Planning Board - Regular Meeting

all right the uh july 27th meeting of the planning board of the town of russia was called for what

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. Thank you.

Chair Jones?

Here.

Member Cuthbert? Here. Member Duda? Here. Member Roberts?

Here.

Member Penske? Member Carvalho is here. Member Nelson is absent. Dave Gordon, Dave Church, myself, Ben Lehner, Chris Lafine, and Chris Meador.

Okay. So the first thing is the minutes. We're not going to do them tonight. There's still a few changes that have to be made to the minutes. So we'll let it lapse until the next meeting. The next meeting is October 10th. So that takes care of that. The 1st, I have the agenda has to do with Verizon. And this is just a, this is just an FYI that I wanted to bring to the board's attention. Verizon is not going to appear. There's no reason for them to be here. The, if you remember the last time that they appeared, which was two meetings ago, there was, um, we, we made some changes and the board approved changes to the part two, part three and the CND, most particularly the CND. We added, um, condition number 24, which had to do with the requirement for the applicant to go to the CEO at the time that they were seeking their certificate of occupancy in order to determine whether the CEO was going to hold them accountable for open space and recreation space. And so that was, we crafted some verbiage, Dave took care of that, and that is in the CMD. And that was passed by the board. We needed to put that up onto the ENB system, the Seeker ENB system. So that took place last Tuesday, last Wednesday. The publication of that will be this Wednesday, which is July 29th. The code is a wee bit flexible, but it's clear that we decided to allow any kind of public comments on the new C&D, which added this 24th item. And the statute, secret statute, provides for 30-day comment. So if it's published on the 29th, this Wednesday, that takes it to August 28th. which is a Saturday, which is a Friday. The meeting where we hope to begin the process of going through the decision, Dave and I are planning on having a draft decision to the board before the meeting on the 31st. But by having the CND commentary period end on that Friday, the 28th of August, we'll be fine with beginning to go through the decision. So I just wanted to alert you to those bits and pieces. Nothing to vote on. If anybody has any questions, let our attorney or Dave answer them. But it was important that I notify you and let you know that there was this 30-day commentary period. And the EMB, Dave, correct me if I'm wrong, but the EMB also mentions that there's a commentary period, correct?

Well, the EMB is a publication. You mean the DEC regulations?

No, no, the actual... No, the EMB won't.

When I went to post it last week, it wouldn't accept the posting because I didn't fill out one required field, which is the end date for the public comment period, because you previously didn't set one. So that's what Rick's talking about. We had to set a 30-day comment period, even though it was a modest revision to a document you already approved. Usually I'll defer to Dave about what we have to do.

I think, is everybody clear on that? All right. So that was the only thing that I wanted to mention about Verizon. And I mentioned to Scott Olson what was going on. And he chose not to be here just to discuss that. No questions? All right. Then we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. which is Patrick and Helen O'Donnell. It's an LLI. We discussed this at a previous meeting. And the decision is on, Stacey, did you make a copy and put it on the desk or is it in the agenda? It's in the agenda. And there's a map here of the O'Donnell LLI. If you remember, this is the one where they're collapsing three lots into one lot. It's on the agenda. I didn't put them out.

Yes, I'm sorry.

There's no printout. So I found the agenda.

I'll wait for you to get to the agenda. Still trying to save paper. So it's three lots into one, Clearview Drive. It had been part or is part of the Quiet Mountain Estates section number two. from 1987. So we have the decision in front of you. The map, I went over the map, it looks fine. The map elements, the notes are all there, particularly the note on the second page of the decision, note number one. So that's on the map already. So I'm just seeking a motion to approve the lot line.

Motion.

Second.

I second.

Jennifer and Hans. Anybody have any comments or questions? All in favor? Aye. Chair votes aye. So it's six ayes and one absence. So that takes care of that. Okay. Next on the item on the agenda is Grab Tough. Went quicker than we anticipated. So I'm going to go to you guys for a student.

Life is James Johnson, the engineer.

Yes.

Chris is coming, but I didn't think we would.

Did I say him?

Yes, that's right. He'll be here shortly. Because I believe a lot of it's going to, Yeah, what I wanted them to do is to go through the results of the meeting from last Monday that we had. So just to catch the board up, last Monday, myself, Jennifer, and Dave Church had a Zoom call with the students in front of you, as well as Chris Lapine and Chris Meeder, the fire expert guy. And I guess we spent an hour and a half, two hours going through the comments that LaBella had on the project. And I think we made progress. There's still some open items. One of the open items that needs to be addressed had to do with zoning. Our engineer picked up on the fact that the zoning requirements require that the power cube that's up in the corner of the map, if you remember, You've got the central Hudson generator, and then there's a power cube that first Duke was going to put on place, which helps to regulate, I guess, the voltage in order to distribute that to the 20 EV stations. Portion of our code states that structures such as that cannot be located within the front setback, nor can it be in front of the primary structure. So this cube is considered to be an accessory structure. So, the combination of it being in front of the primary structure, which is the repair bill maintenance building on the site as well as, I believe the approaching on the line in a fashion that totally approve. Met that they had to do 1 of. 3, possibly 3 things. which actually at some point I'm going to let one of the Dave's explain, but essentially it boils down to either move the cube so that it's in compliance, go to the CEO and petition him as to whether or not a variance is necessary. Sorry. That's the second option. But the third option is to go to the CBA for variance. So that's going to be up to the applicant what they do. But I think what I'd like is for Dave or Dave, maybe Dave, just Dave, to explain what the code says and what the applicant's options are.

Oh, I feel for the data on the code says he looked at it much more carefully. Bottom line is it's not complying and so the good news before I get to anything else is that we look very carefully at the letter the EPA sent you. And we believe that nothing that we're going to say here is going to jeopardize what EPA has asked us to do. So having said that, and they can get more into why it's non-compliant, but basically it's in the setback. So it comes down to that. Last question. Not last month, but last meeting, I suggested that you may want to put it in a different place that was compliant. And you had responded that that would involve the loss of two parking spaces. And I also said that you might want to consider just doing that, applying, getting the site plan approval in a compliant manner. And then if you want those two parking spaces back at that point, you can apply for amended site plan approval and go get your variance. And you decided that was too uncertain for you. I would advise maybe putting that back on the table. I also observed, and this is incorrect, that doing that would essentially take too long. And the reason why, the good news here is the reason why it won't take too long is that I would suggest to the board that we take a tack that allows us to complete our process even if the variance has not yet been granted. I think the variance will be something that you guys will be able to get. I can explain that either here or perhaps offline, depending on the level of discussion goes into. But for the board, what I'm suggesting that we do in this case, because of the way the EPA letter was written, is that we angle our process board's granting a conditional approval. Now, site plan approvals are conditional anyway. You've got to do X, Y, and Z. You've got to come in with a landscaping plan or this or that. In this case, and we don't usually do this, but, you know, whatever, one of the conditions will be to get the zoning straightened out. And as the chair suggested, there's a couple of different ways to do that. Originally, you thought that because this was a temporary structure, maybe it didn't apply. The person who makes that decision is the code enforcement officer. And so short messages, and this will be part of the conditions, and you can do this at any time. If you can get him to agree to that, you're done. That's it. You convince him that because it's temporary, even though it's probably going to be a number of years that it's gonna be in this position. I don't happen to think so, but it's also frankly, jurisdictionally, it's not our call. It's the building inspector's call. So if you wanna go convince him of that, whatever presentation you think is necessary, there's no hearing on that, just set a meeting, write a letter, whatever you need to do, that would be one of the problems of the condition. Secondly, assuming that the CEO doesn't see it that way, then the answer is to apply for an area variance. What we're presenting to you, unlike my first thought last couple of weeks ago, is that we can proceed in parallel with the ZBA. Usually we won't do that. We won't give an approval. We won't give an approval until the ZBA grants its variances. We typically don't grant an approval conditionally on the zoning. But that's what I'm saying is we can do that here. We can basically take this off the table for our purposes because it's not our call anyway. It's the CEOs and the CBAs. And we can get you to site plan approval with no loss of time because it will be conditional. And what I can do is either here a little bit, I believe you will be able to get a variance in this situation. I can talk to you offline a little bit what I see here and how. I don't want to go too much into strategy, but there's just a couple of different ways you can do it. The short message is get on it, depending on how EPA feels about another proceeding before the ZBA, it can happen pretty quickly. And you'll be able to satisfy whatever the issues are here with LaBella and the other technical issues. That's going to be on its own track. And if you can get those solved, then the issues on the other side would be with the ZBA. I think you can move quickly on that, but there'll be certain things that I would... suggest we do. And we can talk about those. So that's basically it. If you need more explanation, that's exactly technically why it's a violation. Dave was all about the code. But this should not hold you up here as long as the board is willing to go along with the conditional approval.

