It's not gonna raise the level of a significant adverse environmental impact, but we still might wanna do something with it. And therefore we can put that in as a condition of approval, but it wouldn't necessarily change anything in the CND. The question for the CND is for those 22 conditions, will that guarantee that we're not going to have a significant adverse environmental impact? And so that's what I want the board to think about. And I want the board to evaluate everything that was said tonight and everything that was submitted with that criterion. Okay. You've talked about, you know, that the, you know, whatever species on the property or perhaps the use of pesticides or this or that, is that going to cause us to revisit the idea that there's going to be, that there might be a cost deck here. And if there, if it is, do we resolve that? with a condition. And if that's where we're at, then we probably ought to go back and pry open the CND. If it's something else, either we're not concerned about it, or we think we can handle it as a site plan condition, that can be outside the CND. That's the way I would break it down.

Let me ask the board this. I mentioned that I thought that the comment that was made about the available outside space for the apartment building dwellers was an important thing and it's in our code how do we handle that we don't have an answer to that yet let me ask you something else and scott i'll start with you the the economic analysis um the i don't remember the exact words of our code but it requires an economic analysis um Of every piece of property affecting every piece of property within 500 feet of the subject side. My recollection of the Collier study was they looked at doing that and they couldn't find enough sales within the area immediately surrounding the subject area to have a statistically valid economic analysis. And I heard it suggested tonight that there's other ways of looking at economic analysis other than price points before and after the erection of a tower. question or statement. I'm concerned with doing any kind of an economic analysis based upon suppositions about something that's not even there yet. Thus, the reason why, since they couldn't find any sales in the area and there was no tower in the area yet, they went to someplace else where there were towers, three towers. And I'm familiar with those areas. They're not similar in the character of the neighborhood. that I can recall as is the site on Granite Road. They're different. So that's why they had to use the half mile to one mile to two mile radius analysis. But specific question, you've done a lot of these. What other way of doing an economic analysis is there to do an economic analysis other than to look at price points, value points of houses, pre and post direction of a talent?

This is the most accurate way to do it. But the economic analysis, at least the December 2025 one that I think is being talked about, did more than just that. It also included our appraiser's 50-year experience with appraising properties. And, you know, you know, The letter that came in saying that it was not properly done, the people that wrote it, they're not experts. They have no appraisal expertise at all. But having said that, we still addressed it. And you go about determining impacts by looking at other properties next to cell towers in similar situations as you can. We can't make it identical because the towers are located in your town where they are. So that's what our person did. They looked at before and after. They always go out one, two months. And then he looked at it and said, okay, do I have anything within 500 feet? And they don't. And they normally never do. I mean, there are two properties here within 500 feet.

The point is- At the current proposed site.

Yes. So again, it's been one sentence was cherry picked. This was not a simple two-page analysis. There was a lot of data. And there were before and afters. And so then the appraiser's job, if you can't get the perfect data, the appraiser's job is to use his experience with the available data to make an opinion. And that's what he did. And he concluded, there is no credible market evidence that the construction of a cellular tower would have any negative impact on the prices of nearby single family residential properties. So it wasn't just, oh, There are no before and after sales for properties within 500 feet. So here's my conclusion. He looked at a lot of data. On top of that, he did say, and it's also my experience over two decades of doing this with cell towers, that my experience of looking, he's looked at literally hundreds of before and after sales. There's no appreciable negative impact. That's what his opinion is. Contrast that with, there's nothing in the record that says otherwise. And I heard someone say, well, we spoke to a realtor. A realtor's opinion, it's just not evidence unless there's actual data with it. And we've, again, litigated that. I'm not trying to be obnoxious about it, but you have to have evidence. And just because Michelle Hurts thinks she knows about appraisals. Scott, try not to apply.

use names.

Well, I mean, I was a little bit attacked by somebody, so.

You're a big reader.

I want to make a couple points on this. There's a couple moving pieces here that I think the board should be aware of. The first thing is I do want to read the code, and I want the board to understand something which is a little bit interesting and disturbing about the code, but it's we need to start getting into what it says. And that is, there are two issues that are in the code as part of the requirements for an application. They're not at all in the code as part of the criteria for approval. And I'm talking specifically here for cell towers in 140-29.

