Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I've been called to order the June 29th meeting of the planning board of the town of Rochester. If you would stand to join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 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.

There's voices in my head.

So a couple of administrative things. We have to approve some minutes. But we have two people out, but we have a quorum. So I want to make note of that. And Greg asked that he call in instead of him to come to the meeting. He has something to do very early tomorrow morning. All right, so let's do the local.

Chair Jones.

Here.

Member Roberts.

Here.

Member Farmo. Here. Member Duda. Here. Member Petran. Here. Member Nelson. A member Penske are absent. Church is here. Dave Gordon's here.

All right, let's... I'll entertain, assuming everybody's been able to read the minutes, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes from May 11th and June 8th. Bonds, make the motion. Paulina?

Before, I noticed in the minutes a date was missing. I don't know if somebody provided that with you, and I'm not sure what that date was. But it was in the comments or something that I caught Stacey. But other than that, the substance

What are you referencing?

One of the minutes. I can't remember which one, but there was a statement and there was a blank for the date. That's all.

Do you want to check it? We'll hold off to the end of the meeting. Why don't you check it? So we'll hold off on approving minutes to the end of the meeting. And hang on one second while I get my.

Unless a member of the board provided comment to Stacey.

So why don't you find that section? We'll correct you. Yeah. All right. So we'll hold off on that. The first project on the agenda is Benjamin Foff. It's a lot line and Bill, you're here for that. Yes. All right. And we have a decision, but do you have any comments, Bill?

No. I think the only thing that we was requested to be done as the last meeting was to change the labeling on the little drainage air check to a intermittent stream. So on that note, that's about it.

Okay. Does the board have any other comments? No. Okay. So I have a decision. You shouldn't have that.

I'm sorry. The plane here doesn't have a revised plan. Is it still?

The plane there still has the old. Those are the old maps. The new maps that I'll sign will have that on it. Yeah. Yeah.

Do you want them to say that they're there? Yes.

The new map is in the new plan.

All right.

So any other questions, comments? All right. So I'm going to, I'm not going to read the whole decision, but you have a decision in the agenda. It's referenced in the agenda. The link is in the agenda. So this is a lot line change. Benjamin Boff. Uh, it is, um, uh, we declared it, but it is a type two secret type two. It's a two parcels, um, that are being, um, billed. We're eliminating the lot line, or no, we're changing the lot line. We're moving it. We're moving it. And continuing with the flag lot on one lot, and then just moving the size of the other lot, increasing the size of it. So it's fairly simple. On page two, we have an explanation of the note bill that has to go on there, note number one. Yeah, it's on there already. Okay. And we'd also reference the fact that we want the stream to be labeled as intermittent stream and we did that already. So we have that then. Anybody have any questions about the decision? Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to approve the decision.

One real tiny detail is that the last line there, it says notes one through six. There's the notes.

There is no one to six. So Stacy, we need to change that. The owner shall file in the Office of Ulster County Clerk's Certified Planner during the chair's signature period. Or comment. You see it there? There's an extra line. Last paragraph.

I got it.

I wish you had it.

I got it.

You got it. So it has to come out. So chair signature within 62 days of acidification, the owner shall have the responsibility to return four copies of the plot to the town of Rochester Planning Board within three days of filing. Thank you, Bill. Any other comments? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Jennifer, motion? Second? Pond? Jennifer makes the motion. Pond seconds. All in favor? Aye. Chair votes aye. Bill, no days. There's two absences. Okay, Bill, that's done with that change. And I'll sign the map. I'll sign this tomorrow with the change. Okay. All right. The next item on the agenda is MHJ properties, also known as Moshat. Is there anybody up to date on that one? You had maps on that when I sent a long note last night about this one. Bill, you want to tell us what we're looking at in terms of the new map? We're familiar with the old map, which had a driveway on it, a proposed driveway, and then you gave us another one with a second driveway on it.

And there are some things here on the comment letter that will probably make this in business. But so I think the primary focus of concern has been and got to be really just the lot three. We haven't really, I don't think there's been any issues regarding lot one and lot two. But it's about lot three and the access to that and what we proposed driveway there. So there was, there's a imaginary driveway here that we called existing that was carved in and that was really kind of steep. That's what the board actually went out and walked on when they were out there. HAB-Jacques Juilland, As you remember, and so that was between the comments on that and just measuring what the grade of it was it was decided to. HAB-Jacques Juilland, move that down the hill a little bit so that the. HAB-Jacques Juilland, exact rates on so that's what we've got shown there is a proposed driveway and that would go over the other lands of our shack and this is mh J and. And it's also Harvey Warnshak is NHJ. So it's him that we're proposing right away over that little corner there to cut through the back.

So the same person owns the property that we're going to be going over and also the development property? Yes. Are we going to provide an easement?

Yes. Yes. That's what I said. There'll be an easement through that little corner there.

Okay.

So the RMA is going to... Not only be in our maintenance agreements going to need to have easements. Oh, sure. So, yeah. So Billy, you remember the issue with this is the applicant paid to us last March, not this March, but the previous March went away, withdrew the application, went away, put the driveway in that's now cooled existing driveway. We told them that's probably too steep. We'll take a look at it. He didn't want us to take a look at it primarily. So he's proposing the other one now called proposed driveway. Is that my understanding? Right. Does the board understand that? OK.

So significant undertaking to locate it there since he actually already has it in place. But he's willing to do what it takes here.

OK. So there's a letter that we got from our engineer indicating what needs to be done in order to get this thing moving forward in any way, shape, or fashion. So on page two of it, on that first paragraph, he indicates that the essence of it, we need a grading plan. We need the profiles for the proposed driveway. We need all of those engineering details. We need to know what the driveway is going to be composed of, how much gravel, how many layers of gravel, how thick the gravel is going to be, type one, type four, whatever it is. We need all of that for grade to review. before we'll go any further with this. So you'll provide us with all of that. Yes.

Yeah. And obviously we just got that letter. So I'll take that as you did too.

The board see Greg's letter and he'll at some point in time, we might want to go out there again, but I'm going to wait for Greg to come back with his with the profile with the analysis of the profiles the other thing that he mentioned in this letter was he's not sure he doesn't think this meets fire code the way it's drawn because you need a turnaround on the top right yeah there's there's

multiple items there that he's brought up that we'll be addressing. Yeah.

Okay. So we need those addressed. And at the end of the day, this existing driveway that was put in, we're going to need that to be marked abandoned. We're going to need that abandoned. And we're going to need it to be restored to what it was. Yeah. And we're going to be asking for escrow for the new driveway to be built to specs as well as for the old driveway to be restored in some fashion. Yeah. Because it was kind of put in without any rules are kind of what was But in any case, anybody have any questions or comments.

My only comment is when we were out at the same as it, it looked like me the culvert. I understand that you're removing the driveway, but the HAB-Masyn Moyer- what's legal disease existing driveway it looked like the culvert was undersized and that there was overflow across the top of the so understanding what the storm water controls are right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Because it does have steep slopes and.

HAB-Terry Palmos- know that all of that work was done without any any hearing design or or oversight yeah. HAB-Terry Palmos- So claims no responsibility.

HAB-Terry Palmos- Is that what they call it, I do. Okay. But it's going to need to be fixed, Bill. Restore it in some fashion so we don't have that overflow and interfering with the other driveway that's being put in. Any other comments, Jen? Anybody else?

You addressed the fire situation.

So Bill, I hope we get back onto course with this one.

Yeah. Fair amount of engineering work to be done there. And I'm not an engineer, so I'm not doing it.

But you have an engineer working.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. We're trying to drag them out when I need this pile of work.

Okay. I'm sure all the more I should have been happy if you did that too.

So I think, you know, it looks, I believe everything that was in the letter of what you asked Greg to review, but just in the general course of things, overall issues about the rest of the subdivision, I think we pretty much went around everything else and it was really just this driveway that was sticky point.

I didn't pick up on anything else that any other members of the board, aside from the two driveways,

HAB-Masyn Moyer- pick up on anything else, would you put the setbacks, especially to her and maybe three just this. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Telling your room.

And Bill, don't forget, we're going to need a letter. Maybe you sent it to us, I don't remember, but requesting a waiver. When we finally get the engineering done and approved, you're going to need just the performative function of asking for a waiver for this driveway because it doesn't have road frontage. So that's another little anomaly here. And so the engineering needs to be proper or else you may not get the waiver.

Anybody else pick up on anything?

Dave? I know you did a whole write-up on it, but I think we're good. And Bill, your suggestion, you start working, have somebody start working on the legal issues around the RMA and the easement, because they can be sticky wickets too.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. And it's not too bad. It's all in a couple of lots.

Okay. I think that's it. All right. Good. Here's Juro.

I'm here.

Okay. Thank you. No, you're not representing this one, are you?

No, I think Elaine's got that. Okay.

Did you do the, you did the maps though, right?

Yes. Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. So the next Jiro Aguchi, am I pronouncing that correctly?

Yes, Aguchi.

Okay. So you're?

Elaine Bell.

Oh, OK. Here we go. All right. Great. Just give me a second here. Here we go. All right. Elaine, tell us what you're doing here.

OK. We are the South Asian for a lot line of movement. The town board already approved the conveyance of 0.9 acres of the former Queens Highway right of way contingent upon planning the board approval of this application. We're requesting approval of the boundary adjustment that combines the remnant parcel with the existing property at 460 Queens Highway. And there's no new laws, no additional development rights requested, and all existing improvements remain unchanged.

OK. So for the board, all we're doing here is eliminating the line that exists currently between what was the town of Fraud Justice Land and the lands of Jura of Coochee. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Elena and maybe station, you can confirm, we need to see the deal between the owners of the town that confirms that they are transferring this land. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Did we get that.

HAB-Stacie Juilland, Yeah. HAB-Masyn Moyer, Resolution. Yeah.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Okay, so there is something in the file.

Yeah. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Is it at their place.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Yeah, it's at your So there's a resolution from the town dated January 22nd, 2026, signed by the town clerk, which confirms that the town, the intent of the town is to transfer the lands to the applicant. So we have that. Do we have a statement from the applicant about the reasons for?

It's on Municola.

It's on Municola, okay. And that other form, we'll just take the other form.

I'm going to just have them sign that. OK.

So we think we have all the forms that we need to proceed with this. OK. All right. So does the board have any other comments or questions? No? OK. So Dave, can you do a decision for the next meeting? And so we're good. We just have to do this decision like we did for the first item on the agenda. And so this will be on the agenda for July, July 13th.

Okay, so we come back July 13th.

Come back July 13th. You can have it by then, right? All right. The only other thing on here is there's a map note that has to be added. Can you send her the standard map note? So there's a map note that has to be added here that we put a standard lot line improvement map note that needs to go with these other map notes. Maddenback and Eggers is familiar with that note. Okay. So Stacey will send it to you. You just need to get a hold of them and have them added to the map.

Okay.

It's up here.

Okay.

Make sure that's the exact. Hang on. We may have it.

Yeah.

Yes. Okay. I didn't see. Okay. Thank you. so dave church will write up the decision we'll have it for july 13th and it's just a matter of board going on it and it'll be done all right so we'll see you on the 13th okay thank you very much thanks check the agenda for what probably first or second okay all right the next item on the agenda is pine grove Better known as Ravitav. Go ahead.

That's the bone of my contention, but we should stop calling it Pine Grove. Because Pine Grove does not exist, so we should call it by the name of it.

Okay, so it's here on the icon of the Pine Grove.

I understand, but it's confusing to people.

And in parenthesis, we should put Ravitav.

Correct.

All right, instead of Pine Grove.

Correct. especially for people that may be new to the area. They may not be aware.

Okay. Very good.

So, um, we should use the name that the applicant applied.

The applicants applied with MCRT.

Well, then that's the name of that. Whatever name is on the application. All right.