So to summarize, you have two avenues that involve other people, either the CEO or the CBA. Or if you were to decide amongst yourselves to move it, whatever implications that may have, then you don't have anybody else to go to to move it, to make you in compliance with what the zoning code says. That all is here, and you wouldn't have to worry about us making a decision conditional on either getting the CEO to do his thing or the CBA to do it.

And first of all, I don't think the board would have any prejudice against if you did that, did what you needed to do, get approval, go to EPA, get the grant. And then if you want to come back in a few months and, you know, reconfigure your site grant approval, you know, for an amended approval. And at that point, you can go to the ZBA and whatever, anything you want to. So the timeline for the ZBA? Well, again, it... Like this board, typically ZBA, and I don't work with them, so I can't speak for certain, but it would be a two-meeting process where you'd go in, get your application in, go in, present to the ZBA, they'd set a public hearing, and then at the next meeting at the public hearing, they'd hear from the public if the public had any comments, and then if things work out. In some of the other towns I work in, you can get out at that point. So it would be pretty straightforward. It would take basically two meetings of the ZBA, and you can be out in a month. I assume, again, looking at the EPA letter, the EPA letter wanted you to get a path through this process. This does that. Alternatively, the EPA letter wanted you to explain how, if it didn't, how you were going to, you know, do your homework here. I think that the same, I think that getting through here and then just having the side process, I think it doesn't look, I didn't see anything related that was hostile to that. That was my impression.

The only additional comments to what Dave said was the ZBA has been in the past one or two items a quarter maybe on their agenda. The next agenda has five items on it. I don't know what the next agenda after that. They meet once a month.

They meet once a month.

So they've had more and more items on the agenda. Now, in addition to the meetings, the findings have to be written up by the CBO's attorney. So you may only have two meetings, question mark. but then there's a process where the CBA's attorney has to do findings of law, essentially, I think it would be.

The answer to five questions is part of their decision.

Okay.

But the board members don't know the answers.

I mean, if you wanted my opinion, what I would do if I was in your shoes, I'll give it to you, but

But you're also assuming that they'll grant the variance.

Say what? You're also assuming that they will grant the variance.

Well, there are two avenues to get that variance. I mean, I'll just go into the basics here and talk more about strategy. New York State has a relaxed standard for variances for utilities. I don't know if you would qualify for utility under that standard. standard, you may well, or you might not. I would look into that pretty carefully because once you're a utility looking for a variance, you'll get it. I mean, it's a very relaxed standard at that point. But your private, you know, I'm not sure if you qualify for a public utility. The second way is just the typical way somebody would apply for a variance to put something in a setback. There are factors, there are criteria in New York State Town Law, as well as in our code, sometimes they're called the five factors because there's a five plus the old basically comes down to the benefit to the community the detriment to the community like let's say the visual impact or whatever that might be to the benefit to you and looking at those five factors i believe you'd be able to make a strong argument especially if it's really needed in the if this cube is really needed in that spot and you can make that argument i think you would have a very strong argument for the five factors. If it's not, and I can, again, I'm happy to talk to you guys more offline about this, it'll be a little bit more difficult, in which case you may want to think about a different avenue. I still think you have a decent chance because it depends on what the impact would be to everybody. And my advice would be also in this regard, especially if you want to have a better chance of doing this efficiently in terms of the time efficiency, you might want to hire a local council.

and somebody knows how to do this and you know squeeze it out more quickly so i just want to refer to what dave roberts thought this what he did say it assumes you do get the advance our attorney feels could be a short thing you know it's a short thing not a sure thing a sure thing not a short thing you know it's a roll of a dice the sure thing is moving and he wanted they've offered an option for that too You move it when you before before us you say okay here's how we're going to apply the zoning and then later on you could come back and ask for an amendment to the site plan that would come to us whether we would grant it or not.

Well, they don't have to get the they want to do that you don't have to get the variance as well. You put me back in the setback.

So moving it to Dave's point. reassures you in case the ZBA doesn't agree with our attorney, who's not their attorney, with the ease of getting it. So if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking for the sure thing. But I don't know what that means in terms of, well, I do know what it means. It's low course. I don't know whether moving it lowers the, creates a problem with the air fridge or the voltage or traveling over additional distance. I have no idea. But that's for you and your engineers to kick around. But those are the three options. I don't know if the board has any experience in these kinds of things and wants to offer some counsel or has questions for Dave or Dave about the options. I don't want to solve it for you guys. I just want to make sure you understand those are your three options.

Is there a reason why we can't do that? It's primarily we're looking at our power key that hooks up directly to a transformer. that Central Hudson has decided they're going to put in that space.

Central Hudson has specified that that's the best space? I think that would be... One of the five factors is whether the need for a variance is what is self-created. In other words, if you're a homeowner and you just decide you want to extend the porch over into the setback or you want to build your shed in the setback, but there's plenty of land otherwise, that's going to work against you. If you have to do it, especially for a public purpose and, you know, public purpose, and therefore Central Hudson is saying, put it here. That is one of the five factors, and that will that will be to your benefit. And that's even above and beyond being you. That's if you don't even qualify for the utility. That's if you get into those five factors. One of them is whether you have them do it there. So I'll just give you that. So you can show that.

It's there because that's where their pole is. And it's the shortest run for them to make the tie into the transformer on the pole and keep their they're paying for it. So they're keeping their costs down. That's the lowest cost voice they can do to put it in.

An engineer testifying to that to them would be helpful. We need a statement from Central Hudson?

Yeah.

Well, they could make the statement themselves, but a letter from Central Hudson certainly couldn't.

That's what I was going.

One of your engineers with a whole bunch of letters after their name would be most helpful also.

At some point, I'm speaking for the ZBA, so I'm just... you know, take that, somebody else is going to make those decisions. Wouldn't it be faster to go to the court enforcement officer? Well, yeah, you can go to the court enforcement officer tomorrow. If he agrees that, you know, that it's compliant, then we're all set. Yeah, bring, bring, bring just implications.

President Johnson is a bureaucratic person. One item we discussed on Monday was that it may be exempt because it's part of the overall power system. You all are going to look into that as the way that you get around this whole issue all together.

Did you explore that? I looked at an aggravating factor here is that some of the players have been looking at the old code. I don't know if that was your case as well, because there's a new provision in the code that got adopted a year and a half ago that some people soon to be in the room missed. So that code says you can't have an accessory structure in the front setback anywhere unless you meet an exception specifically stated in the zoning code. So I looked around. That's when I came up with the adaptive reuse option, which you could, by the way, go ask. I mean, Dave and I talked it over. We're not recommending that to this board. But you could go ask the code enforcement officer if he buys that exception. But there's another one that's typical, which is he called it utility. This code calls it essential services. But the amendments to the code didn't carry over any of the criteria for when that applies. So if you're an essential service,

uh it's a big so what in the current town code if not i want to the issue that you raised that's exactly what if it's part of the power grid then that would fall the way it works is you don't you don't not need a variance but you can get it much more easily uh actually you know i don't we don't even deal with central hudson citing you know

utilities in I mean I typically no one's asking a question about the transformer yeah I don't know so what I what I defined from what the two Dave's just said he's going to need a variance one way or the other that's the ground to choose instead of moving it and you know some of some of this information that you've been provided and I don't want to give you too much advice because then it becomes where you guys said this it's it's like Part of the confusion that we created on our Monday call that Jennifer and I, and we had via Zoom, was that LaBella's document that they produced, they were basing it on, they pulled up the wrong code. So all codes in New York State, or maybe other states, exist on something called E-code. When the new code was put into place, E-code is generally updated. it hadn't been updated appropriately. So LaBella was reading the old code instead of the new code. We all have the new code. We have it on our computers. We have paper copies, if that's how you prefer. Our attorney has the new code. But unfortunately, LaBella, when they made certain statements in their paper, was based on the old code we caught it and so everything you're hearing now from the daves is you still have to go for the variance but it's not as serious perhaps as it was before but you still need a variance or you need to go to the ceo and have him tell you um it's a temporary structure

And we don't need a variance.

And then you don't need the variance. Or you move it. In which case you don't deal with the CEO, you don't deal with the CBA. So I think we've given you enough pros and cons. Our attorney is trying to be positive around it. Sure. Again, I told you what I would do if I was in your shoes, knowing how these things sometimes go. Somebody on the board decides...

Well, you know... What this board can do is to give you a conditional, get you out of here. At least on the track of the other issues you're facing. This one will not stop you from getting out of here because we'll get... I can't speak for the board.