Say that again, because it took me a while to, and you told me.

Among the requirements for an application for a cell tower, 140-29 is the following relating to both need and the economic analysis. And the need is number one. The economic analysis is the last one, which is number seven. And I'll read them both.

They're not that long. The actual standard, where are we?

That's the point. 140-29. 140-29 I. That's what I need. Special use review requirements. Thank you. Pauline used the word that I want to talk about, which is standards. These are not standards of approval. They are not. We may decide that we want them to be, and that's going to be part of what the board needs to decide. They are requirements for an application. That's what they're written in. And the difference is actually, it could be quite important for a couple of reasons. So let me read B1. This is a requirement for an application. written report demonstrating the need for such cell services, which shall illustrate gaps in the current services and show how the proposal will remedy these gaps. The report shall demonstrate with written documentation that it has analyzed the feasibility of the proposed telecommunication facilities in comparison to opportunities for colocation of existing facilities and or the use to new construction. I'm losing my power. It's been going on too long. Rupert Clayton, Anyway i'll stop you because my battery style, this is a requirement for the application, it is not a criterion for approval so just keep that. Rupert Clayton, keep that put a pin in that and also the last one in that list for the application is actually a little shorter or read it and economic analysis study of the property value impacts the construction. Rupert Clayton, And the operation of the telecommunications facility may have on all contiguous and adjacent properties located within 500 feet of the parcel. Those are requirements for an application. Neither one is a criterion for approval.

So. So one of them, if that economic analysis can't be done because there's just no. Carry this forward. No one wants to evaluate before and after.

The board has fairly liberal authority to waive or modify requirements for application if they're not practical or not applicable. So I'm just throwing that out there in terms of this discussion, you may or may not want to apply it, or in part of whether you want to apply it may involve whether you consider these tacitly requirements for your site plan approval or not, but they are not listed as requirements for site plan approval, they are listed as application requirements. And so as the citizens and as Scott- On which we need to make a decision.

They listed as a requirement, but not just as requirements. The board basically supposed to utilize outcome of those reports to make a decision. That is... You can interpret this...

a needs analysis that shows this. Scott would argue that he has showed that, the citizens are arguing, well, his showing was not up to snuff and you can determine how you want to deal with that. I'm just laying out the lay of the land for you so you understand the context in which this discussion is taking place. Again, so we avoid talking past each other and understand what the applicable code is. And this is what needs to be interpreted. Now, if I was on the town board, if I cared about these things being criteria for approval, I would have written this a lot differently. I'd say, these are the criteria for an approval, the same way you would in a variance. There are criteria that are just flat out laid out that every ZBA knows. They haven't done that.

In other words, you're saying requirements for economical analysis. So the board has the

room to change 500 feet to one mile two miles from no if if the point is yes it is not no data if verizon has done an economic analysis what they say is an economic analysis and they say this is the best we could do so we did this this and this and the citizens are saying well that's inadequate because they didn't look at these other things the board A should look at whether or not they did their job and then B decide whether you want to translate that forward into a requirement for approval that would say the economic has to show this and that, which is not what the code says. But I want to throw that out there because people might be frustrated if we take these applications, these detailed specific serious application requirements and decide that they're not criteria for approval. And so that I'm just laying this out as the context in which this discussion is taking place. So you can evaluate it without, again, talking past each other, which is what we're very good at. But I want you to understand what these moving pieces are. And so the question becomes, did they do their job in what The code describes as an application requirement and the citizens are saying they didn't do it good enough, basically. That is where we're at in terms of the context. I don't know if that's helpful or not, but it is helpful to me to understand, to evaluate the give and take. And then there was Scott's last comment, which is that whatever you want to think about that, they haven't provided anything affirmative yet. to the contrary, that says it's, you know, they're sort of attacking the submittal, so to speak, finding holes in the submittal. That's the entire context that we're looking at here, for whatever it's worth.

So going with that code, though, there's no... standard or there is no criteria for... Not listed as such.

The question is whether you want to translate the need submittal requirement into some sort of operative standard.

But there are no approval criteria. I've gone through it backwards and forwards.