So, um, we have now is a public hearing on, um, Well, public input on the scoping document, what's called a scoping committee. So I want to describe the process that we're in with Seeker with this project. For those, the board has been intimately involved in this for at least a year, if not more, year and a half since January of last year. But for the public and to remind us all on the board, I just want to go through what we're doing here. We had made a determination that the project, we should handle the project under the seeker, what's called positive declaration process. And that's because as this board went through a number of steps to evaluate the information that had been provided to us, the board's feeling was that there was a significant or could be significant adverse effects on the environment. And so the steps that we went through is something called a part two, where we, a secret part two, where we do that evaluation. Then there's something called a part three, where we take the items from the part two that we determined, where we determined it could be significant adverse effects. And in the part three, you describe what those effects could be in great detail. We did that. And then as a result of that, we created what was called a pause deck declaration document. This was all done earlier in this year, February 9th was actually the date when we did the Part 2, and then in March and April, we went through the Part 3 and the Pies Deck. In any case, on April 27th, we did declare that we would be doing a Pies Deck for this project in the name of MCRT. So one of the first steps is to do a scoping document, because eventually at the end of the process, we need what's called an environmental impact statement, a final environmental impact statement that the board can consider and decide how the applicant is going to be required to mitigate whatever the environmental impacts are. So the end result will be a final environmental impact statement. To get there, there's a number of steps to get to that place. The first is for the, in this case, we asked the applicant to do a draft scoping document. And the scoping document is what the word scope suggests, to give a scope of the work that you think we're going to have to do, because a lot of this work is done by the applicant. in order to describe how are you going to overcome the impacts that we came up with, the possible impacts that we came up with in the Part 3 and in our POSDAC declaration. So they did a scoping document. We gave them a date in which they had to get it to us. They got it to us on May 29th. which was a Friday, it was after business hours. So we're declaring June 1st to be the date of delivery of the positive, of the draft scoping document. The board then has 60 days from the production of that draft scoping document, 60 days to come up with a final scoping document. And in the regulations, the secret regulations, it suggests, it doesn't require a public hearing, but it suggests that the board should use a variety of methods. And it mentions public hearing, commentary period, separate meetings, whatever. It mentions the types of things that should occur in order for the board to get public input. This board chose to do a public hearing in order to get input on the draft scope so that we could compare the final scope. So tonight is the night in which we're going to be looking for comments from the public on this draft scope. A copy of which is on the back there, but also a copy had been provided both in the public notice as well as on the town's what's called a muni collab system the system that carries all the documents so that was published there some weeks ago so tonight will be that scoping comments on the scoping draft scoping document we'll be putting together a final scoping document we have a deadline of July 30th to get that done when that's done Then it's a matter for the applicant to go off and do the draft environmental impact statement. So you have a draft scoping document, final scoping document, then a draft environmental impact statement, and a final environmental impact statement. So the applicant is gonna do the draft environmental impact statement, which covers everything that we said they have to cover in the scoping document. The scoping document they produced was eight pages long, nine pages long, whatever it is that we come up with, they'll have to follow that outline and provide us with detailed information. And that will be the draft environmental impact statement. And there are a series of steps there where the board is encouraged to ask for public input on that document. And then we go forward and do the final environmental impact statement. And from there, the project is still... not near to completion. From there, we decide whether or not the ways in which the applicant is identifying the mitigation, whether it's satisfactory to the board. If it is, fine, we go forward. We still have to do site plan. Site plan is actually dealing with the site, the positioning of buildings, and whatever else needs to be dealt with. If we decide that that draft environmental impact statement is not sufficient, well then they will have to make adjustments to that and redefine those in a final environmental impact statement. So I think from a layman's point of view, that pretty much summarizes my understanding of the process There are some people who have actually done these things in the past, Jennifer and Alina. And we have Dave Gordon, our attorney, who is somewhat expert in Seeker. So I just wanted to give you an overview. And I did want to mention a couple of things. A couple of comments from the public. We've gotten quite a few already. A couple of comments have suggested that under Seeker, Seeker requires... for these scoping sessions, as well as the environmental impact sessions, requires public hearings. That's not true. And so there is no requirement for public hearings. There's a requirement for public input. And the manner in which the public input is done is determined by this planning board. There are required dates. by which certain things or timeframes by which certain things have to be done. And in this case, it was 60 days to get the final scoping document done. So I just want to mention that and I'm sure that'll come up a number of times. So we're going to have the public hearing of a scoping document. I guess it's a document scoping session, rather, is probably a better way of putting it. And so if anybody wants to comment, there is a sign-in sheet, Stacey. There's a sign-in sheet there. I'd like you to sign that. If not, when we go through the names that are on the sign-in sheet, when we're finished with that, if anybody else wants to comment, we'll entertain those comments. I'm going to limit the comments. to five minutes per person, all right? You can submit as long a document as you want, written comments as you want, and I will be discussing with the board whether or not we're going to extend the written commentary period after this public scoping session, but that'll be the board's decision. So when we're finished with all the comments from the public, the board may have some comments, they may want to discuss some of those, and then we'll decide whether or not we're going to extend and have a written commentary period of some sort. So we will see. So the rules of the road are, we're not here to provide information, the board, we're here to listen to the public based upon their review of the documents that were made available on the public systems. And again, I'm going to limit the comments to five minutes. If you need another few seconds or half a minute, whatever, I'm not going to be harassable about it. But five minutes, I think you should be able to cover what it is you want to say. And then commentary, written commentary, that's fine of whatever length you choose. So Dave, did I cover the process in a nutshell of scoping as well as?

I just want to make one other point for the public. This is not the last opportunity to comment on this project. As the chair mentioned, when we get to the draft environmental impact statement phase, there will be public comment on the DEIS, which will really have the analysis in it. So don't feel you need to comment at this point if you don't have anything particular to say about the scope. It really is for the purpose of letting the board specify the scope. So this process will continue. And EIS is a pretty substantial process. It's something the board and most boards around here don't do very often. It's a really in-depth look. The public will have plenty of opportunities to be involved. So if that makes it easier for them, then definitely do.

And if the public would just excuse me for one minute.

It's probably in COVID-19. Yeah.

Okay. So I think what we're going to do, the applicant had been told that we should move along very quickly to get to the scoping session. And it was suggested they didn't have to get here until 7.15. Obviously, if you were here for the last half hour, we'd move very quickly to the first three items on the agenda. And it's not yet 7.15, the applicant's not here. So I'm going to defer opening up the scoping session for the public until the applicant gets here. And I anticipate they'll be here in five or 10 minutes. So you will get a pass. We're still on YouTube, so no soccer cheering, no Norwegian room, but we're going to wait 10 to 15 minutes. So we're going to take a break until the applicant gets here.

I appreciate your overview of the process, but as far as the timeline for you to do the the final scoping and for them to respond? What is the timeframe you're looking at for this process?

For us to do the scoping, final scoping document to get that done, we have until July 30th to get the scoping document done. There are timeframes around the draft environmental impact statement and the final environmental impact statement. So I don't want to go there until we get the final scoping document done. Everything will be noticed in the newspaper. I mean, unless Dave, you want to go into the timeframe to Dave Church, but it's lengthy. And at each stage, if what the applicant, like the draft stages, if the applicant delivers something that we're not satisfied with, they have to go back and redo it. At each stage that we have a public hearing or whatever forum that we have for public input, We recorded all of the public's comments. Generally by a stenographer, we'll see. It just has to be recorded verbatim. It could be done through YouTube as well. We record all of these meetings. But all of those comments from the public need to be aggregated under similar subjects and then responded to by the applicant and or the board, depending on the nature of the comments. So there's a lot that goes into it. So the only time frame that I'm willing at this point or able to give you is the deadline for the final scoping session, which is July 30th, which is 60 days from the date in which they gave us the draft. And that's defined by the SECA regulations.

I didn't mean to suggest we wait around 20 minutes for it to come. I thought we'd move on to Verizon, but I don't think it's appropriate to hold up. Well, we don't know when they're going to get you. I thought we'd just leave Verizon first, but yeah.

Well, Verizon is going to be quite a lengthy process.

I understand. If that's the choice, I would move forward with the scoping session. I mean, there'll be a record that they'll be able to see and respond to, but I don't think it's appropriate for us to sit around. I support 101. I would rather wait.

You'd rather wait. Okay.

I can't hear you. Sorry.

Just someone's phone. There's a phone. The applicant shows up after he should have been.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

The applicant shows up. That's the right thing to do, but I'm not sure what you guys decided. The attorney said one thing, you said one thing, she said another.

I think everyone here would like to know. What we're going to do is wait for the applicant. Okay. Am I bad thinking that we... So you'll follow that order, I guess?

I think it'd be fine either way. I mean, I think the applicant should be here.

Well, you said same thing, so let's wait a 10 minutes.

Next question, since we're waiting. What, can you talk about a procedural thing about a FAR comment? So what is the most effective way for us as a board? So I have comments on the graph scope. And I sent some preliminary comments earlier. What's the best way for us to submit our comments so we can put it all in place and get back to the timeline?

The last time that we did this, I mean, as soon as possible, right? We only have until July 30th to get it done. So I'd like to get the board's comments as soon as possible. But I think the way in which we did it once before, we used a tracking sheet.

You want us to put our comments in there?

Did that work out?

What if I put it in SharePoint? And everybody sent me their comments or just edit it in SharePoint. Because everybody has access. It's essentially like Google Docs where everybody can edit it. I have trouble logging, but I'll try. Or you can send them to me and I can make the edits.

Do what I could do. If I could put my comments, I'm going to try to get on SharePoint. If I can't personally, I can put them in and just copy paste them into the Excel spreadsheets.

I might be able to have a professional and it that's that's what so you need to you need to log in.

Nobody. Anyway, I think it's the wrong girls right. Okay that's fine I did a review, so I have.

Comments.

Most of my comments are and i'll mention them when we get to that later so.

All right. And for those members of the public who have sent us written comments, and there are quite a few, today or yesterday, we got 20 of them, some of them quite lengthy. So most of those have been added to what's called Muni Collab, the tracking system or the publicly available system. They're under this project in the section called public comments. The board has gotten them all. So they're there. We're not likely to discuss them tonight, but the next meeting, July 13th, we will discuss those in detail. So we did get a number of comments, close to 20.

You know, it might be helpful, not advocating Stacey or Dave, but compiling a spreadsheet on the various issues. water, septic, et cetera, and then lumping, you know, as we review comment letters, who's commenting on one. That way we can track how many of the public comments, how many are having to do with the septic, how many is with the hydro reports, et cetera, et cetera. And then we can do a deeper dive. That's pretty fun.

Yeah, on the, I think the comment tracking.

That's how the DEC has done it in the past. get hundreds of comments.

Well, who's drafting the final vote?

We're looking at them. You are? You and me.

Oh. I'd like to repeat that. I presume we have some preference here.

Yes. I'm all ears.

SharePoint is not worth for me. What's the problem? It's It won't load up right. I've tried different pieces of equipment. I don't care. Whatever works for you all.

Before you get to the writing letter, let's start compiling comments in the various areas of concern. And then you can weed out what's substantive, what is not, what's And then if I drill down specifically on this.

Jeff, we're holding the meeting for you because I told you 7-15, so have a seat. Are the applicants, Moshi and company coming?

They'll be here, but we have enough of our team.

Okay, so why don't your team, if you need another chair, there's plenty of chairs out there. Why don't your team, do you want... I had told you 7.15, so we wanted to wait till you got here. Yeah, I'll introduce your team again once the board knows.

Well, we got a new member, team, Meg Holden is with the firm.

Excuse me, I can't hear you. Could you please introduce yourself?

Meg Holden is with the firm of C. Padgett and Rizal from New York City. And this is Mark Millspaugh from Sterling Engineering. Do you mind describing what the new attorney's role is? She's a special, well.

We do environmental reviews. So we were brought on to advise specifically on the environment.

So you'll be hot chewing what, the FEIS or you're just here to advise the applicant on their various environmental steps?

Yeah, the FEIS and other environmental issues. We just sort of provide support for the environmental review process.