And I don't want to solve your problem of moving it. That's your... How you move it, if that's what you decide. Where you move it, how you move it, that's going to be on your...

But if you don't, the board is like the... the board can choose to give you a conditional approval on the zoning, which is not something that's typical because we usually will require the ZBA to adjust that first, but you can get you out of here, which is what EPA seemed to have been very concerned about from, you know, obvious reasons. But then you got the ZBA issue and you'd have to convince, you'd have to make your case as ZBA and you also have to convince EPA that that's not gonna be a significant impediment. Using the utility exception for variances would be a very black and white thing on both ends.

I'm assuming that scenario is better than the reuse scenario.

From our perspective, the reuse isn't going to work for reasons that Dave and I discovered. If you convince the CEO, the CEO wants to buy that. Sure, but that's not for the CBA. If the CEO considered a reuse, then actually, even if it's considered a reuse, we didn't think it applied. The rule requires that there basically be no new construction, no new um uh expansion of the non-compliance and the whole what we're talking about here is instruction to expand the non-compliance in other words it really applies to the building that you that you're adaptively reusing which is not a it just it just didn't quite fit we're on the phone we thought we could be creative around it when the two days sat and met and talked about it it's hard to take the words of the code

And make it work for adaptive reuse.

But that's our opinion. We're not the zoning people. If the CEO thinks it works, right, you can lay both out. You can let the temporary structure, the adaptive reuse, and if neither one works, then you can just go to ZBA for that area variance on either grounds, either as a utility or by factors that you need.

If the CEO approves, do we have to go to ZBA too? No. ZBA is only for

CEO says it complies based on the theories that you believe and presented, you're good.

As you guys kick these options around in the quiet of your office, whatever, if you need to talk to our attorney, it's fine. Dave is more familiar with the zoning code. The other Dave is more familiar with the legal likelihood of getting square one.

The adaptive reuse is in 140.10. of the town code. 140 is the zone code. Chapter 140. It's in section 10. There's a section about adaptive reuse. If the code enforcement officer can be convinced, I go for it. 140.13 is where I spend my time as well, because that defines what accessory structures are and the exemptions or exceptions from the setback requirements. for those structures and they a year and a half ago the town board added a provision that you can't have an accessory structure in the front setback which in the biblical zoning district's 35 feet so um we were focused on it couldn't be closer than the building here building but that's not true the new code says can't be in the front setback unless it meets an exception there is an exception for storage containers You can try that, I don't know. It's not our call.

I think that's it. Mike, what we're going to have to do, I had again miscalculated because there was other things we were thinking for the agenda. So I told Rav Todd to come Should have told them to come earlier. So it looks like they're here now. They're outside. We need to wait for LaBella. And since you guys were the last on the agenda, they were coming later.

Okay.

So I'm going to ask you to, I want to make sure they are here. Jen, would you mind seeing if Raft Top is out there? I can ask you guys just to sit in the audience. You can chit chat.

Yeah.

I want to get through theirs, and then we'll have you come back. Of course, by that time, LaBella will be here.

Okay.

All right, and we can go through everything. And if you have more questions about this, you'll ask on the agenda. We're here until midnight. No, we're not.

No, we're not. We're here until midnight. We're here until midnight. We're here until midnight.

We're here until midnight.

We're here until midnight.

Okay, so we're shifting gears and then we'll come back.

OK. He'll do his public hearing . All right.

Jeff, sorry for the little delay. When you asked me what time to get here, I gave you a time. But we got through the beginning of the agenda way quicker. So I think I'm going to be telling you all the time when you ask that. Probably at the beginning. We don't have to jiggle people around unless it's obvious that it'll last. And it's fine. It's fine to get your... out a little earlier than we normally would do. So apologies to the applicant and their consultants. I had sent you, Jeff, a version of the redone scoping trip on Wednesday. And breathe a sigh of relief. We made the deadline I had set only to find out over the weekend that there were some continued anomalies with some changes that didn't get into that document. So Dave Church scrambled to get another copy out, I guess, this morning, Dave? Right. All right. And so I apologize. And what Dave is prepared to do tonight is to go through those changes that you didn't get in the document from Wednesday. And they are minor. There may be some other changes that members of the board want to bring forward. So we'll listen to those. And then, of course, we'll listen to whatever changes or questions you guys have. And then I want to talk a little bit about the hydrogeologic study. I got something from Mark. I guess that was Friday or Saturday, I think it was. So I want to talk a little bit about the hydro study. but David are you prepared just to go through with them by page number well it's not that much from the things that we from Wednesday or from the well the things that you inserted and what you sent out today right so there was uh but they just page nothing I don't know did you guys need a printed copy from this morning I believe yes

Because I have a few and the what they were and you got your your corrections. Uh, no, no, no.

Yeah, some of them are pretty minor. I didn't get it.

Why is that? Okay. You guys ready? Yeah. Okay.

I may need some help. I'm just going to skip over some little ones. There was one that said quality and quality twice instead of quality and quantity. So that was fixed, correct, Dorian? Yeah. There's a couple of misspellings. And then we go to transportation. Well, is Greg joining us or not? No. He proposed something this afternoon. Did you see that?

I saw it. I think that it made sense.

All right. So let's anyway, um, what page? Well, we'll start with, uh, what I did. So on transportation, uh, Jennifer noted that page six and seven bottom of six in the seven.

Okay. Got it.

Okay. Yep. So Jen helped me here on, uh,

I added It was under potential impacts.

No.

We remove this was discussed in the last meeting, but under traffic we removed four.

Jeff, could you talk a little louder?

Sure. Under This isn't, it's the Traffic for us, right? Yeah.

A earlier version reference, you were going to do four scenarios.

Right.

The number's gone.

The number's gone.

The number's four. There's no number specific anymore. Good.

And then at the bottom of page seven under mitigation measures, we had discussed it last time and it didn't make it out, but it's represented here, the addition of and or road improvements.

So let's just read it. Mitigation map. Identify safety improvements, capacity improvements, and or road improvements. That's what changed. And or. So that's all for traffic. Dave?

I did have a question, though.

On traffic? Yeah.

Go ahead.

Under potential impacts, on page 7, paragraph 1234, where it says potential impacts. The first sentence, the traffic associated with the operation, that sentence, I thought we deleted that.

We deleted the, there was a phrase in it that made an editorial statement about traffic wasn't going to increase because of this.

I see, okay.

I took it that that phrase got stricken, but I'm deferential.

I would take that, I'd like to take that sentence out.

You want to take something else out yet?

Just the one sentence.

Which sentence? The first sentence.

The traffic associated with the operation of the existing camp will represent the existing baseline condition.

You think that should be out?

I don't know. We don't know that the current camp operations are the baseline. We haven't established that yet. We don't know what the baseline is.

No, for secret purposes, I don't understand how that's an controversial statement. I mean, that is the baseline. What you're permitting is a new dining hall facility. So the existing traffic without the permitted action will be made fine.

But we haven't established the scope of the proposed action. And so until we establish the scope of the proposed action, we wouldn't want to establish a baseline condition. without that.

I don't understand.

Until we know what the proposed action is. Proposed action is defined here.

Description of proposed action is 2.0.

There have been upgrades to the that it's a resort.

Thank you.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- To serve and resort uses, but there have been upgrades to the camp and those who work since the purposes of property that have not been established, I got his back the baseline tradition, for example, for super. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I that's why i'm not safe to take it out because we're establishing a baseline the baselines for each impact area could be different, so our baseline for subject and sewer could be different than the baseline for traffic. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You may be correct, the baseline for trafficking is a beating that sentence me back before it, but I think i'm hesitant to establish that in the draft scope, but I didn't have to back it out of it in an es.

HAB-Jacques Juilland. : I think this would just refer to what is the traffic light today.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Right. But if we have more people attending that have never been evaluated under an environmental review, then that's not the baseline.

The baseline is... That's not correct as a matter of law. I mean, for secret purposes, you look at what the camp is able to do with and without the permits.

So permitted capacity, yes. But we need to establish what that permitted capacity is.

If we withdrew our permit today, that would be the baseline. We withdrew our application and continued to operate the camp. That is the baseline.

What does your permit say is the baseline? What does your permit say that the population is? Do you have a permit that gives a number?

Secret is triggered by the application for our permits. So the applications and an expanded dining facility, that's the secret action. So that was the essence of the letter that I submitted a couple weeks ago.