Other than going back to the generalized special use permit criteria, where there are criteria requirements for special use permit, impact on the neighborhood, et cetera. Those are any special use permit. But that is the way this has been structured. That's what the code says. That's your job is to work your way through that, given the criteria.

I was just going to note with that lead in. So my presumption, but the attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, 140.55, a special use review criteria for any specialty.

Correct.

That's where we're at. A is whether the proposed use will have a detrimental or positive impact on adjacent properties. That's right. D is whether the granting of approval will cause an economic burden on community facilities or services. Community facilities. And elaborate. Community facilities and services usually involves public. Including but not limited to highway sewage treatment, water supplies, firefighting capacity. Public facilities. Right. But the point being, you've still got in the criteria. That's correct. So the question is. Generalize that's your peak criteria then. The question to you is, or to anyone, Rick, while the first part of the statute says you have to document this, I think to Zorian's point, is it adequate enough to meet the special use review criteria? That's why you guys make the big question. Which is a different section of the code.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay, and question. So a question about me, just looking at the academic research, because I was asked early on, how do you do this economic impact? Having done this before, I suppose a looser way would be to interview professionals. Could be an option, but that's not going to get you better data. But what I did read is, regardless of long-term impacts that appraisal professionals might say, the professional data appears to suggest there's almost always short-term real estate impacts.

I've never seen it in the market studies that I've seen. Oh, I just haven't.

I mean, you're hearing that from people.

Yeah, but you hear it, but that's the thing.

No, but I'm just saying that I think it was a Maryland statewide study that said yes, in the long term, this equals out. In the real estate sales standard, but short term, people make decisions right away.

You know, that's possible, but you have to see the data. It's all data driven, but on the issue of...

So I don't know how you get it there. What's the problem? How do we... With the lack of data, how do you get at these shorter-term potential impacts in the first year or five?

The board, I mean, in my opinion, without having seen many cases, actually look, New York State cases, for example, actually look at this question and think about it. The board has to approach these things with a rule of reason. I mean, if there are data, if the applicant has been remiss in not doing the type of analysis that's readily out there, he's gonna claim, this is what Verizon always does, and we know that there's a different way of doing it, then the board can rule that they haven't complied with their application requirement, right? If the basic thing is he, he says we've done the best we could, and we don't know of any way that's better. And the citizens haven't produced a better way, but they've said, this is completely inadequate because, you know, they've looked at these, this wasn't happening here and they looked at the wrong property. It's up to the board to determine whether, whether we're going to, you know, string the applicant up for not having. you know, comply with it as deeply as we might want. And I would also point out again, that the extent it's an application requirement, the board does have the authority to waive it. So this is up to you guys to determine whether you think that they, that he's done his job in terms of the application and how they, I'll point out one other thing that the need issue is not really a secret issue. You'd have to, I mean, secret, especially in EIS provides a good forum to deal with all this stuff. And so does the work up to a neg deck, but you're hard pressed to think of the need for cell service as an environmental impact. The only possible way that you would do that is that if you don't have adequate cell service, many people would view that as a safety issue, a public safety issue of one form or another. But other than that, that's a stretch. And therefore, you can easily do it looking at all those questions in a part two and an opening part three without ever touching need. The reason we're talking about need is because it is an application requirement for this particular permit And arguably, on the permitting end, you may want to look at that as well. You know, you guys and the people who know this technically can determine better than I whether you think that they've done their job on both the economic end and on the median.

Scott, I have a question. Go ahead. Out of curiosity, can you look at assessments? Can I look at what? Assessments, the tax assessment, the way that the town has been, so you have the property... over the cell tower at the transfer station has that adversely affected the assessment the assessed value of the properties there has can you look at it if there is no data because there's no sales within you know 500 feet of that property can you then look at the assessed value of the properties that are that are still close by to...

I would advise you to consult somebody who's professionally knowledgeable about this type of analysis. All I could do for you as an attorney is go check... Throwing that out is another way to get information. If any cases have addressed this issue based on similar terms, but otherwise you'd need somebody who's a really good expert at how to do this sort of economic analysis to tell you the various options.