Okay, all right, good. All right, so for the applicants, I explained to the public the process that we're looking for comments on the draft scoping document. And Hans, as long as you're up, would you mind getting the sign-in sheet? That's what happens when you get up. Thank you, Mike. okay so we'll get started reminder um please address the board not the applicant and uh five minutes per person uh first on the list is mauren lindstrom isn't that funny

So as you know, we submitted a document from our lawyer earlier, which goes into submissions that we have with the draft scoping document and the lightness thereof. I'm going to read in five minutes a summary of what was submitted. I also have a submission of my own that I did not notice the last day to do is I brought it in fiscal copy. because I was not sure if we were able to . I am providing this statement together with a comment letter that was submitted earlier by our attorney, Crystal Pegg. We are not here to oppose the board's process. We support it. In April, this board issued a clause of death and found this project could cause real significant impacts on our community, the groundwater, septic, historic places, and our roads. This is why an environmental impact statement is being requested. Our concern is simple. The draft scoping document, the roadmap that decides what the study will actually examine, does not match the findings that this board has already made in the pause deck. And part three of the three. When several places is narrower than the board's findings, In others, it is flatly contradictory to these findings. It is not corrected. The study could be written in a way that avoids the very impact that caused this board to require NEIS in the first place. We ask the board, fortunately, to revise the draft scope before it is finalized. One, the no increase premise. The draft scope is built on a claim that there will be no increase in population, water use, or traffic. That premise is simply not accurate and this board has already said so. The record shows the proposed population of 770 people, 550 campers plus 220 staff and family. The historic occupancy reflects in the camps existing wastewater permit was 528. This is a substantial increase. The board has already rejected both the no increase claim and the applicant's low water use estimate as not credible. A study that starts from no increase is a study designated to find no impact. The final scope should state the actual proposed population upfront, and every analysis should be built on the real . Two, groundwater or drinking water supply. This property sits in the aquifer protection zone. Neighbors have already reported that their private wells are not producing enough water. The board flagged additional water withdrawals with significant impact. The draft scope promises a water study, but it does not commit to study the real demand of 770 people. It fails to acknowledge the neighbors will problems entirely. We asked study base water demand project projections on the full 771st occupancy using the town's engineers estimated GPD uses. Not the applicant's little figure. Include a proper pump test that follows DEC guidelines and maps existing wells in the area. We also ask that the final scope directly addresses the documented complaints that nearby wells are running dry and that measure this project's added effect on these wells and on the aquifer. Three, wastewater, septic capacity. This is one of our most serious concerns. The projected wastewater flows from this project range from roughly 38,500 to over 69,000 gallons a day. The permitted septic capacity is about 27,500 gallons a day. That means this project could generate two to three times what the system is permitted to handle. There's a second problem. The septic system is not one large system. It is many separate tanks and fields, and one of them can be overloaded on its own. Neighbors supposedly are already reporting gray water effluents this summer from both camps. We ask that the final scope require the applicant give a clear quantified comparison of projected flows against the permitted limit stated as daily over capacity number. Examine each separate septic field individually, not as one lump together total. Evaluate whether a new or modified wastewater permit and an expanded system would be required and the effect of groundwater quality of the current system is simply kept. Four, aesthetic and historic resources. The proposed building is roughly 236 feet wide, quite wide, sitting on a 14-foot embankment in a rural setting. The board directed that the review consider alternative sizes, layouts, and locations to reduce the visual impact. There's also a historic cemetery on the property, and the board found that protecting it is essential. Yet, the draft scope now acknowledges the cemetery without committee to protect it And it states that an archaeological survey is not proposed. The property also sits next to the Shoemaker Stone House, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. We ask that the study include a field delineation of the cemetery with room protection measures, reconsider the decision to skip the archaeological survey, and measure the building's scale against the surrounding rural character. Don't worry, there's only six. We're on the going files.

I didn't get that last point.

I said, don't worry, I'm getting there. There are only five. I'm going to make my five minutes. Number five, transportation and traffic. The board found the traffic here represents a significant increase over prior use. But the draft scope frames its traffic study around that same no increase premise. using traffic as the baseline that understates the real picture. We asked the traffic study state its occupancy and trip assumptions openly and reconcile them with the board's findings of a significant increase. Look at real peak conditions, camper changeover days, bus and truck movements, and traffic between this camp and the applicant's second camp in town account for the synagogue and the plans that creates predictable peace. such as Thursday evenings and Fridays before sundown, examine whether Cherrytown Road can safely handle two-way bus traffic and address sight lines at the intersections. 6. Alternatives and Other Gaps The board specifically directed a review of alternative locations for the facility. The draft scope studies alternative sizes for water systems, but it leaves out alternative locations entirely. That gap should be filled. This gap should be filled as the planning board is giving the permit to the land. And gaps do not address the multiplicity of intensified uses on this land. For example, an alternative plan to study Repurpose the quite large entry reception bar. Drain the indoor pool. Repurpose, redesign, and repurpose unused tennis courts, outdoor pool, recreational structures, and show how the existing dining facility could serve the population. None of that has been done. Finally, the study should include an analysis of lighting impact on Cherrytown, Samsonville, and the entire community because they're on top of a hill and you can see it everywhere. And the cumulative impact analysis considers the project together with other projects in the area and the inherent expansion of this project over time. In closing, to sum up, the draft scope identifies the right topics, but it does not yet commit to studying the impacts this board already found significant and in places that relies on a no increase assumption that contradicts the board's own findings. We respectfully ask the board to revise the draft scoping document before it is finalized So the environmental study fully examines and discloses every significant impact identified in the POSDAC. We have submitted these comments in greater detail in writing, and we welcome the chance to answer your questions. Thank you.

Can we have a copy of that, Maren?

Yeah, you already have the big graph.

So that's a great summary.

And the summary, I'll send it to Earl.

Okay. Thank you. Lorena Bezzola?

I just want to really, really thank you for everything. I want to look at her. I really want to thank you for everything that you said and for your amazing work. And you're really speaking for everybody. I'm not very informed technically about this. I've just seen communities like that grow in other areas. Architecturally and visually, in my personal aesthetics, I find it very offensive because it is done with very little sensitivity to the visual elements of a regular rural community. It's just like, I've seen it on the picture that's coming. It looks like everything that we see in like Monroe and those areas. And I just, I'm really sad about this. And of course the environmental impact, the sewer, the water use, the light pollution, the noise pollution, the traffic, I'm extremely worried about it. And I'm just getting off. I put my name on the list, even though I didn't really know exactly what to say. I just want to speak up because I feel like we should all speak up.

Thank you.

You did fine.

John Moore.

Oh, hey, what is your name, please? Excuse me.

My name is Corina Bezzola.

Can you repeat your name?

Corina Bezzola, C-L-A-R-I-N-A.

Okay.

B-E-C-C-O-R-I-N-A. I'm from Switzerland. Okay.

Thank you. John Moore. Yes. My concern is

They had a problem with the other camp above on 170 with the sewer problems. What's gonna happen from stopping it again? They already contaminated wells and farmland before. What's the town board gonna do to make sure it doesn't ever happen again? Because this is a farm community. This isn't a New York City area. This is a rural area that we choose to live in as retired people that have farms. I got an orchard. I have a pond that feeds my orchard the water it needs. If they contaminate my pond, I lose my life. That's all I got to say. And all the farmers are around here. So let's all really think about this. And if Rob Top, if they bought it, Did they ever look into the zoning laws first before they bought it? Or did they just assume that they were going to buy this and do something like this to get us to do what they want? That's what I got to say.

Thank you, John. Joan Ewing.

Can I sit down still? Can I stay seated? Yes. Sure. Okay. I wrote you an email that one of them requesting that the public comment period stay open. I'm not sure how it fully works, whether the public comment period ends when the subject ends and then opens again when a new subject comes up. But I'm gathering we're going to be getting a lot of new information. and are going to need time to process and understand that information and then formulate questions and comments. So I'm hoping that we have that opportunity in ongoing. So that was one of the points. Another second point was I'm confused about the proposed size of the building because we've come to a number of meetings Um, I've seen the 39,000 square feet figure on the agenda and I've seen 29,000 square feet discussed at times. So I'm confused as what actual size is on the table right now. Um, and the third point, I believe, um, Mr. Kaplan spoke last time we were here. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was a request to not have a hydrological study done during the time campus in session, because it means she's 30. I can understand that, but I'm wondering if there's any way to measure the use of water, to measure the runoff, to measure the sewage and find an existing division without doing it when an event is in session. And that's where you can make real measurements. And I'm hoping and I believe it can be done in a respectful way. But that was my third point, that it needs to be done when the camp is actually in use in order to get any kind of accuracy as to what's going on. Thank you.

By the way, hydrogeologic studies come up twice. The one that was defined in the drafts originally by the applicant as part of the draft scope There's a recommendation from our engineer dated the June 15th that tells them exactly what we want done, and it's different from what they were proposing. And it's much more complete. It involves continual testing. When they do it, I don't remember what was recommended. Clearly, to do it before the camp starts isn't a great idea. But during the camp, if they can do it, great. But the length of it, what they have to show us, whether or not there's impacts on surrounding neighbors. If the neighbors agree to have their wells monitored, they need to do that. So there were a whole host of things in that letter. And it's on the town's website called Muni Collab. It was dated June 15th. So without getting into a lot of detail, because I want to get to all the other folks, the board will talk about this. But I just want to reassure the two people who mentioned the hydrogeologic study that We sort of rejected what they came up with and told them, no, this is the way you have to do it. And when we do the final, we will be telling them exactly what we want.

I'd like to make a comment that, to be clear, even though we have the letter from Greg, from our engineer, et cetera, we don't really know yet what we're putting in that scoping document. Things can change.

That's correct.

So just to let you know.

I wanted to alert them. The point of saying it was alert them is written by the applicant engineer. Hang on. It's different from what we're recommending, and it may be different again after we go through it with Craig. So member Duder is correct. Mary Ellen Moynihan.

So again, I was a little bit unclear on that scope. what this meant. But in reading it, I guess I was a little bit surprised at some, not really, you know, their mitigation measures. They seem to say, well, we decreased the square footage of our community by 11%. That should mitigate several of these problems. Well, big is big, and it's still big. You know, I don't really think they put much thought into their mitigation measures noted in their document at all. It's more, well, if it's necessary, we'll mitigate. We should be thoughtful ahead of time and, you know, try and think about what problems could come up rather than just say, well, if it happened, maybe we'll lose them. I mean, my other concern is whether the scope is directed at their providing meals now, but they keep listing, yes, but we have future developments planned. And what does that mean? And is the environmental impact based on what they plan to do with this building in the future? Or is it, are we in for a big surprise later that we can't come back to? And that's where I've had some feedback from you guys. No. And so that concerns me a lot. It's like, what are we asking for? Something that's just going to be addressing what they're doing for the first six months of this project. And then for the next 10 years, if anything goes, I just don't know. Thank you.

Thank you. Ivan Goodman.

Thank you to the board for And again, it's been a long time since it's been discussed. The applicant indicated that there were no active farms within 500 feet of the application, which is incorrect. There are three directly adjacent, my farm, Fort Wright Farm, and in the environmental impact statement and just want to make sure that this is remaining in the conversation that I considered. Could you just repeat those four farms again so I can write them? Yeah.

Gray farm.

Gray, Courtright. Gray is farmed by- Doesn't matter. Yeah. Gray, Courtright. Gray, Courtright, Whiteman. Thank you. Whiteman. Whiteman. Yeah, Whiteman Orchards. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grimmett. Mike Bain.

Thank you to the board for having us tonight. First, I want to say thank you. As many of you know, but in case you don't know, I've been involved in this community in planning and zoning since 2003 when I came to a meeting just like this and asked a question. So I was involved in the comp plan. I was involved in the 2008 zoning code. I was involved in the most recent zoning code and probably every other committee in between. With that being said, I'm very happy to see that this board has put aside a declaration on this project. It is indeed one of the largest projects in this community that I can recall in my 20-some years of being involved. And I think the scope of it deserves that. That being said, in talking about the scoping, I would ask that in conformity with community plans that The board asked the applicant to review the special use review criteria of 140-55. There's six points. I won't go into each of them independently, but I believe each of them is pertinent and should be answered by the applicant in the scoping. The applicant and the board should use that criteria to thoroughly answer Does this project satisfy these criteria or does this project not satisfy the criteria? I would ask that the board also ask for any mitigation measures that could be proposed to satisfy for the ones that are not answered as satisfied. I also would ask that the board consider They have reduced the size, but let's face it, we are still dealing with almost 40,000 square foot building. To answer the question before, it's a two-story building, which is 19,500 times two stories, which is worth a 39,000. So I would ask that the board consider if this is simply too large and has too many impacts on the neighborhood. I'd ask for conformity with the comprehensive plan. A few points that I've identified, development, these are straight from the comp plan, development complements and strengthens Rochester's small town quality and character. These are all ones I think they should answer. Growth occurs in a way that minimizes loss of open spaces or scene of views. Growth can take place without compromising the quantity and quality of drinking water available to all town residents. Strike a balance so that growth can take place in a way that protects the environmental resources we all need to live. And direct large-scale or intensive development to areas with adequate infrastructure. I'd also like to talk a little about the Sony Cove. This property predates Sony. It was a resort for many years as the Pine Grove It was in 2008. It was put in the AR3 Agricultural District, primarily because the Pine Grove, being a dude ranch, very agriculturally oriented. They were haying many of their fields. They had trails throughout their property. Obviously, the horsemanship, all very agricultural. It was a resort. Resorts were allowed in that zoning district. With the recent zoning change, the portion of this property that was AR3 has now been changed to R5. That was from the board in the reaction to this is no longer being used as an agricultural property. The remaining was left in agriculture because it remains in the agricultural district, meaning the state ag district. It is not being used, to my knowledge, in any way. It's simply growing and just continuing to grow. It's not being, hey, there's no agricultural use, but it certainly could be put back into agricultural use. I'd also talk, oh, with that former use, there was minimal truck traffic, just deliveries, food, very small. The number of people there was relatively small at most times. It peaked in the summer, of course, but it was manageable, minimal traffic. Since the change, there is considerably more traffic. There is bus traffic. Almost everybody, to my visual, is noticing that they arrive by bus. It's not private cars. And I'd also ask that the board really needs to decide And I've heard it mentioned by the applicant as three different uses. Is it a resort? Is it a camp? Is it a place of worship? It could potentially be all three, and two of those are additional accessory uses. But it really needs to be defined. I know this board has no oversight over the determination of use, but perhaps... The ZBA could be sought for a review of the definitions. Your attorney can tell you whether that's appropriate or not to determine what is accessory, what is not accessory, how this can be reviewed. I also wanted to point out the 140-20 general commercial and industrial standards. I particularly would call attention to letter C, items 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I won't go into all of them, but I do want to point out this code has a restriction. Admittedly, it is on retail space. I want to read this. We're allowed in a zoning district except the industrial zoning district Any individual freestanding commercial building or any group of attached commercial buildings total footprint shall not exceed an area of 10,000 square feet. And then it says of retail space. I will tell you that was put in the code to prevent big box stores. But the intent of that was to prevent large buildings. In hindsight, should we have put the retail space? Maybe not. We were talking about big box stores. This type of size building not in a warehouse or retail situation was never anticipated by the code. I'd also like to talk about the board has the capability of increasing buffers between residential and commercial. I would ask you to look into that. Lighting. is a significant issue, remains a significant issue, partially because you don't need a building permit in the town of Rochester to put up outdoor lights. They were within their right, but they don't meet the code criteria. Perhaps a site plan should have been done. I believe some of the signs are not compatible with the code. Transportation, when you're looking at transportation, I'd also ask that you look at pedestrian transportation. Just today, I've asked 14 people walking between the camp and the girls' camp.