But I think what Jen is saying is we haven't, part of what we're looking for from you is to provide the permits that tells this board what your permitted number is, what the permitted camp number is, along with the resort number. to produce that number. And I think that's what you're getting at. We don't have that. We started with, and you were part of the original discussions of a year ago, a year and a half ago. This all started with 550, and we were led to believe that 550 was everything. We saw it. And clearly you had a resort operation, an in-camp operation. The determination letter from the CEO referred to operation of the resort along with the camp And the dining facility to take care of those, take care of the camp, presumably also the resort. Where else are you going to feed them? So we've never gotten a clear understanding. We had a clear understanding that the number was 550 in total. And it wasn't until November of last year that we found out, no, the number that you all were thinking was 770. And that's where... And we literally scratched our head and said, wait a minute, we've been dealing with 550 and have assumed. So I think not to belabor that point, because at some point you will be belaboring it and we'll be looking for evidence. But what Jen is saying is that there's been no numbers set as a people set as a baseline.

Which therefore obviously it's crappy analysis.

All right. I mean, if we need to take the sentence out to move on, that's fine, but it's, we're, I understand the question.

Yeah, I think. So just to summarize, we don't have a permit that shows what the current permitted number of people is.

I understand that. from a secret perspective, there would have to be some additional permit that's identified that the camp does not have that it needs to apply for in order for the impacts to be that are associated with the grant of that permit to be studied. Otherwise, it's baseline. If the campus able to operate at 770 and that's baseline.

May I make a statement? Go ahead. Yeah. So then with that logic, would we then assume that the speedies permit, which is based on the Barrett, the Menbach and Eggers map, which clearly indicates I'd have to pull it up, but 400 and something for that is, and that is what your speedies permit is predicated on. So then we should use, with following the logic that we're discussing, then that should be the baseline, which is far less than the 550. But that is what was submitted for the NYSDEC permit. So if we're trying to establish a baseline, I would say that's the baseline.

I don't know. From a legal perspective, the question would be, does that SDEC permit need to be modified? That's the question.

Well, okay.

We're a fleet agency.

What? As lead agency. Yeah. This disagreement or this, you know, this is a phase of an argument or a disagreement that we've had from the beginning on this. I mean, Jeff has from time to time expressed a similar perspective. I think it depends on the specific situation here. What Adam is saying is sort of basic, you know, secret boilerplate, basic definition. I looked at his letter that pulled out some generalized statements. That's basically the starting point. But in terms of the specific situation that Helena mentioned, I mean, you may as well just say this now, I believe this is the board's position. In that case, we have a speedies permit. In the speedies permit, not only is a permit, which is, and you're talking about now getting a revised permit, which we have not even begun to discuss, but it's probably a good idea, but let me continue. My advice here was not to use the speedies permit because it's a permit. My advice is to use the speedies permit because it defines as best we can, and I don't think there's any other technical data, the capacity of the septic system. right? If the speedies permit says, settings are the number of people, which I know some people have focused on, which was in the 400s. Under the speedies permit, which was dated in 2012, the capacity of that septic system is 27,400 gallons per day. And it's disaggregated, but we'll leave that to the side for the moment. If you have a septic system for 27,400 gallons a day, and we're using a Taking aside the argument, which frankly, I don't think it's productive to get into as to what the population was two years ago or three years ago or whatever we want to start arguing baseline. If you have a population discharging septic waste into a septic system that is too small to handle the waste by whatever estimates there are of use, I know that's going to be an issue as well. If you have a number of people that's discharging excess waste into a septic system, especially, not even necessarily, but especially in an aquifer where people are using for drinking water supply, that is going to be a speedy, that's going to be a secret issue, no matter what the arguments over the baseline are. HAB-Jacques Juilland- That we've been insistent on that from the beginning, and I know you guys have respectfully disagree, but we're just that's just the way it's going to be depending on how it turns out. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Assuming the board agrees, which I think it does traffic is a little bit funky problem because there's no speed, there's no permit and even and even to be sent the board is looking at. Let's say that, by the way, there is, I mean, there was a HAB-Jacques Juilland- A camp permit for a couple of years ago for 550 kids. Two years ago, if I recall. And that was specific to the number of campers. That's just campers.

Doesn't talk to the resort. Right. Oh, so you're on the resort end now. Well, you got a resort and a camp. Those are two years.

And the speedies permit, you're applying for both, so the secret review will be for both. Right. But I think that we have to... That's a harder situation because we're relying, we don't have a permit in terms of traffic for a resource that is arguably overloaded. And that's not to say the resource isn't arguably overloaded. It's just, we don't have a defined capacity based on state law, which we do in the septic system. And I'm just, and I don't, you know, I think what we need to do is to figure out a way so that this is not a a negative impact on the community. I understand exactly where you're coming from. And I guess my thought is the black letter you're talking about, it applies differently in different situations. It probably applies a little bit with a little bit more force here than in the speedy situation where I just, I don't think it works for us.

So I have to agree with Jennifer as I read and reread this and thinking about where we're at with this. We're still dealing with 550 at best. I know Helena mentioned a number 440, I think was the number, but let's say 550 at best was what, that doesn't even include the resort. It doesn't. And then, of course, as it turns out, we got that letter back in November of last year, which said, oh, it's really 770. So to assume that 770 is the number, which is part of the reason why we're sitting here, because we couldn't get exact numbers out of the applicant, or they changed significantly in our view. I agree that this should come out, because I don't know what the baseline is. If we agreed to this, We are, in effect, saying that both the resort and the camp, as defined in that memo from Millspawn from November of 2025 of 770, that's it. And I don't think this board agrees that there's sufficient either septic or water capacity to deal with that at the levels that we believe should be used for the water capacity.

Septic and water, as far as I'm concerned, we're going to look at that. we're talking here more about the traffic, but there's one other point I want to make, which is that traffic depends not only on the number of people, but it also depends on the practice. One of the things that we learned during somewhere in the middle of this process was that it wasn't going to be just one transportation of people over that would last for eight weeks during the summer. It was rather going to be, they were going to be turned over every three weeks. I believe that was the commentary. So things like that, the exact way the campus is being run, the timeframes, where the traffic is coming from. I mean, when you deal with traffic, you're dealing with intersections and the level of service at the intersection. So we're going to look at it. We can talk about the baseline down the road. If you're going to argue at the outset that you're defining the delta as zero, therefore it's being pulled off the table, that's not going to be convincing.

we've we've said that we are going to put in the eis you know as much information as we need to establish um you know what the current practices are if we need to talk about what's happened since the camp open we can put that in there as well but from a deciding what the impact is it's going to be based on what secret says so i i'm not So we're not prejudging this from the outside.

So let me just ask, maybe I can get more comfortable with what you're saying. Your first name again, I'm sorry. Adam. Adam. One of the things that I've found out is that the arrival and departure of children from there and adults from that camp can be all over the place in terms of timing. A lot of it depends upon particular holidays that occur. So for example, this past weekend, I think most of the campus went home because it was, it was a special holiday and they were all picked up by either taxi cabs or by family members. All of whoever was there went home. That means they're all coming back. Some of them arrive individually in individual cars. Some of them arrived in buses. There are, so the traffic patterns are not what I would call what I would look at as being normal traffic patterns because they're reflected by the variety of different movements of the children and their parents and back and forth from wherever they live to the camp and from the camp based upon the presence or absence of certain holidays. So, you know, I'm trying to wrap my head around how you would do this traffic study with all of those things, cars versus buses. know it has a matter of seeker basic seeker you know looking at and stating baseline that what's happening today is the baseline okay if you tell me yeah okay but there's so many variables with this that we've learned over the over the months and over the years and just listening to the applicant explain to us things that have happened bottom line is though three times the summer

People come, people go primarily by bus. So we only need to look at one of those times to see what the traffic flow is. Holidays, no holidays, they still are coming and going the same manner.

Jeff, it depends. If they're coming on July 4th, then it might be different. Here's what we need. Here's what I would suggest. Instead of this sort of theoretical discussion, I understand where you're coming from on this and it's been very consistent, but here's what I would suggest. and I don't have the language in front of me, but we need to see levels of service that we're talking about here. Whatever the proposal is, it's three times, it's six times coming, going, this date, that day, July 4th, or whatever, a Saturday or a Tuesday or whatever. Let's see the levels of service. If the levels of service are at a level that is problematic, at that point, if you want to make the argument, we're already doing that, which may or may not be true. And we have... But if the argument becomes we're already doing that, therefore we can't look at it anymore, we can pick it up at that point. But I think it's going to be helpful to the board and helpful to the community to just see the levels of service that is in the proposal. Let's just see it. Once we see it, if there's a problem, my guess is you guys may want to just take mitigating measures of one form or another. But if the argument becomes we're already doing this to you, we're already doing this, Um, we can, we can have the, we can discuss it at that point.