I am not remotely... On that issue, part of our analysis... the appraiser went to your assessor and spoke to him, and that's in the report. And the assessor for the town said, no, we haven't seen any decrease. So that's why I mentioned that, because it was more comprehensive than just there's no data, because there is data. It's just there are no sales. So he went out to look at other things like, hey, assessor, what's your experience? You live and work there.

Scott, how do you intend to deal with my comments, first comment I made about 140-26 and the issue of white space, green space, open space?

I didn't have time to really look at the issue, obviously, except they did just look at my phone on your code. And I don't know that the cell tower taking away 2,500 square feet is a violation of the code because you don't define recreation space in your code. I didn't see that. I didn't see anything like that. I think the other requirement is that if it's as a multifamily property, you have to maintain 50% in open space or recreation space or whatever. This is a large parcel. You have more than 50%, even with our small 2,500 square feet. Again, I looked at it on the phone. My initial thought is we're in compliance. If it's only required 50% and we have that, You don't need any specific ground equipment. There's no definition in there.

Yeah, my discussion with the chair earlier on this matter was in reviewing the comments that came to date, is there are some standards, including there's a minimum standard for recreation facilities. can't be sort of, there's nothing on 50% of the property. It's got to be delineated. It's got to be known. It's got to be available. The question is, does the board feel like you want to go back and visit that for an apartment complex? It clearly hasn't defined any of that.

How does the board feel about that?

Well, if you have a legal force, if you have a legal means to enforce applicant to ask the property owner to do something. Yes.

The landlord is not the applicant.

Right. But I also want to bring the reality for the board. I know somebody who lives in that apartment. And I talked to her specifically today. She has two children. Nobody what? Nobody's children going there. Opposite, the tenants got together and created a playground between two apartment buildings because the owner didn't do anything for them. So that open space is basically undeveloped space and children do not go there. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't require the, if we can do it, if we can, The owner of the property to allocate open space for the tenants. But the reality is that open space is essentially undeveloped where the tower is going to be installed.

I don't just read it again. Board will need advice from David about the applicability of this. Is this essentially an amended site plan for this property? Code now says for multifamily housing, all areas of multifamily development not conveyed to individual owners, and not occupied by building and required or proposed improvements shall remain as open, permanent open space or dedicated to recreation area to be used for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the particular units. No less than 50% of the track shall be used for this purpose. And it goes on, you can't do a three in lieu of, like you've done with some subdivisions. And then there's a second section that 50% of the 50%, in other words, 25%, of the total track shall be dedicated to recreation area for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the units.

My story. My starting point on all this again is that I don't necessarily want to get into the zoning issue, per se, as to whether this is this is not compliant zoning. I think that, again, I think it's really more of a building inspector issue, although there will be times when the town when planning board will deal with that, but it's a secret issue if there's an allegation that that this project is reducing recreational space. It may be wrong, like Zorian's put in an important data point. I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but if that's the allegation that there's a significant, that there's recreational space being lost, that is a secret issue. That's a result of a project that is a loss of an amenity to the community. And so the board has jurisdiction as lead agency to look at it under secret. And I would advise taking that step first before we figure out like whether we got to deal with the referral to the building inspector or Scott's going to go before the CBA as soon as we issue the CND and we can, I don't know if the CBA wants, you know, that's a different side of the town's administration to deal with zoning issues. We've got it as a secret issue though, recreational space is certainly, loss of recreational space is a secret issue. And if that's what's going on here, we can look at it in that vein and I think we need to. If there's a reasonable allegation that that's happening, It's got to have a counterpoint, but right now all we've got is words, just oral words. At some point, there should be a finding made that this is an important issue, and it will work.

Dave? I have, well, my own personal observation at this moment, which is somewhat colored by my capacity given the late hour, is that I feel like we've had a lot of public comment, and personally, I feel like I've gathered we have the information to review. And I have a few notes tonight, but I feel like personally I need to go and, you know, I've been actually looking through the, you know, the part two and find people's comments to, you know, the part two. But I feel like for me, the moment is to sort of consider all the information that we have take the time to do that in light of the public discourse or comment tonight. I'm just saying. Do you feel we have enough information? I do. I do. Board?

I agree. I do. I think so. I agree.

Okay. Scott, do you have anything else you want to add?