Mike, you're way over the five minutes. Are you going to wrap up soon?

Yeah. I am proposing possible alternate site location. That's in the map. And thank you again for your time. You're going to leave that with us, Mike? Yeah, I am.

Thank you.

When you show them that, just want to make the best of it.

Thank you, Mike. Yeah. Michael Rubin.

I just want to thank all of you. I've been following this, and I've noticed that you're reading some. I continue to be really impressed by your service and how engaged you are with all of these issues. I hope, Mr. Gass, you're going to read the right thing. I wanted to, in George's book, I like saying, in Marilyn's letter from Marilyn to one of those, I think what it's been called out today is very detailed in terms of many different points about how the SCOBY document should be modified. And I really hope you'll take a serious look at the recommendations therein. And I wanted to stand today to just talk specifically about segmentation. And I wanted to read, first of all, from Engineer Bollner's letter of April 27th. He thought in the middle of his letter to put one passage in bold, which says, in summary, the applicant needs to prepare an application for a change in use from five and four campers to 24 staff, the proposed use that is presumed to be 500 campers and 250 staff and families. The assertion of the applicant's site changes that were not discovered are by default approved is not how zoning works. And I think that's very much at the crux of this issue here. There's been lots of talk in the board about wastewater and water use and gallons per day that are acceptable based on summer camps versus school, there was different types of use. But what we've seen here is the segmentation of things sort of incrementally creeping in. So we're not just talking about this one building, but in fact, the changes that have happened since Rob Topp had become the owners of the former Drew Martenshire. And so I'd really encourage you to consider that. And what's really unique here also is we have sort of double segmentations. We have segmentation that way in terms of over time. And things like the Department of Health's permit mentions a bathhouse on the site plan that's been submitted before the board for this project. There's no listing, but there's a playhouse, but there's no bathhouse listed. So that clearly is a significant water impact. I have no idea where that is or if the planning board knows where that is or what's being discussed there. So there's that segmentation. But then, as Mike was pointing out, They also hold a permit to operate as a hotel. So when they come before you, as they did in the last meeting and try and reassure the board that their water use will be minimal because they're going to be not, you know, people will be bringing their own linens and not changing their linens for three weeks and not using utensils that are, all the utensils and plates are going to be disposable. So they won't need to be washed like simultaneously while they have the permit to operate. To run this place as a hotel is yet another form of segmentation that I really encourage the board to look at and consider when determining things like the rates of water use and impact on the septic. You really have to, as Maren pointed out, what you decide here and what is built will run with the land. It's not just run with this particular operator, but will run with the land. So if anybody coming in and inheriting this and wanting to run it as a hotel, will indeed not be using, we can rely on them not to use disposable cutlery and plates, and they'll be washing windows, and they'll be using the facilities as anybody who runs a hotel or something, whatever they're doing, in a way that's reasonable and as far exceeds the use that the applicant will think it's positive that they will have. So I think that's all I have to say. Thank you so much for all your work. I really, really, really appreciate it.

Do you have anything you want to submit to us tonight, or have you done it before?

I've done it many times before. Oh, I'm sorry, one more thing, if I may, which is the one place that I thought was covered a little lightly in the things that I've seen is light. I know that the whole issue of dark sky is one thing, but even beyond dark sky, which my understanding is about exterior lighting, the structure that's there right now has illuminated side, which I don't know if it's technically covered in dark sky, but also large, large windows with lights left blazing 24-7, 365 days a year can be seen, especially now if you're driving by, it's with foliage on the trees, it's less of an impact, but in the winter season where there's not leaves on the trees, it is a tremendous amount of impact on the neighborhood. showed almost last time. I don't have a part-time here about that. I would urge you to please consider that as well.

Thank you.

Okay, that's it for the list. Is there anybody else who wants to speak to this in the context of the... Say that again?

When the lighting happens and they create more energy, our electric bills go up because they're using more energy than us. Remember that when you think about that. Both the electric companies. Anybody else have any? The more electricity they waste, the more we pay.

Anybody else have any comments on this project? Yes, sir. Can I have your name?

Paul Cortright. I have the farm property that borders directly this site. And over...

You were the property that had the helicopter incident.

Yeah, one of the couples, yes. But I noticed on their site plan, they have a survey boundary delineating their property from the neighbors. In the back of that property, there used to be a ball field. There's still a big bouncy co-pad thing there. But They also have, and it's all enclosed with chain link fence. There is a narrow paved path around that field. And when you look at their site plan, their boundary shows that that fence and that path go onto my property. So I was trying to find the indicated iron pipes found, which are the corners of the property. Earlier this spring, I was unable to find them, but I did find a drilled well that may very well be on my property, and it's not my well.

And you didn't drill it?

What's that? You didn't drill it. I did not drill it. I was kind of surprised to find it there. Is it recently drilled? It doesn't appear to be.

It does or does not?

Does not. Does not. Thank you. Wow. But it just, so my concern is with this hydrologic, hydrologic, with this water. Hydrogeologic level. If, I think I saw the letter from here requesting mapping of their wells and what wells they're using and what wells they're going to be testing. And so I just want the board to be aware of the possibility that this well may actually be on my property and therefore should not be considered a water source for their use. I definitely did not permit that, though I haven't owned the property forever, but I'm not aware of any water rights.

extended to the old pine grove or wherever with that uh that well so i don't want to go into it tonight but if you could catch our secretary the next couple of days i'd like to meet you in the planning board office and go over the detailed maps and show me where you're talking about okay it doesn't show up on any of their mapping when you look at the two things that

made it key to me is their boundary line is pretty straight from the old cemetery out back towards the old ball field. And in the aerial view that they show, which is the picture of the entire area, there is also an area that was excavated at one time to be used as a skating rink for one of the hotels, one of the Pine Grove owners. And that clearly showed Excuse me. It shows to be on my property. And this well I found was rather close to that on their side of that skating rink.

So in any case, if you want to meet just to go over some maps and we can wander around in the field just to locate where you're talking about. All right. You have a map of your property?

That could be a problem.

All right, so we'll talk. Anything else, Mr. Courtright?

That's it.

All right, thanks. Anybody else want to speak on this matter? Mike?

I just wanted to ask a procedural question. On Munich Lab, there's one section for public comments. Are the scoping comments being segregated in any way, or are they being considered different than any of the other comments?

So far, we're putting them all into the public comments section. And that works for us now.

Okay.

Thank you. And if there's a change, it'll be obvious. I hope.

I have another question. Go ahead. We had requested an extension of the time.

I would talk up. I can't hear you.

Sorry. We requested an extension of the time for public comment.

I'm going to address that with the board when tonight is finished. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Okay. So for the board, there's no, I mean, if anybody wants, anybody from the board wants to make a comment or have some clarifying questions on things they heard fine, but it wasn't my intention to get into a lot of details tonight on what we've heard. There's a lot of documents that we've gotten in the last few days, very large one from Lauren and her attorney and some other people in the audience. Joan, we have yours and a number of others. So unless the board has some clarifying questions, what I'd like to do is just talk about our next steps. One of the next steps is to extend in a commentary period for this draft scope to our next meeting, which would be July 13th. So that gives the public two more, excuse me, two more weeks to comment. But what I'd also like to do is to close the physical public hearing, but extend the written commentary period to the 13th. Why the 13th? It's our next meeting, and pretty much that whole meeting will be on round top is my intent. There's a few small things we need to get out of the way. And then from the 13th, the next Monday is the 20th, and the next Monday after that is the 27th. The final scoping document is due on the 30th. So the 13th to discuss a lot of these details and then the writing of it during that period of time and the next two weeks so that on the 20th, we have a draft final scope for the board to go through. I think it's important to continue to get public comments but I don't want to do it in the context of a public hearing. I want to do it in the context of written comments to get by in the 13th. That allows us to begin to digest what we have, what we continue to receive, and for Dave and I to begin to put together changes to the draft scope and begin to compose this thing. There's a lot of work and a limited period of time as defined by CEQA to get it done. So with the board's permission, I'm going to make the resolution to close the public hearings to continue, hang on, I didn't finish, to continue the commentary period for two weeks, and to also, in the same breath, to have another meeting on July 27th, because currently we don't have a meeting on July 27th. So you can agree with part of that, some of that, modify it, but I'd like to make that motion. I'd like a second, and then we can discuss it.

Can I make a comment?

Why don't you second it first, and then we'll comment.

Well, it affects, I think, how people might- All right, go ahead. In my experience preparing PISs, the draft scope of work typically includes less detail on the specific methods than the actual environmental impact statement. So from my perspective, I've heard what was said here, And I generally agree with a lot of the sentiments, specifically with regard to water, septic, transportation. But my opinion is that the methodologies for these will be quite detailed. And I don't think detailed and robust in terms of where my head is at. And I don't think I would not want to try to get those methodologies done in two weeks. I would want a significant amount of time to review those methods, digest them, provide comments back before we finalize them. And where I'm going with all of this is that I don't know that the draft scope would include the level of detail that some people might be thinking. And I'd be curious to know what others are thinking.

So are you arguing for or against continuing the public hearing, for or against the commentary period, or against the meeting of the 27th?

I'm saying that I think we have to close it because we're on a timeline. What are the implications if we miss the 60 days?

What was that question?

The implications if we miss the 60-day window.

In general, I don't know. I have had to look it up. If you think you're going to miss it, we should talk to the applicant about getting an extension.

Okay. Let's not. Let's what? Let's not.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm okay with the draft personally. I'm okay with the draft scope of work that maybe doesn't go into as much detail on the methods for how exactly we're going to analyze what intersections, exactly what wells are going to be monitored specifically, with the understanding that those details will be disclosed in the environmental impact statement.

I agree with you, but I think what's important is I heard a lot of broad, I'll call them strategic, not tactical, but strategic items that may have been missed by the applicant in their draft. Things that we have talked about that we have said we want to have in there. So it's those broad strategic things that we need to make sure are covered. So I think that's what you're saying. Yes. Okay. And in order to accomplish that, I want to make sure that we have enough time to go through all of that. I look at that 60 days as being sacrosanct. And only with the permission, and I'll defer to counsel to a point, but only with the permission of the applicant could we go beyond that 60 days. So there is a lot of work to do.

So I'd be curious to know what we can do.

And therefore, I think we should extend the commentary period, but not the public hearing portion of it.

I'm in the comments, Jennifer. In my experience, in the scoping document, yes, we should be specific as to what we want, but we shouldn't be overly, you know, if you are too specific in the scope, then you box yourself into a corner. If we outline the methodology that we want to be used with not naming wells, et cetera, during the draft, the review of the draft EIS, that can take months. I mean, I've been on a review of the draft EIS because you have to, We will have to review. We'll have to review and see if it's complete. Provides all the information.

Let's stick to the draft scoping and the final scope.

This is going into the draft EIS. You get your scope. And once we have our finalized scope, then the applicant provides a draft EIS, the DEIS. And then after the submission of the DEIS, we read it. We see whether or not it answers our questions, provides the data that we want. And then we meet. And I mean, that process can take a long time and you have to make sure that any of the section data in one section meets the date agrees with the data in the other section. So I do agree with Jen, you know, Jennifer, as far as we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be too over-specified in the scope. There needs to be detail, but we don't get that. Pardon me.