While we're on that point, if I could also, right within the sex transportation section, one, one sentence I never understood was, says, and it's about on page six. Additionally, pedestrian movements, while encouraged, are also increasing. that pedestrian traffic is increasing. Clearly from the prior use, significantly reduced because these tables were on the other side of the road. People were coming and going across that road with pedestrians all day long. The kids are literally locked into the camp facility during the day. There's no kids walking on the road. So if you said decrease, that would be true, but clearly it should not say that the pedestrian traffic has increased without any even basis for saying it.

Because we got the anecdotal information from the public comments of the rest.

So some guests have to make a comment and it becomes part of the fact.

It came in with photographs. There's a mass movement of pedestrians at times, which happened in the Duke Ranch days. Yeah. that hundreds of people got on the road collectively.

There was constant flow across the street to the stable.

Right, to the stable.

That was during operating hours. Any flow from across the street, they had hourly trail rides, and it would go on the hour, roughly. And our baseline here, four of the speedies that we have, is for the youth events that took place, there were four occupants per row. So that's 504. Now we're talking about 775. So that is a change in the population, potential change in the traffic. What the board was shown a couple of meetings ago with many people on the road is far different than They were walking along the road, not crossing the road, which is what you would do at the stable. And there was, you know, I can't tell you how many trail horses they had at the time, but it was not a significant number crossing the street as compared to the videos and the photographs that we've seen.

Jeff, I think the comment was based upon, we've been getting these comments for months, traffic between the other camp up the road and this camp. quote unquote significant traffic between the camps. That's what I believe that's referring to. An increase over what used to be the dude ranch. That's what that refers to.

Can I try a solution?

Sure, go ahead.

Proposal. On page 7, potential impacts, delete the sentence, move a statement on page 2, 4, general scoping bottom of the paragraph and have your little group decide what the baseline conditions are, depending on what the impact area is. The proposal on the table was to... No, your citation. What page? Page 7. Fourth paragraph starts with potential impacts. The version you have edited the first sentence. There's a proposal from a member to delete the sentence. The traffic associated. I'm proposing to delete the sentence and move the baseline condition definition question to page two, fourth paragraph under 4.0 and have the small group agree to the last sentence says The applicant will be represented as the planning board, including town engineer and or town planner to grant analysis methods to be used. You could add and define baseline condition.

Add it here. Add it here.

As opposed to otherwise. Okay. Otherwise, it's going to be a long conversation tonight. Yeah. No, good point.

Adam, do you see what we're... Go to page 2.

So page 7, fourth paragraph down, potential impacts, delete as proposed by Jennifer, the first full sentence, and move a reference to fourth paragraph under 4.0 on page 2 to agree on analysis methods to be used as well as baseline conditions. And then add the words as well.

All in one place. Good solution.

Yes.

No.

Dave, in section 4, you said it was the... Dave, section 4, where you want to add some verbiage, you said it was the fourth paragraph. It's the last paragraph. Oh, I'm sorry. It's the last paragraph. Fifth paragraph. Fifth paragraph.

Where do you want to add those words? At the end of the next to the last...

To agree on the analysis methods to be used.

See the line that begins town planner.

Yeah.

To agree on analysis methods to be used as well as baseline condition.

Okay. As well as baseline conditions.

Oh, it wouldn't have been out there as well. So. Or.

I did it if you want to.

Okay. I'm all paired with that. Yeah. Jen.

Yeah.

Adam. Jeff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We've got, uh, uh, let's see here under noise page.

Yeah. Um, you're also eliminating the word. Not with. I'm sorry. What? Oh, no, it's standing.

So where you struck the sentence, the next sentence, you don't need to not withstand it. Yes.

So, Dave, you got that?

Yes. If I didn't, Torian would get it.

No, I want to make sure you get it.

I got it.

This has got to be done tonight.

Page 8, noise. Second paragraph under noise. The phrase on the first sentence was added, shall be made by added collecting field measurements and by using New York State DEC guidelines. We talked about that last time. H8.

Page 8.

Second paragraph under noise.

He added.

First sentence.

Determination of noise levels.

The phrase by collecting field measurements was added. I have it. You might. You have it, but it wasn't. Okay. We have a proposal from Greg. Let's see here, sorry, it shut down on me. Greg's proposing on page, bottom four and top of page five. Greg's, sorry, Greg Bollner, Town Engineer. On the existing conditions. He's put the sentences starts. This will include a third line from the bottom and goes through to the top of page five to the end of that paragraph. He would propose to have that move to under number two below it, groundwater resources due to discharge of wastewater. This is more relevant to wastewater.

Yeah, it talks about subsurface disposal. Yeah, that's right. That's correct. Okay. Everybody okay with that?

Yes. Okay. We're good?

We're good.

Yeah. And then, uh, Alina, you can make your Alina, you can make your pitch, but, uh, it's been suggested that the, I would put under description of proposed action, page three, we need some discussion of what's happening with the existing kitchen and dining hall.

Yes. Uh, exactly. Um, What the plans are. Is it going to be commissioned? Is it going to be demoed? Converted. Converted. We don't know. And if left in place, then the new dining facility is an additive source. It's not a place. So we need to.

That's a good catch because we came up with that. We originally thought that that dining, old dining room was being converted.

Well, we originally thought we don't have anything in writing and we need to have a statement in writing. And you know what? It just popped, sorry, popped into my head.

That makes total sense. You know, we're here for site plan. We're here for site plan approval as well. I mean, it makes sense to explain what's going on.

So Dave, do you know where that's going?

Yeah, I don't know if I give the luxury of fitting in the right place on the description of proposed action.

I think Adam agrees with that.

You know, if you're demolishing it, fine. If you're converting it to another use, fine.

Well, if they're going to demo it, then if you're going to demo it, then you might want to start thinking about permits, lead, asbestos.

Yeah, but let's go in the other direction. If you're going to, for instance, reuse it for something useful, like let's say office space, that's going to have impacts as well. I mean, it may increase the population of the site on certain days and it might impact traffic as well. So it would be helpful to begin to think that through and that would also carry through on some of the issue areas. We probably won't specify it now, but we do need to begin to explore that. How many square feet are we talking about? Pardon? How many square feet?

I can't tell you that, but I didn't have a question. For kosher, would you have one Dairy, one kitchen, dairy, one kitchen. Yeah, they've got two kitchens. So then, therefore, you might be retaining that kitchen.

No, they have two in the new. No, they don't have two in the new. Oh, that. No, the only kitchen there will be in the new.

Yeah. That's all I have.

That's all you have. Alina, did you have anything else?

No, I think that was the light bulb moment.

Okay, anybody from the board have anything other than typos?

No typos. Sorry. Yeah, I have them for three.

A page three, I'm sorry, part two. I still don't understand why we put in project purpose and need down below, before the actions, rather than before the actions. Should we state project purpose and need, and then describe the actions? Can you say that?

He wants to flip the sections. What sections?

Yeah. Page three.

Yep. You think you should flip B and C, correct?

description of proposed action and the purpose and there are really two aspects of the same thing.

Proposed action first because you can't understand the purpose and need unless you probably understand the action because it allows the purpose of the right approval.

You say, this is what I'm going to do. This is why I'm going to do it.

Yeah. And these are the approvals, reviews, and progress that are required. I think it makes sense. What are you going to do?

Okay, what do we agree? We leave it alone?

I agree. Page 10. What are we doing? Left it alone? Leave it alone. Page 10. Roman item 5 is twice.

Yes. Dave, Roman numeral 5 needs to be read in the Roman numeral.

Yes, we added the cumulative impact.

You've got to get the Sorry.

Okay.

Okay. And page 12 is still blank. Yeah, just leave it.

It's a formatting issue. Leave it. It might blow the whole thing up.

So you can write notes there, sorry. It's fine.

Anybody else? Okay. Your turn.

Okay.

Yeah, we have some time sensitivities since the camp season and there's things that we're committing here that we need to start on now. So we would like, if it's at all possible, to have a work session with your experts and the members of the board that are going to be involved to knock all these things down in one session because Come the last week of August, we lose the opportunity for collecting information as camp suits in.

So I take that to mean that you want to get going on talking about the hydrogeological study. And traffic. And traffic. They wanted a group meeting. I agree. So why don't we do this rather than looking at calendars tonight? I agree. Why don't you somebody send myself and Stacey an email of what you want to discuss in this meeting we've been talking about and the dates that you want to do it upon. And we'll start to schedule all that. If you want to do two or three things in one of these meetings, great. Yeah, I would suggest you don't do any more than two or three because they're all individually pretty big. So we're fine with that.

Mark, can you repeat the draft, I think, for the cameras?

Can. Up to the last week of August. Okay. There's four weeks left. Okay. First one. Yeah. All right. So, Mark, tell us what you want to talk about.

Hold it one second.