I don't think so.

I have one more question for the board, even though it's late. It was something brought up by Fanny. Did I get the first name right?

Franny. Franny.

Franny. Franny, what word did you use?

Environmental injustice.

Environmental injustice. Environmental injustice. that sort of resonated with me, given what I know of that apartment complex.

Councillor? Turning it around, environmental justice is a, it's been a theme of environmental issues for probably at least I mean, at a high level, 20, 30 years, including state law, what it means is that there are certain actions, that often certain actions have a disproportionate impact or just certain conditions, they could go back a century, have a disproportionate impact on stressed communities, communities of color, communities at a lower socioeconomic level. I'm not exactly sure how the speaker intended it to apply here. Obviously, it applies to the apartment building, whether that in and of itself is a it was a stressed community or there are communities within the department building that basically what it means is you have to be very careful when we cite facilities that can have a disproportionate for the, the clearest example in the country is probably, you know, in Louisiana where they have mile after mile of, of chemical factories and patrolling factories along the Mississippi river. And there are many poor and, and, uh, minority communities that are hit by this. So it goes from that extreme to the situation where there's a proposal for an industrial site or in a case like this, and it's going to have more of an impact on a poorer community. And it's gonna go to the benefit of, about potentially a wealthier community that lives two miles away and is going to get better self-service, but it's the people next door that are going to be impacted. I believe that's what the speaker was referring to. She didn't go into detail, but it's an issue that, and the state, by the way, to be clear, DEC and the state have made this a serious issue for consideration, including in seeking reviews. And so if we want to crack the book open on that and take a good look at it, that's, I believe, what the speaker was referring to.

I can go into more detail. I can go into more detail on what you're saying.

If we're basically on the right track, let's continue with the board discussion.

My understanding is with EJ, it's designated by the state. Certain communities, you mean? Yes. For EJ areas.

How granular is that? Are they going to get every community where there's...

I've got the maps up now. It's the entire town of O'Warsing is a disadvantaged community. There's nothing in this town.

What did you say, Jen? I believe this is in an EJ area, but it's got an overlay, so I can't see through it.

Environmental judge...

Is that a state designation? Are you looking at the state designation in Rochester?

New York State designation.

And so Granite Road is part of it?

I'm trying to see.

Yeah, it's confusing because the seeker now says to analyze disadvantaged communities, which is a separate map set than what she's looking at. Okay, I'll... That's the allegation. If you look at the maps that she's looking at, what have we got? North and west of Granite Road is. If you look at the disadvantaged communities maps, which the seeker references, I'm looking. There's nothing in the town of Rochester. Oh, so we've got to figure out which map we're using? Apparently. Yeah, I took it off. I didn't see any. I mean, I'm just winging it now. Yeah. I mean, in the previous analysis I've done for a different jurisdiction to use the New York state disadvantage community staff. Which is that isn't just going to stay complex issue because.

There's a lot of programs that seek to bring cellular coverage to environmental justice areas because they oftentimes do not have access to broadband. So it's more complex.

Two moving pieces. One, it potentially cuts both ways. And two, there may be different measurements of which of the EJ communities, based on whether it's a DEC thing or a department or a housing thing, there may be different EJ maps. Yeah. So we've got different EJ maps, potentially. And also, this could cut both ways, because they're giving themselves free.

The census tracts are bizarre on the land. I mean, nobody knows what census tracts are.

So it is getting late. I have a couple of thoughts. One of which is in our breakout, when we broke out before, there was some discussion about whether the board was ready to close the public hearing, the verbal public hearing, if you would, but obviously allow and invite any kind of written continued public input. So we have to figure out what we're doing with these items, but is there,

is there any sense of the board that we want to end the public hearing process i haven't i hear that folks feel like they didn't have enough time to review some materials that came up recently and i feel like i don't know if we're going to hear a lot of new information so i'm conflicted um that being said We could consider closing the public hearing X days from now to give folks a chance to review materials.

We would always invite reading assignments. We're not going to specifically this kind of public hearing because what I feel we have is enough information and there are still some nettlesome issues. I agree with you.

comments, then there's still the opportunity for the public to give us information.