We want to hit on the strategic issues, the bigger issues.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Let's say what Jennifer was saying before, she doesn't want too much detail in the scope to identify the wells that are going to be tested because we still don't know that. And so we have a... And how do I describe it?

I just like to start with a bigger box for compliance, bigger sandbox. Exactly. And then as you do your analysis, begin to refine that. Similarly, you can come across new information while you're conducting an analysis. All right, guys.

I hear all this. I agree with it. But we have a resolution on the table. A simple... Hang on, Dave. Okay. I have a resolution on the table. The resolution is simple. And if you don't want to, if we just want to can the resolution, I will. But the resolution is to ask to close the public hearing and to ask for more time to do written commentary, because we have to get to doing redoing what they gave to us as a draft and create a final. That's going to take some time. If we allow another public hearing to hear a comment, I don't know that we're gonna hear any different comments than what we've heard already. We've got an enormous number of documents with a lot of detail. We all, in particular myself and the two days have to go through that and begin to coalesce that and synthesize that and make sure everything's covered. That's not any small task. So I don't wanna suck up selfishly my time and this guy's time, Dave's time, And that's the wrong word, but I don't want to take time waiting for more public comment. And I don't think we're going to get here too much different. It'll be the same same material, but different material than what we've heard tonight. And we've heard many, many, many nights on this project or that we have heard in the written comments. So I do want to there might be something. So let's extend the period for the written comments. for two weeks so that we can get to the work of actually calling through their draft scope and doing a final scope. So that's why I made the motion close the public hearing, but extend the written commentary period so we can get, we being staff, and get it worked up.

So if we agree that we can create a larger sandbox for our analysis, then I'm fine.

What's that larger sandbox?

That means that the draft scope would not be so refined that we can't make material changes to the analysis later on.

Right. So why don't you trust what Dave and I will do and present to this board on the 23rd or on the 20, on the 13th or the 27th or before then for sure. And if it's, if it's two, whatever, you can make comments to it and change it. I can't guarantee how it's going to be written until we begin to write this thing, or rewrite it, okay? But as soon as it's rewritten, then I would hope that we can get it rewritten from the way it is now in about two weeks for the board to review it and for the public to see it. If we've missed something that the public may be aware of, that's why I want the written commentary here. So are we saying the same thing or we're talking to each other?

But I do want to make one point for the public, and this is in Seeker. Okay. And it says all relevant issues should be raised before the issuance of a final written scope. Any agency or person raising issues after that time must provide to the lead agency and project sponsor a written statement that identifies the nature of the information, the importance and relevance and the reason why the information was not identified during scoping and why it should be included at this stage. So I want the public to know that there is, even if we, after the public comment period has been closed, if something comes up that's substantive, there are provisions in Seeker for it to be addressed. I agree. It's in Seeker.

Okay, so I have a motion. Does anybody... This is the board time, sorry. Does the board want to second the motion, and then we can have more discussion? All right, so we have a second.

Just for clear, we're closing the public hearing tonight. We are accepting written comments until?

For two weeks, so the 13th of July. All right, check me on that. That's July 13th. That's our next meeting.

Yes.

Okay. And I'm asking, and we can do this later, but I'm also asking that we have another regular meeting on the 27th of July. Because we had canceled it for the, we need to have another meeting. There's so much to do. Are we okay with that? I'm not going to call a vote or anything.

Dave, you had some comments and I. Yeah, well, first of all, I mean, I'm glad you got a second. You call a vote, that's what we do to pass the motion. And so I understand the motion that we're cutting off the public hearings ending tonight. Comment period goes through the 13th and we have a meeting on the 27th.

That's the motion, right?

You seconded that even though he had something afterwards.

I put that in there first. I didn't need it.

So now we do take a vote on it because that's the rule.

Okay. We're at a second. Usually after a second, I ask if there's any other comments. All right. I'll vote. All those in favor of that motion? Aye. And the chair votes aye. Anybody opposed? No. You're a no?

No.

Why are you a no?

I think I have learned a lot. I understand the timelines. However, I learned a lot from the public today, which was new to me. So I think the public should have the right at this point to have a further opportunity to travel.

And he was just saying, and that's the reason for the additional written commentary period. You do realize the amount of work to put this all together.

The motion passed. I know. I just want to say why he doesn't like that.

So we have four yeses and one no and two abstentions. Thank you.

I just wanted to make one point that, first of all, I didn't understand the relationship of what you were. Rupert Clayton, Originally concerned to the motion, which was basically the timing of public comment, but I want to make another point I could be I could be wrong about this, because I have not had a lot of. Rupert Clayton, A lot of us is just what do you do that many of them. Rupert Clayton, I don't think we can make decisions about how much detail to put in the scope in the abstract. If we have a broad scope that doesn't have details in it, it's an invitation to the applicant to address that issue as they see fit. And the question for the board should be on every issue individually, how much and I don't mean to be disrespectful, how much rope to give the applicant to make that determination. And if you think that there's an issue where the applicant and we are pretty much on the same page, that the views are aligned, you can give them, you don't have to worry about it. If there are issues where we're Perhaps in the past at odds, it might even still be at odds. We may want to have some more specificity in terms of how we define the issue, because otherwise we might expect that the DEIS is not going to come back with an analysis that's helpful to us. And that would be a problem because the DEIS is a very important document.

So I just want to throw that out there. One of my comments is that I think we should receive the methods for every single analysis, and it should be approved by us as a board before they undertake the field work.

Well, there's a tension between that and having some flexibility. I just want to point out um i don't think these issues can be dealt with in the abstract and maybe certain issues where we think yeah we're fine there may be other issues where we want to specify at the very least certain parameters or other types of things and i actually want to talk to you a little bit more about that so that i just want to throw that out there yeah basically if the

In a subsection, if the information that is provided by the applicant is insufficient for the board to make a decision or for our engineer to make a decision, we go out and we ask for additional information.

In the DEIS.

In the DEIS.

I guess if we can head off that eventuality, we're a little better off. Well, this is true, but... Just throw out an observation. We can take it however we want. That's for writing the final scope. Thank you.

It's really just, you only have months to think about this.

Yes.

Sorry.

That was not a reaction.

I wish he wouldn't have come in. A little levity thing. I'm sure I'll do a trophy for you. All right.

So we had a vote. And Hans, I'm sorry to ask you why I don't usually do that. But it's important. I hope that if the board does have some other items that they don't think we're aware of, and there are so many, not just from this meeting, but other meetings. I hope that they do provide them with us ASAP. Member Duda said there's the ability to go beyond the 13th. I need to set a time frame so we have an expectation of when we can put pen to paper.

It should be substantive comments based on facts. For instance, Mr. Fortwright mentioning potential of a well on this property. That's information that's substantive as opposed to just a one.

Okay. I do want to hear from the applicant in a second, but I have one question for one of the commenters, and I'm not questioning what you said. I just don't know what to do with it. So, Mike, on the zoning issue, I know you brought this up before, a year ago. I don't know what to do with it, because the zoning is the zoning, and we don't do zoning. So if you come up on it, I'm looking for an answer tonight. I don't want to have a discussion about it tonight. But if you have specific recommendations as a result of what you composed as a conundrum of some sort, I'd be happy to listen to them. So just think about it. No.

Listen, we- Okay. I want to hear from the applicant.

Okay.

John Gerstle, Well, this that. John Gerstle, I guess this. John Gerstle, general observations that she scoping document isn't the be all and all this environmental impact states. John Gerstle, That most scoping documents don't go into detail on the methodology of analysis that's left to the consultant that's doing it, yes, so that scoping documents states the parents back the findings of the planning word through. part three of the EAF and the resolution with the positive declaration, and then sets the objectives of the DPIS. What's the DPIS going to look at? What information is going to be pulled together in response to the planning board's positive declaration? Scoping documents typically don't have excruciating detail on each section of analysis. I don't know. Dave's got any observations on that that run counter to mine, but.

I guess the draft scope is gonna be what the draft scope is, what we compile. And I'm sure there'll be a lot of noodling by members of the board and by both Dave's, but I hear you. One thing that comes to mind, And I think I'm correct in this. We had indicated in either part three or in the OSDAC, it was probably part three, that we were using a number of 55 gallons per person per day. And in the scoping document you provided us with, you said, continue to say 35 gallons. So, you know, that kind of that level of detail is something that we're going to need to make sure you understand what we're looking for. Or, yeah, we can punt it to the draft or to the final. But that's a significant difference of opinion and probably goes to some of the public's comments of things that didn't seem to be adequately addressed in what you presented to us.

So in the scoping document, we acknowledged that the Apple Camp would undertake a hydro study. And that's in simplest form, that's intended to demonstrate what the existing wells are capable of yielding. We wrote that hydro study around conducting pump tests with the installed pumps, as opposed to pulling the pumps and having to put in have a driller come and put in perhaps higher capacity pumps. So we were going to do it around what the existing pumps have the capability of taping while monitoring water levels in the neighborhood. And based on the yield, whether it's 35 gallons per person per day, 55 gallons per person per day, 70 gallons per person per day, it's going to be related to what the wells can safely yield. Similarly, we're gonna be doing the same thing on the wastewater side. And more specific comments by your engineer, question, is it really known where all the wastewater on the property is currently going and whether the individual septic systems and leach fields can accommodate that flow? So again, whether it's 35, 55, whatever number, that condition is going to be analyzed. We know what the current speedy's permit limit is and we're going to have to relate our wastewater projection projections to those that permit limit. If the wastewater projections that we all agree upon exceed the limit of the speedy's permit, either the size of the project has to be reduced or the permit needs to be modified. That that's the essence says on flow. But it may not have every, you know, we haven't identified what flow rate each individual well is going to run at. And we did specify a duration for pump tests. The comment about whether it can be done in season or not. Well, these wells are in use, supplying water to the camp. So we can't do the pump test of the largest producing wells when that water is needed for the camp. It has to wait until after camp season. When the population is less, we can furnish alternative water maybe by a tanker truck for a few days to do the pump test.

Well, those are the things that when you get the final draft from us, you'll be able to work out. I mean, to the fact of the speedies permit of 37,500, I think our engineer was more concerned with that number. but also concerned with the individual septic systems that are all over the property as to what the capacity of each of those individual ones were. So you may have enough total capacity but you don't have it where you need it. So we're going to ask you to show us, prove us that. But you know we're getting into, we're getting into drafting the document that we haven't even gotten all the comments from the public necessarily.

Oh, and I would like to get away from, I think the purpose of the pump test, et cetera, is to demonstrate the impacts to neighboring wells. And until we really know what's going, going on there from a hydro geologic point of view, I don't think we should be having a conversation on 55 gallons per day or 35 gallons per day. Is it a camp? Is it a resort? If it's a resort, then what was originally included on the speedies permit at 110 gallons per day per person, does that apply? So I think before we start looking at these numbers, I think we need to know, we need to see what the capacity of your system is.

That's what the scoping document says.

But I'm just speaking in general here because I'm hearing people go, well, 35 gallons or this or that. I think we need to know, and I think pump tests should be in accordance with proven standards, the DEC methodology for pump tests. I don't know if yours is in there. I read your scope a while ago. I will be providing written comments.

Dave?

It's pretty straightforward.

A couple of questions, the applicant, is that right? Yeah. I'm confused about what the use is now. The original application references a resort, but since Sterling came on, documents have all dropped that and reference only camp. So it's going to be hard to do the scope if we don't look at the proposal list. Is it a year-round use or a summer use?

Some uses. the winter use will be significantly less than the summer use. There won't be anything like 700.

So there's two uses to the property. So we're going to get the project description. So it's a resort and a summer camp.

Yes.

Is it a religious resort?

It's a year-round resort. I don't know if it was. I don't know, gentlemen. I asked this question at another meeting and I was told it is a resort and it's a full-time resort.

i'm just i don't know i don't know i'm just noting the project description and the drafts calls it only a camp and it's it needs to encompass what the activity is so i think we heard the applicant say it's a resort and a camp so okay is it a religious facility because that's an additional yes it is a religious facility so that's not a use we've dealt with officially

You have places of worship as a permitted use. There's the whole Arlupa question. Is that what we're after here? No, I'm just... You're not proposing a place of worship. What are we doing? I mean, I don't understand what we're doing. We're trying to figure out what the uses are that the applicant's proposing. Why? Because their documentation is different from item to item. Well... Their actual application proposes it was only in camp. The scope as drafted calls it only a camp.

Okay, but I mean, first of all, the question of use, and we've been through this, and I was going to say it, but it's generally a question for the building inspector. If the question is whether the use is appropriate for the site, that's for the building inspector. If the question is what number are we going to put on their water use as a result of the pipe facility, that's something we should, you know, take a look at what the questions are and try to figure that. That's going to be a very important fundamental And maybe a difficult question. I don't think we can get to that right now. I don't think we have enough.