There was some dates and then we'll get going with the I can provide an email tomorrow, but I'll just say general terms.

I'm sorry.

I was trying to hear what they were saying.

So on the issue of noise, it's highly prescribed by your town code. If I think you see methodology. It's really a matter of attorney on perimeter locations where measurements would be made. I really think that's a five-minute conversation. It's not going to take up.

We're not going to do it tonight, but we'll do it in that meeting.

Right. Hydro, we responded to the comments that were provided by the planning board engineer, along with mentioned in the letter that included comments from the planning board. We provided you that revised scope of work. I think it's a matter of hearing if there's any additional comments.

So, let me comment on that. Thank you. They sent the letter. I copied it to the entire board. I sent the letter out and I responded to it. I don't know if you saw that yesterday today. I responded to your secretary, I guess, right? Comfort was comfort. And what I said, essentially is okay. But let's wait to this meeting that we have to nail all those pieces down. So I did not agree in the response to you to what you are proposing. And I won't until the members of the board that are going to be on the committee along with Gray are in that meeting.

I just want people to understand, though, we specifically...

And, yeah, I appreciate that. You responded to Greg's letter. And I responded to her, I think it was Sunday, I responded. All right. So just look for that.

I'll just add my personal opinion. So I'm the one person to be in the room. But I actually think doing a pump test and doing some studies on groundwater out of camp will be more beneficial because we'll have the noise from camp water usage on top of whatever we're trying to study. So we have better information.

The plan is to do it after camp season. There's only so much storage.

Yeah.

And the letter that he sent that I received over the weekend, Saturday.

I saw the responses to it.

I responded to it. But the letter was very, I mean, it was very explanatory. Some of the things we had talked about in terms of the timing they were agreeing to. But I didn't agree to what they had until you guys got together. So we'll leave it for that meeting. Great.

Sure.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay. I think, I think the reason Mark was talking about hydro is because we're fairly far along in that one. And it would make sense to try and.

What's today's Monday. You know, I think it's possible that either this week or early next week, we can get that meeting going. You can just propose some dates, give us some options. Sure. All right. I'll reach out. Yeah. I'll reach out and, you know, people have vacations, so we'll be interchangeable in terms of who's going to be there. But Greg has to be there.

I'm sorry, Mark.

What would we be able to do with Zoom if all of us, if you're out of town and I'm out of town?

Yeah, you could. Well, the meeting is a meeting either in person or by saying nothing. Dave, are you sure?

I'm just commenting on a memo we got today. which is from an attorney. Okay. The public comment period on the scope is closed, right? Right. So not going to. I pointed it out to your attorney.

Okay. What else you guys got?

lighting also probably would be of some importance.

I mean, there are some things that we can do very quickly at this meeting. There are other things that are going to take weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Well, for aesthetics, it may be to have a site visit or go to the neighborhood. Because I've traveled Cherry Pound. You're looking up a block and there's a stand of trees. So unless you're looking at the entrance... can't see it. So we need to do photo documentation. There was in our submission just before the positive declaration, I included reviews from Google. We need to have a meeting of our minds about where photos can be taken, what checks need to be simulated. I appreciate all that.

What else?

Well, especially up on the ridge, because unless you have been I think you're getting a sense that we hear you.

We agree with some things, maybe not with others. I think the place to decide that is in this separate meeting where we will have hours, if necessary, and the experts around the table in order to make those decisions. That's all.

Besides aesthetics. Yeah.

Okay. Jeff, what else? Mark, Joel, Adam. Okay. The board. I do have, just give me one second.

Um,

The board is aware of the fact that a couple of board members came to me and suggested that we needed some additional expert help in the area of hydrology and septic sewer, that sort of thing. myself, Dave, with Jennifer's advice and some advice from Helena, we identified some firms that might be able to help us. One was, and let's put this on the record, one was a firm called AKRF.

Oh, right.

Another one was a firm called HRD.

HDR.

HDR. My, what do you call it, was kicking in. AKRF was not interested. Intercom. So they weren't interested. HDR, we never actually did get a hold of the firm, but Dave identified somebody who had worked for them for 12 or 13 years. And also worked for the DEP in senior positions, deputy commissioner, the person in charge of board of studies, a whole host of things for 20 years. So a total of about 33, 34 years doing this kind of work. So we chatted with them, Dave and I. I got a hold of his resume. I distributed it to the board along with his remuneration, what he was asking for. So what I'd like to do is I believe we need somebody else to help totally this interest of third party who has experience in actually doing this with the New York City water system in terms of water quality, dealing with the various departments that create permits, DEC, Department of Health in Ulster County, Sullivan County, Orange County, etc, etc. So his name is Mike Principe. You have his resume. So I would like to tell him it's a go. And if the board is okay with that, I'd like to move on it, particularly in view of the fact that the first meeting is likely to be very soon, talking about the hydrology and the numbers and how do we measure it, the well testing and all that material. It's an area of expertise. His curriculum vitae is quite long. Look at his educational credentials and the number of letters behind his name. He's got a PhD in biology. He has an MS in environmental science and board of resources. He has a BS in natural resources, City University, State University of New York, and Cornell University. And as I said, he worked for the DEP and for HDR for years upon years. So is the board okay with this? I don't think I need a vote. I just want your...

I assume this would be in lieu of your president when it comes to these studies. You're not going to have two engineers doing the same thing. Mike's not an engineer. What? Mike's not an engineer. He's a hydrogeologist.

Actually, he's a water scientist. Just so everybody knows, he actually led DEP's water lab for many, many years during... especially during the 90s when the watershed program was developed. When I was working at Riverkeeper working on, you know, commenting on the watershed, Mike Principe was one of the chief DEP people in charge of developing New York City's watershed program and basically running the water lips for DEP. Jen may know more details on that, but I mean, for at least 10, 15 years, he was doing this work. So very high level.

So Greg is our PE and Mike is, So if the board's okay? Yes.

Yes. And just Peter, way in over the weekend, he called me and said... Rick, if I may, the scope we talked to Mike Principe about is to participate in the small group in the district. Oh, that's right. No, over here in the district. is to participate in the small group meetings and then review the EIS on that specific topic, which is the impact of groundwater section.

I'm sure you guys have reviewed his resume and we don't have it in front of us, but it doesn't sound like he's a hydrogeologist and I'm just interested, you know, It sounds like he's a service partner guy as opposed to a groundwater guy, but I haven't seen his resume. Just from your description of what he's been involved with.

Here's the resume. So take a look at it tonight and give me a call tomorrow if you have any questions to anybody.

Do you expect that he would be able to... Also, Adam, I just forwarded to you the letter that came in actually at 7 o'clock when a comment did. So you've got to face it in real time as well. Thank you.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Like your local aquifer law on the exchange of letters with the planning board engineer Greg. HAB-Jacques Juilland, there's reference me to. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Following methodology and appendix C of the New York water association rural water association. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Is your expectation that there's something. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Above and beyond what stated in your code that needs to be done here.

No, I don't think so. I think he'll be very useful from a very senior position that he's held to be able to walk through and negotiate through any differences of opinion in terms of what needs to be done in terms of the hydrology study. There's any number of different ways, I assume, to do a hydrogeologic study. They're not defined by our code. It talks about a hydrogeologic study, but there's a lot of different ways to do it, the timing of them, how many local wells or adjacent wells to be tested, what's a reasonable number of those. So there's a whole host of issues. And Greg is certainly adept at that. So is Jennifer. But I want somebody else with his gravitas to be able to make sure that it's done according to oil. So, okay. Anybody have anything else? No. All right. We're going to take a quick break. So I'll talk to Mike tomorrow.

Oh, thank you.

So you have, I'll take the claim to take a motion from a board. I'll make the motion that we approve as written and amended tonight as written by Dave Church and presented, um, Sorry. And as edited. The, what we'll call the final scoping document for the DEIS. So I need a vote.

Do you agree making the motion?

I'm making the motion.

Second.

Second the motion. Do you have that?

I'll move on the second.

Helena was the second. Jen was the first. So essentially you're approving what we talked about tonight with amendments. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Anybody find anybody opposed? Thank you, Jeff.

Yeah, we need that.

That'll be you guys will publish that to the end. It'll be posted. And what we do, as you know, it'll go into the EMV this Wednesday, and it'll appear next Wednesday.

Who do you anticipate professional staff being at this meeting?

The I anticipate that both Greg and Mike will be at the meeting.

And then representatives of the planning board.

Yeah, I still got to work that out with the members of the planning board based on your dates. Some may be on vacation, whatever. We may need to do Zoom, but it'll be Alina, Jen, and or they're interchanged. Let's say interchangeable. No.

Okay. No offense taken.