The information that was supposedly told, you were trying to clarify for yourself a particular aspect of considering an application. It's not something new came and was not given or not provided to the public on time. You were unclear about something you were asking Experts clarified it for me, but it's not something new really in the consideration, which possibly can be considered. That's how I see it.

So how does the board feel about closing the public hearing and leaving it?

We heard enough. We don't hear anything new. If we leave written comments, it would be very new to bring in some new information. But in terms of verbal comments, I think it's been sufficient amount of time. All right.

So I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing, but leave it open for written comments based upon what they hear happening in this meeting, the discussion that we now have.

Do you want to limit it to a certain period, or do you want to?

I think the written comments, we should continue it. There's no harm, no foul.

May I just, if you have written comments come in, we're going to have to respond to them. They're going to want to respond to them. We're going to want to respond to them.

Well, let's test that. Why do we have to respond to written comments?

Why? We think it's necessary.

The applicant is going to want to.

We have an opportunity to. I don't think we can be denied the opportunity for the applicant. And so then it's, listen, I understand there's a lot of public opposition and the people, I understand it. At some point you have to say, we've heard a lot and I don't want to over be dramatic. I've never gone eight or nine public hearings like this ever. I'm sorry. I haven't. I think you have got more information than you need, but it's a good thing for the record. But seriously, our position is, this has been a little bit going on a little too long. I just, we request that you close the public hearing, close the public hearing. Because what we submitted recently was just a response. We didn't provide new information. We submitted an information response to letters that came in. So that's the purpose of it.

All right. So does somebody want to propose closing the public hearings and leaving it open for a written comment for some period of time? Yeah, I make the motion. Give me some words.

Just that. Use your words. Use your words.

I don't think.

It's late, I'm sorry. That we close the public hearing, but we still accept written public comment. For a period of time.

For how long?

I think until the next meeting.

Until next meeting.

The 29th. The week before.

The week before.

The week before. All right. So I'm going to encapsulate what I heard.

And just to be clear, for me, the purpose is as Jennifer said, you know, People are commenting on the fact that they haven't had time to review some of the materials that just came in. It gives them time to do that.

For the discussion, I read through probably 15 letters from the bullet that came in today. And that's, you know, I read them all. I feel it's important to read them all. But it's the same standard to, you know, that if you have time to respond, we have time to digest it. So I think that's why we can advance that.

So yeah, I agree. 20 seconds the week before.

All right, so I'll encapsulate what I think I heard Dave say. Dave, I think you said to me, hey, you made a motion to close the public hearing and continue to receive written comments until the 22nd, which is a week before the meeting of the 29th. That's the motion. Is that all right?

Yes. I second it.

I'll wait a second. Is it all in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

That doesn't mean that we, for some reason, that we might not have to reopen it for some reason. I don't know why, but we always have that possibility. And then the next thing is we've got to work on these issues of the environmental justice. We don't have the data in front of us. We don't know what map to use. And we need to hang on one more. And we need to work on this area of what I call the play area.

I plugged in the address for the disadvantaged communities and it clearly stated that it is not in a disadvantaged community. But as you go further down to the south on Granite Road and into the town of Raworsing, that's when You come in. So we need to sort that out.

We need time to sort that out.

Put that in writing.

So those two items, items that I heard tonight, we need to resolve. Are there any other items that we need to resolve?

Why don't we also talk about what the process is going to be on the recreation space? Scott, do you want to do a submittal on that? I have to look at it. The issue would be the loss of the the site is 2,500 square feet plus whatever is extra as a recreational space for the people in the building.

Yeah, I'll look at it. I'm probably going to come back and just say that it's not a significant loss.

Do you tell me what else we should be doing?

I suggest we need to define what the 50% is and see if his project is influenced to 50%. Okay.

Would you work with Scott then, Dave, on this issue of Metview at this stage and determine whether or not, given that standard, given the size of the property and the configuration of property, is a significant decrease in the recreation area or not? Yeah, we've heard.

I will. I'll only know that from based on what I've heard from the public, there's no open space or recreation area defined on the property currently.

No, there isn't.

So.