Oh, I'm not trying to, I'm just trying to get the applicant to say what they're proposing.

We'll put that, those comments will be in the written scope.

Is that what we're doing, Dave? Is that what we're trying to figure out the gallons per day based on the use? No, I'm, You're leaping forward.

But then tell me, what are we trying to do with it? The literal application submitted to the board requests two permitted uses, a resort and a day camp. The draft scope only addresses a day camp.

Not a day camp.

Only something else. I'm using the terms in the code. So we're trying to straight out the paperwork? A resort is a year-round facility.

It's got different standards that are required to approve of this. What would be the, in terms of the, in terms of the seeker scoping, Doug? You got, now you have year-round activity. What would be the upshot of different answers? A resort would be year-round.

Well, how would that change our scope? How would it change the scope? Seasonal variation of traffic, visual impacts are different because of leaf on, leaf off. You want me to keep going?

Okay, okay. You're telling us it's a year round resort. And an overnight camp.

Oh, and I can't turn a summer and it's going to be used as a resort in the office.

Right. So it's year round with an ancillary use for an overnight camp and whatever months. Dave Kuntz, July August three months i'm not sure.

Hal Hallstein, Second question is maybe not a question we're going to have to pin down what the existing conditions are. Hal Hallstein, We don't. Hal Hallstein, The whole point of environmental review is to compare what's proposed against what's existing what could have. Hal Hallstein, We have still struggled with what's the baseline.

Dave Kuntz, I agree with you.

I don't, and I still don't know if we've agreed on what that is.

I have a suggestion on how we can get to that. Because I think that the existing condition could be different depending on what we're analyzing when we actually get to the unique status of it. So one of the things I'm asking for is a section on background and history that they add in that articulates all of the changes that have been made to the site since they purchased it. Okay. And that would help us with dates and understanding exactly what has happened since the purchase because I know we have some idea of what's happened, but we really don't know what the site changes.

I want to make an observation to the board on this. That issue, what the baseline is, has been the issue that they've been raising the entire time because they're claiming the baseline is equal to what the proposal is in their consistent position. I would suggest, that's what they've been saying. And then we're going to get to that argument. I would suggest for purposes of the environmental review that we compare the use, whether it's considered the baseline or the proposal, whatever, the use to the existing speedies, the existing septic system, and also the use as it's proposed to the carrying capacity of the aquifer. Because otherwise we're gonna get into an argument over when they increase the number of people, perhaps without having any permits, but they're gonna claim that that's still gonna be part of the baseline. I think it's more important to determine what they're proposing to do against whether the septic system can handle that discharge. Regardless of when they ramped up to the number of people.

We have, and it's submitted in Lauren's letter and submitted in our files. We do have what the information that was provided by Barry Menenbach, PE on the outfalls and the amount of people, verb room, et cetera. We have that from 2012. And that is what the DEC Wasteful speedies permit is based on, so I think you can use that as a baseline.

But, but to my point, the reason I'm, I would like a section that articulates all of the changes made to the site is one of the things that's not mentioned in the skills. I don't think unless I missed it was stormwater because they do need to do a swap. And so the stormwater, I don't know if that existing condition is going to be what you're talking about. You know what I mean? Because it's a totally different area. technical areas, sometimes your baseline is different for the issues that you're analyzing, they can change. I don't want to get into it. The point is, I was thinking if there was a section, particularly the history and background site, that that would help us understand where changes have made and how it could apply to analysis. To a certain extent, some of what we have to analyze has already happened. So we need to understand what changes have been made so we can try and figure out what the existing position was. You know what I mean? I do. So it's complicated. This is complicated. Work our way backwards.

All the more reason to get to it on the 13th and primarily to talk about these matters. Any more information from the public and whatever the board has, you've sent me some comments.

I'll put it in the comment tracking log.

Anybody else from the board who has some concerns as to what we want to ask them in the final scoping document? So we can put together a final scoping that we all can agree with.

Do you want me to go through briefly my comments?

I'm sorry?

Do you want me to share my comments?

No, not now.

I have one question. Given the scope of the work here, would it be helpful for the board to begin working on morphing the draft scope into the final scope before we find you finish hitting from the public, then we still hit from the public. Yes. Yes.

Start taking, incorporating now.

Yeah. And we can talk about how we're going to do that, but there's a lot of work to do here. And we've got to make sure we're all on the same page. I think that's important. Okay, I started asking the applicant if he had any comments, and we kind of got distracted, and then your lawyer was beginning to have a gasp a few times.

You can gasp again.

So does the applicant have anything to say? If not, we're going to move on to the next project for the night.

Just very briefly with respect to the use, it was certainly for the EIS to examine the camp use and the off-season use. Of course, both would be analyzed. That's certainly the intent. And then, you know, our goal with the scoping document was to identify all of the issues that were raised by the NEDEC or the POSDEC. sorry, and then go through all of those, identify the broad issues that require further analysis. So, yeah.

Okay. Anything else, Jeff? All right. Mr. Elspon, anything else? No, I think we're good. Okay, good. All right, so hopefully we'll talk in the meantime. We have a lot to work, a lot to take on. All right, we're going to take a break. And we'll come back. So the raft of MCRT for the night is over. And we're going to move on to Verizon.

Everyone's going in different directions. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you very much. . . . . . . . As I said, it's a good experience. I mean, you know, it's true. I don't know why it's happening. It's a good experience. It's a good experience.

That's a good question.

Yeah, that's a great one. I'm telling you, I'm telling you, I'm telling you, I'm telling you.

. . . .

Oh, why is that? I don't know. Thank you.

I don't have the content, I don't see it. No, I believe that.

Intensity, and that's where- I read the online, actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where we have on the file some- Well, that's- Because- No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I would like to continue with Verizon.

We're going to get started with Verizon in five to 10 minutes.

I don't usually do that. Is that okay? Right, I know.

And some girls. Just all the rails. Where can I go.

The real thrill, I saw.

Yeah, I mean. Yeah, I mean.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I read there a lot.

Yeah, yeah. No, I just wrote on that one.

It's just the semantics. I have one of those crazy shirts on it said soccer teams had a picture of soccer teams on it saying something white.

It's like, oh, you run by. And I was like, OK. I know it's a story.

So I know it's somewhere.

by the time we're in the lab it's like now i know i know that i'm like okay There's a picture of it. Yeah.

But it's out of context, and I'm walking the dog.

Now I know.

Well,

I don't think so. OK.

All right. Let me have a second. Okay.

You guys ready? Hello, Scott. How are you? I'm good. How are you?

Okay.

So just an update on Verizon where we're at. We closed the public hearing at our last meeting, which was the meeting of June 8th. We did extend the commentary period, written commentary period to this past Monday, which would have been June 22nd. And we did receive additional comments. So now we're at the point of going through the comments that we received either on the 8th or before, as well as the written comments that we may have received between the 8th and the 22nd. And I think the issue to deal with tonight is whether or not we need to make any changes to the CMD. And so I asked Dave Church, the part three in the C&D and perhaps even the part two. So I asked Dave Church to put together a memo and give us some advice as to what we need to change, if anything, in the C&D part two and part three. And so Dave did that. And He suggested a number of things. So let me go one by one and then we'll come back and deal with them. The first thing that he suggested is that, and this is a no order of priority necessarily. He suggested first that for our attention that the DEC has changed the part to include items 19 and 20. And items 19 and 20, 19 has to do with environmental justice. And number 20 has to do with, or actually says impact on disadvantaged communities. And number 20 has to do with future physical climate risks. So that was one item that Dave became aware of that the DEC changed and raised the question of whether or not we need to have the applicant deal with that and whether this board has to deal with that. So that was one item that I want to deal with tonight. The next item that we addressed is some comments from the public that we might need to change our answers. Dave, correctly, we're going off track. We'll change our answers on the part two, number one, and part two, number 11. Number one has to do with impact on land. And number 11 has to do with impact on open space and recreation. And it was Dave's recommendation that we should in fact go back and redo those parts and add some additional commentary. He indicated in his memo of the 26th that it wasn't significant, but that they did need to change. And then the last thing that he addressed was on the zoning issue. And he pointed out that the public has made the comment that the extra use on this property may in fact violate some of our zoning code. And I'm really summarizing here. When I went back and Dave went back to take a look at what our zoning code said about the use of this particular property, we consulted section 140-8 and also 140-26. And either one or both of these sections have been dealt with before, mentioned before by the public. So in 140-8, summarizing, suggested that multiple uses are permitted on this property. However, those multiple uses are allowed under a special use permit, given that the Watt development standards have already been met. And then we went and researched Section 140-26, which dealt with open space and recreation and specific to multifamily apartment buildings or multifamily units. And not to our surprise, but to our chagrin maybe, it was very clear, 140-26, Section L, one through five, it was very clear that This particular site requires the identification of open space in addition to whatever your two apartments, where the open space is, and also made clear that that open space, that 50% of that open space had to be delineated as recreation space. So those were the issues that Dave raised in the context of his memo from the 26th of June. I want to go through each one of them. Dave, did I catch the issues that you raised adequately?

Yes. I also elaborated on the environmental justice question.

Okay.

Not just the, you got to fill out a form, but how do you analyze it in the guidance from New York State DEC?

So why don't we go through... Let's skip the form issue for now. We'll come back to that. Let's deal with the environmental justice issue, which was raised by one of the applicant, one of the public, members of the public back on the eighth or before that. Would you inform the board what your view is towards that?

All right, so it's a part of the, it's officially part of the CEQA regulations as of June 12th, whatever that is, weeks ago. There is some, I found in the record some reference to the effective date of that. There could be some debate about whether this applies to an action that already has either a positive or a negative declaration. But so environmental justice is valid. Strictly speaking, the DEC guidance expects to do an analysis to have two things. First, you look at a map set. There's actually, I looked at two different map sets. They've now compacted these into a online assessment tool that went live this early this month, which I used, uses US census geography. So for better or worse, it's about census blocks and tracks. If folks haven't dealt with those, they make no sense. they're just a means by which the federal government aggregates the people, similar or equal numbers of people in same geographies. And then if you're in, if the action is in or is going to affect a disadvantaged community, there's the question of whether there's pollutants involved is defined by another section of environmental conservation law and will that disproportionately impact the disadvantaged community? So the map sets and the online tool, there's no environmental justice, there's no disadvantaged communities, I should say, in the town of Rochester. There are some in the town of Worsing right next door, but based on the criteria they use, there aren't any. There is a outlier set of maps that the DEC has published called potential disadvantaged communities, which seem to relate to the climate work that was done under the governor's direction to try to get at this in a different context. And just north of the subject area is a potential area, but it's not an area that the DEC says triggers the need for this analysis, technically speaking. The second is, are there pollutants involved as listed in the environmental conservation law? The public brought up loosely speaking, three pollutants potentially. Radio frequency emissions, which I will defer the conversation to others. The introduction of microplastics into the environment and the potential use of pesticides and herbicides to maintain the property. What pesticide and herbicide, the presumption is if they were to use them, it would be legal. They have to be applied. I don't see any of those in the list of pollutants that are referred to in the cross-reference of the Environmental Conservation Law. So the two-part test There's no environmental justice impacts from this proposal, in my estimation. However, I've recommended two things you consider, putting aside the radio frequency omission question, essentially preempted. As a health matter, you've already talked about the possibility of the final approval prohibit the use of herbicide and pesticide to maintain the property. You could consider that as a mitigation step if that's worthy. The second issue is this monopine which was first brought up to my knowledge in the response from Palisades Interstate Park Commission, where they said, look at this as an option, right? Monopine's been some people's testimony is you're throwing up a bunch of plastic fake branches on top of an existing tower don't bother um so they've proposed i'm just stating what the comments are the comments are it's the introduction of plastic into the environment in a situation where it's already documented that microplastics are basically everywhere they're if you don't know they're in your blood They're in your water. They're in the soil. And do you want to consider the pros and cons of the monopine versus that's the only potential pollutants I could identify from the commentary, noting none of these are in the list that the DEC referenced. environmental conservation law.

So Dave, on environmental justice and on this issue of climate pollutants, on environmental justice, this area is not in that one of those maps. No significant impact. There's nothing to do there. And on the pollutants, we dealt with herbicides and pesticides.

Well, you proposed, you discussed it in the past.

And we put some, did we put something into the CMD prohibiting the use of herbicides and pesticides? Good question. I don't think, check that.

So we're going to start specifying you're going to use an electric weed whacker instead? Is that a pesticide? No, but if they're not going to use herbicides or pesticides, how are they going to maintain the size?

It's for the board to decide whether you want to put it in there or not. I leave it to you. And on the RF, we can't consider it. And on the microplastics, my attitude is the advantage of having this thing shielded, as we have talked on Noisium about, outweighs, I think, the potential for any microplastic.