I want to make sure I don't step on anybody's foot. But no one to step on toes from time to time. I think I told somebody that they should find their lawyer.

You don't have to speak counsel being that big. There's no need for you to have been invited.

We don't need to pay you.

Not when it comes to the water. Now, if we get into some sort of legal. Well, let me ask you this, Jeff. Is Adam going to be at these meetings? I don't think it's working. Look, if Adam is not there, we don't need Dave there. If Adam is going to be there and there's some particular concern, well, then I'll consult with Dave and he may be there. But I don't see a need for a lawyer. I didn't know that. I'll let you know.

If there's counsel, if there's counsel, our counsel needs to know that.

Yeah, he asked, somebody mentioned that. We'll do remote. Let me get some dates, Dave. Too many questions. I don't want to read anything until I see what the dates are, and then we'll work together on setting it up. I'd like to see, I think some people would like to be there in person, but remote is possible. We'll work it out. Where? I don't know. Where's your office?

Just outside near the airport.

I don't think you want to go there. I don't think I want to go there. That's too far. I'm here all the time. Okay. Anyway. Anybody else? I'm going to entertain. Guys, anything else? I'm going to entertain a 10-minute break and then we'll go back to first year. Thank you.

Dave?

Mark, how are things?

Sentient. Sentient. That's it.

I'm not going to worry about it.

And that's that you're safe.

I'm too early.

Oh, that's the fourth thing I was looking for tonight. Okay. And I'm more willing to do this. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is this the end of your interview? Yes, sir. I don't see where to speak.

Right? Yes. We've made it up already.

But you see what, you know, you know what I'm saying. You see what I'm talking about. I don't know what this is. I don't know what this is. I don't know what this is. I don't know what this is. I don't know what this is. I don't know what this is. I don't know what this is.

Right.

This is the perfect. And the Bible. We could probably. So you can, I think, get a lot of us. It was so much more. It was a secret.

I'll tell you. Yeah, it did at first. Version software. That's just the way of carrying embedded coding.

So that's why I had to.

I don't know what it is.

They converged the word.

You wait, Chris, you can sit over there. Just move a couple of chairs around. So that's conversions. When people started barking stuff up, there was a difference.

So I said, let's have her clean up the format. And she did the best she could. But she still had that one blank page. And we just couldn't do it. Dr. I don't want to get rid of it. And both of it. And I was spending too much time. And you know what, it's not that it's not that it's not that you don't want some documents and everything.

They just project this way. It says scientific journals in there. I think it's because of your guest. He published the

Right?

But then, but then, then we got, and the real problem was, everybody had a perversion in front of them. So we suddenly, Rick and I suddenly realized, oh my God, I'm saying, that's fine.

That's fine. That's fine. That's fine.

I think I've already rejected you.

Because it's an average time to get a permit. It doesn't seem to like it. Four and a half months. It's okay if we have some other movements. And then there's somebody in charge of it. And we didn't have that. And then, you know, some people were marking it up. You would send me. So and something's bored. He's printing it out, he's marking it up, and then giving me that. And they've never sent it out. It just got to be a lot more. And...

actually but anyway new york city you've never seen a power tube no one had ever done that still got that still got a permanent faculty many many of those i mean actually it's about to inspire the storm whatever you know it's called stands up my green oh thank you what's up infrastructure

Well, there is a chance to see.

most of the ones i'm seeing from your from your practice well first of all Okay, sorry. Sorry, what more than 10 minutes. All right, so yeah. First of all,

So we spoke at length with the applicant before you guys got here, before we did wrap top. We talked at length about their options in terms of zoning. So I think we're done with this zoning issue. They know what they need to do. Do you have any other thoughts or questions about zoning? No, we've gone through the office and we have a pretty good idea of what we're shooting for. So at some point in time, we need to know that. Gareth J. Of more than likely we'll go to the CEO more morning and see what we can. Gareth J. find just keeping us appraised because it. Gareth J. means different things.

Gareth J. I think what the chair is saying if the CEO doesn't doesn't go for it, then is there a chance you would give us a different site plan approval or would you go to the cva. Gareth J. We would probably in currently.

Gareth J. We would. try to go through this to get this signed off on, but at the same time go for the variance.

Do you move it in place for variance? Right. Okay.

All right.

I guess there's some direction. So now what I'd like to do, everybody has the document from LaBella that came out Friday, I believe. And LaBella took- It's on the agenda. Okay. It's in the agenda. And so I asked Chris and both Chris's to be prepared to go through the items. I think there was 24 of them. And just to make commentaries to the board as to what was agreed to. Real quick, Chris, if it's agreed to, you don't need to explain it. Just done, done, done. And then the issues that are still pending. Absent zoning, we're not going to talk any more about zoning. We would go through those. And then I have a couple of thoughts about what we do next. And of course, we want to hear from the applicant. Maybe you've had time in the ensuing week, Mike and company. We will make time. To make comments about the things that Chris is going to go through. So Chris, whenever you're ready.

This is the July 23rd, 2025 letter memorandum.

Yeah, there was one. We issued our initial comment letter on July 17th, 2026. This memo was forwarded to the applicant, and then we had an informal meeting with the applicant on July 10th. The applicant, along with the chairman, was also present for that. We summarized our comments in a new memorandum in July 23rd, 2046. At the direction of the chairman, we reflected what our initial comments were back in June, followed by our comments based upon their responses for July 17th. And then we identified the next steps based upon the meeting that we held.

So, Helene, did you get an answer to your question? We're talking about, okay.

Just make it short since I have both.

Okay. Chris, go ahead.

The chairman has already indicated we went back and forth on the vote requirement. I'm not going to harp on that. That can be summarized. I'll provide it.

You're going to have to speak up because there's a hum in the back here. And there's also a hum somewhere over there from another. Sir, you can speak a little louder. Sure, I can do that.

So we've asked some that the applicant, part of our discussion, we were concerned about the stretch associated with the fueling operations that are going to continue on the site and the use of them now.

I'm sorry. We're having our time here in a moment. It's much better to the purifier.

So, Chris, we've got the 23rd memo.

Yeah. So, um. Just kind of walking through the picture. I'm sure we've talked about 1 of them. We discussed was, uh, folks. Uh, we made aware that to go in and continue to use the facility for fueling of the, uh, diesel buses for the school district. So, what number are you on Chris? I was giving you the executives. The executive summary, or I can go, I can go bullet by bullet if you want that instead.

Why don't you do that? That way they can respond.

All right. First off, Chris, can we get a copy of that? Because I don't think we've received that particular memo.

Are you saying that this is the memo that we- The 17th? Yes. 23rd. The 23rd was the memo I submitted to the chairman that summarized the meeting. Okay, we have not seen that. Okay, I don't think we've seen that. It makes no sense.

It's on. It'll be a challenge. Chris, give us a chance. I just gave up my copy. Let me get it on the agenda. We put copies of everything in the agenda.

If you just pass this to the chairman, we have another copy. Thank you, Longston.

Can you let

I don't have to do that. Thank you.

To attach the agenda, she said. Yeah. Thank you. It's also in the meeting to go up. Yeah. 6.4.4. Yeah. Yeah. Not that one. It's the. It's the 23rd. 723.

Okay.

All right, so starting with comment number one or no, it was determined that they're going to show the existing well in the order line location so that we can confirm it doesn't exist. Okay, now that two and three have already been discussed. Yeah. Okay. Uh, comment number 4, as it relates to the, if it was intended to remove the diesel tanks, and it's not intended, they're going to continue to fuel the existing diesel bus within the school district at this facility. So that we've asked that a. Bus plan also be provided along fire truck plan. So that we can not only determine that nothing will be impacting the fire, but we've also asked. of operation as to when the fueling will take place. That includes a note on the plans indicating they will not be fueling during peak a.m. or p.m. hours. And so we ask that those hours be specified.

Mike, at any point in time, you guys want to stop and discuss it?

In regards to that particular one, for the You'll lean at the diesel buses. We will indicate on the plans. It's not indicated on the plans. We will indicate that we will only fuel the buses during non-peak hours.

Okay.

I believe it's in our documentation, but it's not necessarily on the plans. And we'll clarify that. Number five.

One of the comments we made was we were concerned about the fact that they will still be maintaining the diesel buses on the site. And we wanted to confirm the parking locations of the diesel buses. It is agreed that the diesel buses will be parked in the maintenance facility and there'll be no outdoor storage of the diesel buses that are being repaired. So the applicant did agree to that on the call.

We did agree. to that on the call, the plans, there must have been a miscommunication. We will remove that from the plans and just indicate that only diesel buses will be housed on the interior of the facility overnight.

Okay.