It's a secret. I don't want to put you in the position of a CEO. Which is not a good thing. The question is, what's the secret issue here in terms of a potentially significant adverse environment? Right. whether the footprint of his project impacts that. Does it take away enough recreational space that we have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact?

You just said 25%, 25%, one quarter, 40%.

Code says half of the total for multifamily houses, half of the total parcel has to be open space and half of the half has to be recreation area.

And by the way, if you determine that there might be a significant adverse environmental impact, you can propose a condition that would solve that problem that we could add to the conditions and keep the seal. So let's get the two of you to work on that.

Yes, and then the other item I noted is based on some comments, I do think there's a potential at least one spot, if not two, to amend the part two. Okay, change the check mark? It's arguable that the impact on land should be checked yes. affect your decisions on low or no impact on the specific questions, but there will be disturbance to land.

So can you do that first, Dave?

It's a question. Do you want to address that? Then there's the impact on open space question, noting that the impact on open space goes further to describe the fact open space is essentially inventory in a And that's why you said no. There's no park there.

There's no. So are you recommending? I don't know what to do. I did know a comment from the public, one member of the public, that we incorrectly marked the part two in that section.

Impact on land.

Do you agree with that? I agree with that. All right. So could you, you need to work that up for it?

Does that become a moderate to large impact? That's not my decision, but I would advise no.

Well, there's only two different, there's only, it's only.

It's a yes, but it's still no or low. Okay. Then you don't need to do a part three. I'll need guidance on the, the board needs to decide on the open space.

I think we should do a little bit of a write-up on it.

On what?

On explaining. I think we should have some words that explain our determination, whether that's low to go or yes and. Either way, because it demonstrates you evaluated it rather than it being the absence of an analysis.

Yeah, I agree. You're right, because you now check yes. It needs to be in the part. Okay. All right. Yeah, yeah. So would you put that together first? I don't know what you want to do with open space lines. Keep the question open?

Well, I think with the open space lines. Is it a yes?

I don't think we have enough information.

Well, we don't have enough information to say whether it's a yes or no.

You mean the recreation issue? Correct. You need to evaluate that along with... Why don't you write up a recommendation, work with Scott, and if you want, write up a draft condition if you think that that's helpful.

Yeah. I mean, I'll note, not to belabor this, I'll note that with the help of Helena and others, Hans, you did this, we did review all the town plans that were available. And there was nothing identified in a town adopted plan. It was dedicated to

I'm not sure. Which is the yes. The allegation is that they're taking out space that children use for recreation. So you can go as a town designation is all you want, but the allegations I'm understanding is that we would be limiting the ability of these children for recreation. The record is correct. So that's got to be dealt with. I don't know how it dovetails with town open space.

I won't belabor it. It's the question on part two talks about it. Is it stated? Is that stated as open space in a town plan?

And the answer is no. So you're saying that the question in part two doesn't directly relate to the zoning problem that we're elevating to a seeker? Correct. They're related with separate issues. Well, does the recreation impact of the implication of the town code issue, is that represented on a part two anywhere? No. There's no impact on recreation in part two?

The current... Are you checking it quickly this afternoon? I didn't see any reference to.

Well, I'm not waiting. Yeah, I think research it.

Yeah, you have a planet. Did we make a mistake? Did we make a mistake and miss something on that part, too? I think it's the question. And if we didn't, I mean, if we didn't just tell us we didn't want.

Fair enough.

Okay, that's all.

Okay.

The allegation was made and something from the public that we did. Correct. I don't know if that's true or not. You're the expert. Tell us whether we did or we didn't. Okay. That's all. Dave Kuntz, And what else would you got to try and see.

Dave Kuntz, I mean I did an itemized list of what i've heard for the board might be substantive issues for the conditional neck deck you can look them over those are the ones that seem to jump out at me is that you need is what you need with right, I want to make a point when I was years ago, as it was it.