And I also would like to add that in our code, it does mention, I can't, I think it's 140, somewhere, 140-29, it does mention that we, that the tower could be screened Okay, so this is- So if we take that away, then it could be said that we're not screening the facility as per town code.

All right, so I think on these two issues.

So on environmental justice, and if you want to, there is a new item 19 on the environmental assessment form part two on impacts to disadvantaged communities, which- I could argue you can check now.

OK. And on number 20, which is this one on ?

So 20 gets more complicated, aggravated by the lack of documentation or, in one case, how to interpret the CEO's zoning determination from nearly two years ago.

Wait a minute. No, 20 is the future physical climate risk.

Oh, yes.

That's also a no.

Yes. Yes, it's a no.

I promise. So do we need to modify on three?

Well, the discussion we've had is you want to go through the exercise and just do it to complete the record. With the open question, it's not clear to me it's applicable to this applicant. Because of the status of the application, they already have a determination.

Have we deemed this application as complete?

HAB-Juliette Boone, sorry.

HAB-Juliette Boone, This application is complete, I think we have and.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, For the second. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Public hearing and your code without a complete application.

HAB-Juliette Boone, Right, so, then, if we've said it's complete, then we've been legally haven't we accepted the EF and we can't go back and chain and update it with a new we have.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, No. Look, Seeker is about taking a hard look, looking at the potential impacts that we've uncovered, that the applicants uncovered, that the public's uncovered. We do that. I'm old school. I don't care that much about the forms are to help us. They're not shackles for us. At the end of the day, we've got to write up. our evaluation of these issues in a way that shows that we've taken a hard look. That is done in the part three. It's done in the resolution for the CND. It's done in a bunch of different places. The forms and the changes in the forms, again, there's nothing wrong with them and there's nothing wrong with deciding what to do, but we shouldn't overanalyze what to do about the forms. The fundamental question is the public has raised a perspective EJ issue. Is it a thing? Is it not a thing? And should we, is it so little a thing that we could just ignore it, which is what the present conversation was about, or as we were discussing earlier, should we take the issue and write up our response, which is generally, I believe, going to be that it doesn't impact EJ for some of the reasons they've said. So we have process issues here. Are we going to change our documents in light of certain issues that have been raised by the public and also that may have been raised by changes in the law? Then we can go back and decide what to do about the format. But the idea that we can't go back and change a form when we think it's wrong is just not right.

I have a question for you, Mr. Gordon. I'm concerned about precedent.

About precedent?

Yeah. So my understanding was once we have the resolution, that's kind of the date when the decision has been made at this level. When a law comes into effect later on, do we need to consider it or not? What is from a legal perspective? That's a serious concern because it would affect our future decisions.

I am ambiguous in my own mind. If we were to ratify the CND tonight, I am not clear in my own mind as to what the effective date of it is, whether it was the original or now. So just, I'll let you know that. And if Scott has an opinion or other, I'm willing to listen. I don't know. And I don't, I'm not that worried about it. The people who should be worried about it, the people that might want to sue over it because it relates to the statute of limitations. But to get to your question, if we come up with an initial CND, we'll just call it that, that we set the public hearing on. And then DEC says, By the way, I want to say one thing about DDC's regulation that went into effect on June 12th. It was based on legislation that the legislature passed in 2002 and 2003. So the idea that EJ is something that's just sort of come out of the clouds in the first two weeks of June is just incorrect. Something that... any age, if there was a significant EJ issue, if we knew that a particular project was impacting a disadvantaged community, we should be on top of it, regardless of when DEC's regulation is effective. So to finalize the answer to your question, if we've done a draft at one point, we get, we hold a public hearing on it, which is what we're supposed to have a public comment. The public tells us something. It says, oh, we now know this. We don't say, oh, we're not going to do it because DEC just wrote the regulations became effective. The point is to take a hard look. And, you know, at the end of the day, you know, this looks, you know, this looks important. It's current now. In a year, if we were before a judge trying to explain what we did to explain to them that we're not going to look at this because DEC's regulation was actually a few weeks after we did our initial. That's not a position. In other words, if we know something, we should deal with it under secret. We're going to get in a lot less trouble dealing with it than ignoring it based on some presumed technicality. And I don't even buy the technicality here because the legislation was in place three or four years ago that said we look at things like this. And even without it, it's an EJ community, but the point is if the critical issue for that community I mean, Dave's right that the regulation says pollution, but actually the most important secret issue that could be seen as impacting that farm building is the loss of recreational amenities due to what we've not presented.

We're not there yet, so let's deal with it. I've always felt that at some point in time an applicant has some rights, and the fact that the statute changed shouldn't cause the applicant to have to go back and redo stuff. Having said that, I don't see any harm in going back and redoing the part two and three for this question 19 and 20. Particularly since the impact is Nothing. So why quibble about it?

That's right. We should write up our response to the public's concern.

The applicant might want to fight that act or object to that, but it just seems that there's no negative impact to going ahead and doing it, just making the change. You've indicated that, one, this particular parcel doesn't sit in a... This is a disadvantage. Thank you. Disadvantage community area. And number two, we just dealt with the pollutant issue, number 20. We just dealt with that by saying the RF, we can't deal with herbicides and pesticides. We can always add to our conditional negative debt if the board wishes to add that to it. And as far as microplastics, The benefit of having a tower made of plastic with plastic shielding or elastic leaves and branches far outweighs in my mind the issue with the microplastics. So I agree with you that I think if we just go through and we break through the number 19 and 20 and I can hand out the form to everybody that we just dispense with this particular issue. That's a good suggestion. Let me finish with him. Is it different from what I'm going to say? Do you know what I'm going to say? Go ahead. So I would suggest we go through this. Thank you. Just answer the question and make it part of the record and then modify our part three in the CND.

Well, that's why I was going with it. The board may be aware that David and I have They've drafted modifications to the part three. I've marked them up as well. And so that would be the explanation of, that would be where we explain what our thoughts are on it. The forms, yeah, we can go through and that's fine. We can check this box or that box. But the part three where we explain our thinking is probably the most, the more impactful thought. So is this, do we front it? It's showing that.

Yes.

Do you want to do,

James 1 and 11 while you're at?

Yes, go ahead and tell us about James 1 and 11.

Oh, okay. So the other, through comment, the other public comment also raised issues related to item one, which is impact on land. And item 11, impact open space and recreation, which I researched further. Accepting the method that you answer the yes, no question first, and then you answer the other little questions, which is completely flipped from where I was tutored, but it usually need more detailed information to answer the broad, larger question. But nonetheless, using that methodology, which you used with the other questions, I think you do have to answer impact on land gas. Because what? Because the soil type has water less than three feet below surface. Okay. So that, I think it still could be checked low because of the limited size of the building envelope and limited amount of subsurface John Gerstle, Disturbance for the structure, well, the bit knows the baby to sell power and not a basement correct correct. John Gerstle, And then there's item 11 which is impact open space and recreation, which I believe. John Gerstle, needs to be answered, yes. John Gerstle, and There's, based on what I know, the questions could be answered low, no or low impact, unless we were to learn that there's a documented file that upon approval of the apartment complex, there was a required set aside for open space and recreation, which at this point is in the code. There's some mixed research about when If I give you the chronology here it's based on what I can find relatively quickly that you'd be the Ulster county parcel viewer says the buildings, the apartment buildings were built in 1985 okay the code. The bulk of your current zoning codes, according to the clerk, does go back to the 60s, but the essence of the current code is 1983. I want to make a point. But I don't know the provision I can elaborate on. I have no documented evidence about when that provision was adopted.

I want to make a point. And we've discussed this a lot, and maybe it's hard to internalize and apply it. we do not do code enforcement. It's a conversation we've had with a number of folks that are here. It's a conversation we've had in other contexts. What we do, so the details of whether it's non-conforming use or other things, that is not for us. That is for another department of the town. And in fact, the application is before the ZBA and people who are concerned about the actual restrictions of the code can go talk to that element of the town. We're doing seeker. And what I said at the last meeting is that the loss, the prospective loss of recreational resources, if that be the case, is a seeker issue. And so is, for that matter, is a prospective loss of open space. And what I've also told the group is that from time to time, we use as a measure of seeker impacts an existing code. Doesn't mean we're enforcing the code. We don't write stormwater permits. That's the EDC. And we don't, you know, But we can use those regulations to inform us as to whether a project is going to have a significant impact. We do that all the time, actually. We do it with stormwater all the time. And so here, my suggestion is we're marking up a CND. It's a secret document. It's a secret issue. And we can use the code as we see fit. to measure whether there is an impact under seeker and then deal with that as in terms of our hard look, but we are not enforcing the code. And therefore the exact time when the code came into being, whether it was before or after the set of site plan approval is actually, that's the sort of stuff that the building inspector would dive into if there was an enforcement. What we need to figure out is whether The construction of this facility is going to take out potentially recreational space and also open space as the code calls for. The code has a certain design that it wants us to think about. And is that being impacted here? And if it is, how should we study it? What should we do about it? So I just want to lay that out so we don't necessarily worry about all these particular code enforcement details, but we look at the theme, the resource that the code is trying to protect. That's what we want to do, and you may or may not.

But essentially, let me point out to you, I agree with you. I have to say that I agree with you so we can get to my next point, which is... I said over and over again, as I think the church has, we do interpret zoning here. Now, maybe I'm using the wrong word, but so whether you call it CEQA or you call it site plan, in effect, the zoning code 140-26, if we go ahead and say yes or moderate to the CEQA number 11, if we say yes, we are in effect saying that the code 140-26 has not been appropriately applied or appropriately taken care of.

I will push back on that. What we're saying is that there was an impact, there was a potential impact.

Yes, and we have to solve the impact.

Fair enough.

And the solution of the impact is part of either the CND or we let it slide to the site plan and we put them in a condition or do both.

Well, we just say it's not an impact.

And so let's talk about the solution. That's right.

Well, I may for clarification. The reason why I got the research was because in a perfect world we'd be able to go back to a file that the apartment complex was approved and there was a condition in there or a lack of condition that said there's open space and recreation and here it is on the map and then i could put the tower site on the map and see if it's in the open space or recreation area or not we have none of them you might have some information that's helpful but um

I was, we were asked to contact the property owner. I did not do that personally. I don't have a relationship with that person, but someone on behalf of Verizon did that. And I don't know his experience. I don't know when he acquired his property, but he basically said, That provision 226L, one through five, basically came into being in 2014 when that code was adopted. It's not true. He says it's, he said it was never required back in 1985 when it was built. The property owner. That's all I can tell you.

That's not true.

Okay. Well, it. With all the respect, though, too, I agree with Dave. This really is an enforcement issue. This is not for the claim. Well, it's a stigma issue, though. What? It's a stigma issue. I agree with what you said. And I think the board had to say, okay, we'll take it away, you know, 0.15 acres of 20 acres of space. Will that impact the open space? And the answer is no. I gave some numbers to Dave Church about how it's insignificant. So that issue is a secret issue. I agree. We believe it's completely insignificant.

All I'm going to ask is, can you speak to the property owner and in good faith, if we're asking for, you know, the site is 50 by 50, can the property owner put aside an area for the residents as an open space playground?

And the request was made. Okay.

It hadn't gotten to that part.

No, no. The request was made. Always ask. I said we were asking, and in good faith we asked. Okay.

What did he say? He said no. Okay, so I've kept good track. That's not our problem. No, I know it's not. Hang on. Hang on. I kept real good track of what was put in place in 2014, what was not.

Okay.

All right. I actually have the red line version of what was done back in 2014. I saved that. Okay. Versus whatever else we've been using since then. It's not, that section of the code is not red lined, which means it wasn't done in 14. It was done way before that. And a little bit of research that Dave and Stacey has done would suggest it was back in 2014. 83. There was a code in 83.

They don't have access to it.

All due respect to the landlord, he's wrong. It wasn't done in 14. Okay, period. Just the message. So you can tell him that because I have the original redlined version of the 2014. It's not redlined. Second thing. And I'm not going to, we have all night, you can talk, but I just, the issue of, the issue, he doesn't want to do it. As Jennifer said, it's not a problem. If we decide to put something into the C&D that says, look, The code says you've got to do this. In order to have this multiple use, you have to be in compliance with all the existing zoning. He's not. Seeker looks at the entire site, not just the action here, but the entire site. So the entire site is out of compliance with the code, 140-26.

Not according to the building department, though.

You didn't talk to the building department.

You have a determination. And it says, and the planning board, you could have appealed to the ZBA. That's unusual, but it's allowed. I know you never do it.

No, we don't need to do that to enforce an open space requirement in the CND.

If the CEO of the termination says the site's in compliance, you have to accept that. You can't, you don't have to, only the ZBA can overturn.

You're taking away open space if you want to mitigate that impact.

This is why I don't want to talk about compliance with the code. That's why I get into arguments like this about.

And I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying it's irrelevant.

Is it a question for the board? and respectfully for Scott, is it a seeker issue that they're going to be occupying 2,500 square feet of this thing plus based on the guidance that the code gives us as to what the town cares about? That's the question. If we think that there's an issue here, then we can take steps in the CND to, to, to require certain things. And you're right. It's not code enforcement, but it's essentially a condition on not doing a POS deck. That's, and it's all secret. So it's a condition on not doing a POS deck. And it may end up actually being a condition ultimately, if that's what we do in the site plan approval, that's what the condition on the POS deck says, but it's a secret issue. We need to decide whether they're taking away recreational and open space. And then I, if, to have an argument with the building inspector as to when they have a pre-existing non-conforming use, whether it goes back to the 80s or the 90s or whatever. They can have that, but this board should not waste its time with it.

What I would propose that we do in the context of the C&D is that we insist upon open space, identifying the open space outside of the apartments and the 2,500 of space for the tower. So we insist on identifying the open space. And of that open space, half of that has to be dedicated to recreation. And we define and we indicate that we want to see that recreation. The condition insists upon the recreation. And that's part of what Verizon will have to accomplish with the landlord in order to get the approval.

define your stage, to get the final site plan approval or to get a CO?

To get a CO. We could write it as part of the site plan. In order to get a CO, they have to have the appropriate amount of recreation space, as per the code. You have to go back to the code.

What does that mean, though?

Just space? No, an actual act of recreation, because the code talks about active recreation.

It does.

It also talks about money to be set aside in order to support that recreation space.

But payment in lieu of that recreation space was actually specifically not permitted.

It's not in lieu of.

Not in lieu of. There's a subsection that talks about grading. There's some detail about creating a mechanism to ensure there's improvements for the recreation space. So if you were to do an apartment complex today, half the property would have to be dedicated open space. And there's language about how that's defined and managed. And then half of the half has to be recreation area. And there's language in there about how that's to be improved and financed.

One section I thought said, if you have 50 units, I don't think we have 50 units there. You have to have a half an acre.

It's the definition of multifamily residential.

I'm just trying to figure out what are we talking about.

Can you pull up 14026? There's nothing in there about 50 that I remember.

It's 126L5. It says if you have a 50-unit apartment complex, you have to have a half an acre playground. So now my thinking is, are you going to try to impose that? But if you do, we don't have a 50-acre apartment. They don't have a 50-unit apartment complex there. So it applies. This is why it's an enforcement issue. It might be wrong. Because otherwise the planning board is going to be making up the rules for that.

Well, if we isolate, we're trying to isolate it to being a seeker issue for the Scotch, right? Right, Rick? Yeah. So as a seeker issue, reinforcing what everyone said, that this code compliance question is another day, perhaps. But as a seeker issue, is it no, low, or moderate impact? And how do you measure that when you don't know where the open space and recreation is up from? That's the dilemma that I have. Is the little tower site impacting it or not? How do you know?

I mean, there's two issues. One is there was some statement from the public that some of the kids played there, although one of the members of the board told them later on that they know people in the facility and that was not happening. So we have a factual issue as to whether it's an actual loss of recreational space that people are actually using. The second issue is the loss of 2,500 square feet on the property, right? It's going to go straight to this particular use and whether that impacts the ability of the property to provide recreational space at some point. I think I see that as boiling down to two secret issues. On the factual side, if we don't have any facts that kids are actually playing there, that one kind of filters away. And so we're left with the loss of 2,500 square feet.

Are we sure that 2,500 is the correct number?

No, it's not.

It's not the right number. It's 6,100. That's right. It's 10,000 square feet. No, it's 10,000 square feet. The least is for 100 feet by 100 feet. There have to be 20 feet roads, 20 foot roads. So we're talking about we have the number it's in the plans. It's 6,100 to the fact that it's 6,100 square feet. It's 6,100 square feet.

It's not 50.

Our disturbance includes 50 by 50. Yes, we leased more space. It's not short of the plans is being developed. It's a 50 by 50 with roads. And yes, we account for that. So not 2,500, around 6,000, 6,100. I gave those numbers.

Does that include any sort of buffering? And then you want to keep people away from the fence or stuff like that? No. That's not the purpose of your lease? No. Okay. So what happens when it turns out 6,100? We have to figure out whether that's... The question is that 6,100 square feet

which is 0.15 acres, does that really significantly impact, you know, a 25-acre site?

Right.

That's right. That's the question. That's the question. That's right. And our answer is resoundingly no. It would be absurd. I'm sorry, what? What about the wetlands? I...

So would you mind not participating? Because there is no time for the public to participate tonight. I would like to have a discussion with the applicant and not have an argument with you, specifically, or with you.

Again, so we've told you what the square footage was always identified on. 6,100. I may have that a little off. It's around 6,000, so give or take. Um, and I gave that information to the church, to the church. So it's seventh of an acre. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the question is, is there, you know, in your regs, 50% of the space has to be open space and then 50% of that has to be recreation space. So like you said, the question is, will the development of 0.15 acres take away enough open space and recreation space to be non-compliant.

Now, the answer would be different if we knew that the children were playing there, which was one of the claims that was made. But the board can decide whether we have enough evidence to make that sort of finding. I won't comment further. Otherwise, we're left with the loss of space within the context of the site. And the board can make whatever decision it wants on that.

So in my mind, in the absence of documentation, you've got a dilemma. However, given the scale and the specific answers in the EAF, it's no to low unless we can evidence, as Dave said, that the tower site is actually in a known open space or recreation area.

Again, there was one comment on that, but as I recall, but I don't, It wasn't backed up and when at least one board member told me that they didn't think that was true.

There was one comment that made that area was used by the kids.

It wasn't necessarily about the lease area. It was a comment of just somewhere someone may have put some playground equipment that they purchased on their own. No one said it was in the lease area.

So Dave, can you summarize where we're at with this?

Am I capable of it?

I know you're capable of it, but could you?

Please. I still think you need to answer item 11, yes. And you have... What's item 11? Open space, impact on open space and recreation. Okay. And there are, I think, three sub-questions that need to be answered, at least low. With a lack of documentation, it's hard to make a case that it would be moderate or a large impact. Noting when you want to talk about it, you've got this trigger issue about the multiple use question, which I think can be addressed in your final decision, not in Seeker.

So you're suggesting that be dealt with in the...

I don't know if you want to get into it or not. Well, you have... Let's see here.

We can cut them all down and make them real.

The total enforcement officers permit 24, 24 slash 736. So it's done in late. 2024, a note said that special use permit is required and that quote unquote applicant has met zoning requirements and no physical restrictions apply. Whatever that means. I pointed out to Rick when I first encountered that phrase, I was a bit baffled by it. However, 140-8B says says to have a multiple uses on a single lot which is a proposal of um it's is allowed provided all development standards are met and one of the development standards for multi-family the primary use on the property is open space and recreation set aside

Okay, so we know that there's no open space set aside. There's no recreation set aside. The question becomes, is what's the...

Does the CEO's determination make that moot? Right. Or not. Or not. And whether it does or not, you have to give a special permit for a second use of property. what does the 140-8B do for that? So if we have to give a... Can you, in essence, as part of the special use criteria, require that the open space and recreation area be defined?

Well, it seems that we can, in spite of what the CEO said a while ago, that all zoning requirements have been met. If we have to give a a permit or permission for a second use and 140-8 has not been complied with, we can't go forward with it. Because it hasn't been met.

It rapidly becomes a legal or a code enforcement.

Well, it hasn't been met. I mean, you could throw up the fact that the CEO said everything's been met, but clearly it's not been met. And so the CEO was incorrect. You can't just say, that has to be appealed. There are legal issues. We do not sit in a... Get us to a point. I know that. Get us to a point where we can either drop it or say to the applicant, you've got to come up with some recreation space. I know what you're going to say. We can't deal with zoning. Okay. We get to a point where the missing recreation that's been... that should have been there. And now that we're looking at this from a seeker point of view, I think we can insist that it be there. How do we get to that point?

Here's one suggestion, which is a modification of what you were going to suggest, which is that as we load in a new condition that requires the applicant to straighten this out with the CEO as a condition of getting a CO. That means that we're not making the decision. We're just identifying this problem And before you get a CEO, you go talk to the, this is, in other words, it is true legally that once the CEO says there's no further physical restrictions, that's basically it. But you can raise the issue again with them. You can say, we think you missed this. We could do it. The public can do it. The applicant can do it. You can go back to the CEO and say, take a second look at this. And so if we put in a condition that tells the applicant to straighten it out with the CEO, whatever condition should apply, whether it's grandfather or whatever, then that gets it off our desk. We don't make the decision, but we make them straighten out the zone.

So if just something, an observation that may circumvent this entire argument is that now when you look at the aerials, the project site is treed. It's not open grass area. And more so, there is open grass area surrounding the apartment buildings. It's obviously recreational area. So I would argue that if this is recreational area, there's plenty of other treed areas on the property. yeah yeah i mean yeah i mean we're not this project is not taking away a flat grassed area by by my right well it is but yeah no it's not i mean it's a treed area what we're talking about where the project is is as treason and if they If the argument is, yeah, well, that's tree recreational space, there's plenty of other tree recreational space on this property. So I, from my perspective, I don't see that we're taking away recreational space in this project.

I just would like to say I was, at the site. I don't know who else. I think you were at the site. We all walked the site. Does anybody have any recollections? It was scrub growth. It was not...

It was all scrub growth.

Yeah. So just saying what it was.

Except for immediately around the property, which was mowed mostly in the back. Right.

Even the development site.

Yeah. Where the proposed tower was supposed to be. It wasn't especially accessible. Well, yeah, it was pretty strong.

Facts are helpful to a seeker. We do observe the facts. That's useful.

You know, the core site is relatively new growth. It was obviously cut not that long ago. Right. It's not mature treats. Yeah. So to isolate this, we've got the seeker question. To me, it still makes sense to answer item 11. Yes, because there is the potential loss. It's not actual loss. The question is whether it may result in loss. And then there are three sub-questions, including the proposed action may result in a loss of current or future recreational resource. I think these can be answered no or small, unless there's... a surprise dump of documentation that shows in 1985, here's the site plan, and there was supposed to be a recreation area on that portion of the property, and it's not there. You're hypothesizing that.

I don't know if that's true.

Correct. Right. So otherwise, I think it's nowhere low impact.

Therefore, the implications, we don't have to discuss any further in the part three. Correct.

All right. Well, we took, if we took, you took the approach with the current part three, that if he answered yes, she had an explanation. Even if it's no or no or small? Correct. Okay. So Dave, the two Daves took a shot. Did they see that? You all see that?

The red line?

Yeah. If you accept that methodology and choose to answer HAB-Jacques Juilland, I know one impact on land is yes. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And I don't 11 impact on open space and recreation is yes. HAB-Jacques Juilland, We provided some possible language and then Ricky want to go. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Do the exercise of going through items new items 1920 right yes.

I think that's what you're advising, that we go through it and we acknowledge it and we just answer the material.

I will defer to Dave on how to handle the forms. Again, it's not the driver for me. The driver for me is whether we've identified respective adverse impacts and dealt with them.

Okay, so the way we do that is to handle the forms. One goes with the other. I'll go with this recommendation. All right. I do want to make the point. The applicant's not, by the way, the landlord's not giving me the straight story on when that code was implemented.

It is not our jurisdiction to figure out what happened.

I realize that. I can only report what he reported. I can only confirm that I don't have access to the 1983 code. I couldn't, so I can't confirm what was in exhibit at that time.

Yeah, the 1983 comes out of the notes and the e-code posting, where they track changes since 83, but they don't track anything before 83. So I leapt to the assumption that unless it's noted as a change subsequent to 83, there was an effect of 83. But the town clerk has acknowledged there was code well before that as well.

We'll get to these changes. Has it been the habit of, David, have you seen a planning board referring stuff to the CEO emphatically giving the information that gives him some armament to go to the landlord to insist that he comply with the zoning.

Well, his proposal is put it as a condition in the final decision. Is that correct? And the CND.

Okay. If it's an important secret issue.

And the settlement of that condition would be on the code enforcement officer. at a later date. Straighten it out with the applicant.

Yeah, one way or the other. The code enforcement officer agrees with the fact that it's grandfathered. That's his decision. That's the end of the issue. If the code enforcement officer says, oh, somebody made a mistake. We need to deal with this. That's... You know, that would be his determination of the zoning. It gets us out of the business of determining the zoning other than looking at it and saying, oh, there might have been a mistake here when the CEO said no other physical conditions. We just want to take a second look at it.