Dave Kuntz, Okay. Rupert Clayton, As an attorney years ago, I would always use as my guides guideposts for the for whether to do a declaration of significance, the actual language and 617.7 and now that's been largely superseded by the part two, but I wanted for a moment turn to 617.7 see which is the criteria for determining significance one sub Rupert Clayton, A VI. And that is one of the criteria for determining significance, POSDEC, NEGDEC, is a substantial change in the use or intensity of use of land, including agricultural, open space or recreational resources or its capacity to support existing resources. So recreation, at least verbally, is in the actual regulatory criteria for a declaration of significance, even if it doesn't shoot through the ground or rise up in a part two. So it's an issue under the code and it should be dealt with. And so if we have to Jimmy open part two or whatever to deal with it, I would suggest doing that because it's actually the law as opposed to a DEC forum. And I've always taken the law more seriously than the DEC forums.

I will note one more item if you are opening up this additional deck. That is comments raised about these sort of, you know, as one of the speakers said, these sort of conditions that are in the future, right? You'll get a study done before something happens. There were comments raised about the unenforceability of certain conditions. How are you going to track them? An example, is you're going to require an ecologist to go to the site before construction.

So one of the things we haven't talked about for this project, but we have for others, is having what I call a clerk of the works. And we often turn to Greg to say, can your company do that? So we've got all these conditions, whether they be CMD conditions or they be site plan conditions, and combination of you're responsible for making them happen, your firm, making them happen. And oh, by the way, the building department is involved in it. And oh, by the way, escrow has to be deposited in order to pay for him to work with him to make sure these things are done. That's how it's done.

Yeah, and can I add that when I've done environmental impact statements, by virtue of it being a BIS, it has significant adverse impacts and it has mitigation. And all of the mitigation just says, you have to do this thing as part of the project. It's the exact same. It's a distinction without a difference. So it's part of the course.

It's a judgment call. It is not unusual that that structure exists where you just require something. And there's no logical. It's a continuum from something that's kind of trivial. And so we don't worry about something that's more fundamental. When I was in the position of citizens and the citizens themselves, they're going to object to almost any slack in that structure of conditions. You can't have a condition to do something in the future. We don't know what it is now. So it's just a continuum of how much the board wants to nail it down at this point in your judgment process. and whether you trust that a future process can deal with it. They will never like that. And the question is, how much does the board want to get all that done now without delegating it to a future process? How narrow do the parameters have to be?

It's basically- We can narrow them up, but my experience would suggest the way to do it is to get escrow for whatever it is it's going to take for the collector of the works to monitor this stuff whatever tens of thousands of dollars and money walks and nobody talks yeah you got to make a deposit in order to allow this to be done so it's going to get done or else you don't get your money back yeah is what it will stand to so i think that's how it should be done yeah yeah okay Jennifer?

Yeah, I mean, we do it through contract specifications sometimes. Yes, it's all the same.

Okay. And Greg, I know we've talked about it.

And a lot of this stuff could very well just be a final inspection when work's done to see that certain things were addressed. Some of it may need to be periodic site visits.

something that's going on during the construction. And a way to make sure all that gets done is... You set up an app, yeah. You give me money. You want your money back? You've got to get all this stuff done.

One of the examples is like screening, right? You need visual screening so they're going to build shrubs and you don't nail down exactly where the shrubs have to be. You just sort of trust that the process goes forward. So it's going to be a judgment call as to exactly how much you want to nail that down. The detection's real, but at some point it becomes a judgment call.

I wouldn't have anything else. No.

It's shot clock.

What about the shot clock?

No, I think it's over today. We have to see where it is.

You didn't send me a note for me to sign for an extension?

I have no authority to extend it. So I guess I'm saying is the board, if my client is willing to extend it, will the board extend it for another month?

Yes.

Okay, so I have to ask my client.

You usually go for more than a month, though.

I know, but again, I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but this is going on too long. And I don't know if my client's going to have the appetite to extend it any further. I just have to ask them.

Okay.

Yes, we wanted to extend it.

Okay, so I'll let the client know tomorrow. Again, I just don't, they have to tell me yes or no. Yes. They have to tell me yes or no.

I just want to make sure that you're all playing with it. I was going to say, in the shot clock, I thought you wanted us to do the next part. No, no, no. No, no, no.

You already did that once with Patton. I'm just teasing you. All right, is there anything else? What is your next spoon? No. No.

I'll entertain a motion. Jennifer makes the motion.

I seconded it. Which one, Juan?

All in favor?

Aye.

Before you go, did we vote on the closing of the conference?