I think as the board is aware of this particular partial lot doing the operative for Overlake Protection District and that along approximately to Randolph Creek is certainly a concern, that may come to play here. So we asked for them to discuss some protocols to contain the runoff. As we alluded to in our earlier letter, the primary strategy for containing the runoff is prevention, as was presented in their July submittal. We are still of the opinion and we shared with the applicant and the chairman of the department during our meeting that we think to the greatest extent practical or preventive strategy should be proactive containment of firefighting runoff and management of any affluents that may potentially lead you to the ground and prevent contamination. It was discussed during our meeting that the applicant will provide a more robust uh these by risk analysis and a longer alternatives for containment uh physical containment of runoff on the site and that the board and some social applicants uh site-specific risk analysis uh alongside your alternatives for physical containment options to determine whether the uh dedicated physical runoff uh data infrastructure is required so so Mike we this one we probably spent a good half hour at the meeting talking about this one do you have any thoughts about

From our standpoint, we are standing by the prevention side of things, letting the buses burn out, and that's our containment isolation area. In regards to fiscal improvements, we have looked at several different options, and we are still running down design and costs on that. We're hoping to have a better handle on that this week to provide for the one now.

You also asked us to determine if any other elected school bus location in the state of New York had a containment system around it. We've surveyed, we haven't completed, but we've surveyed the three manufacturers who supply buses here in New York State. We've surveyed their dealers. We've also gone to our competitors who operate the majority of electric school buses. We've gone to the World Resources Institute, which provides the electric school bus initiative, which supports school districts in their electrification effort. To date, the response, this is not total. We've gotten all back, but to date, none have any... deployment that has been done that requires containment system in the state of New York, nor any in the continental United States.

Are they housed on concrete?

Yes, they vary all over the place. But they're also gravel. Bargain lots, school bus parking lots vary all over the place.

Can I share something?

Sure, go ahead.

So one of my colleagues is the former CEO for Pattern for Progress. It's the regional planning organization. And I asked him about this because he's undertaken numerous EV studies, regional EV studies. And he indicated to me that for electric buses, most of them, they just take a diesel site and convert it to electric with no site plan approval required at all. There's no permits or anything required for any of it. And While there may be some training involved for fire, this isn't something that's being asked regionally, at least for the Hudson Valley that he's aware of.

All right. So let's talk about our site specific, which the difference perhaps between ours and others is it sits on the aquifer and the Rondout is... within a stone's throw and the property drains towards the rundown. And let's also be aware of the fact that there's probably diesel leaking through the, not an excuse, but leaking through the gravel already. So let me make a suggestion. Would the board be receptive to asking for, instead of gravel, concrete pad for the area where the bus would be placed if it's in dire straits? So it's a concrete pad as opposed to the gravel. And would the board be receptive to, my view towards containment is you literally have a series of berms that are made of some material that absorbs whatever's running off. Would the board be receptive to some sort of, there's gonna be a drainage retention pond, at least there's one sited on the site plan, correct? Isn't there a... There is no retention.

There's no retention. This sheet flows under the section that they direct. All right.

So is there a way, wherever the drainage heads towards the rundown, is there a way to interdict it with whatever the... whatever kind of absorbent material that gets changed periodically. I've seen those used in other projects we've done in drainage treatment ponds or drainage retention ponds where there is actually treatment material that's placed in the drainage course that absorbs any material that may drain off as a result of a fire or as a result of an accident of some sort. Is that something that makes sense?

I think what you're referring to is sometimes there are sort of absorbent type stormwater protectors that sit within a catch basin. Right. And it's associated with rock that may come from water. Okay. So does that work in this case? Like traces of hydrocarbons. Right. I don't know of absorbent material that... is available for placement. Well, one is the drainage structure that's out there is the DOT's drainage structure. You'd have to get a commission from the DOT to go in and put any sort of material within that. But I'm not certain of any materials that are . OK. So that's a pipe drain. It's contaminated. It's associated with battery firing.

OK. So let's go back to the concrete. Would everybody like to see concrete instead of gravel? We suggest a paved surface, not necessarily concrete. Well, a paved surface is going to burn through, right? Not necessarily. Asphalt? Is that what you're talking about? Correct.

Asphalt would burn through.

It's going to burn through.

What's the problem with a concrete pad? Is it the cost?

Cost is significant.

For one bus? For the Bernie bus? And what was the diameter circle?

It's a 40-foot diameter circle. Okay.

The bus is, what, 20 feet?

Do we know? Oh, it's 40 feet from the wall. Yeah, the isolation is actually larger than that when you do the total.

So my question is, do we know that that's going to do the job that we want it to do, or are we just sort of

Yeah, well, where is it going to run? Where is it going to run? Where is it going to run?

You collect it in the concrete and you have to design it. You have to collect with a slope and have it berms and have it, it's an engineered, it would be an engineered structure.

Is the board interested in seeing something like that?

I definitely think you should explore it.

I don't think it's necessary, personally. Mostly because, mostly because, so my perspective on this is that this is an unfunded mandate and we have an opportunity here to get funding for something, save our schools $10 million. Based on preliminary conversations, none of this is being required by other places who are implementing this stuff. And I would point out, we approved a, an application and they put in EV chargers and they were in the for protection overlay. Granted, that was for cars, but we didn't have them do anything.

What was that? The Accord Social?

They put in EV chargers. They were going to have electric vehicles parked on site and we didn't ask them for any of this. So given the circumstances, I'm not one to say, well, everyone else is doing this. That's not how I do things. But under the circumstances and given what we've heard and given my conversations, I don't think it's necessary.

If I can just add one other entity. We are contractors as well who build infrastructure like this across the globe. Our primary contractor we use is Bechtel. I think everybody knows Bechtel. Vector is not aware of any EV structure they've ever built anywhere that has a containment option around it. They also build battery electric storage systems best. They are not aware of any best system that has had to have a containment system put on it. They've seen some that have had to have fire suppression put on it, but not containment for runoff. We can't find anywhere in the literature. Now, we've not done, I'm not saying we've done, surveyed every electrical infrastructure deployment across North America.

But what we've done today, people we've talked to who do this every day, there's no record of there being any freaking maintenance systems.

So is it the case, all right, so let's follow along that line of argument. Is it the case that if the fire company agrees or has agreed that The bus is not going to be fought with water. The fire in the bus is not going to be fought with water. It's just going to be allowed to burn off. Is it the case that if it's allowed just to burn off, that anything is going to go anywhere near the rundown? There's no water to take whatever chemicals are produced from the burning bus. There's no water that's going to carry it towards the rundown. And so therefore, it's not a problem.

I would make even the argument when you have a diesel bus which burns, you would put water on it there. It would have a much more outcome.

They would use water for a diesel bus. That's true.

And also, I mean, when we learn about the preventative measures and the early warning system, I mean, to me, that's the safety system that really made the difference here.

Right.

I would agree with him. I had the same observation. I think they're much more comfortable in terms of safety. And I feel there's always risk in every project. But I think it's a very calculated and acceptable .

I would also support maybe something that requires, like I recognize that the fire department has concerns. So maybe we could see if the applicant would be willing to do some training to get them a little bit more comfortable with.

We do that at every point. No, that's mandatory. That's a part of what I'm saying. No, but I believe it's been proposed several of the meetings.

Because the fact is that we already have, I mean, in the aquifer protection overlay specifically, there's lots of people with electric vehicles. We can come forward with a building permit tomorrow and they can have five Teslas parked out And there's no, you know what I mean? So this isn't, this is an issue the fire department still has to deal with, regardless of whether this project happens, the risk of some true.

This has a greater density, but.

So is the book okay with.

The flip of it is, we use lithium iron phosphate batteries. Tesla uses lithium ion. which is a more significantly fireless. Even New York City has a separate code now, which is much more relaxed for lithium-ion phosphate batteries than lithium-ion because of its lower heat need. And then you also have to remember, because I know a memo circulated around battery electric storage systems, we don't abuse these buses on battery charging. We charge them very, very slowly. We do not want that battery to get hot. That degrades the battery. So we automatically have a system. We charge at about, in New York City, in dead of winter, we will probably be charging at 14 kilowatts an hour, less than half the rating of the charging center. In the summertime, we'll be down eight to nine kilowatts an hour charging that bus.

Well, it doesn't really also save on your electricity.

It saves on our electricity. But no, I mean, fuel's fuel to us. No, but it's the longevity of the battery. We do not want that battery to get hot. It makes it last long. Correct. I'm told when I charge my Apple and launch it into 80%, it lives much longer. Exactly. And we do that too. We charge to 80%. Actually, sometimes we don't even charge that much and it's short of routes. All right. Well, good.

One thing I tell applicants from time to time in these conversations is they can, you know, applicants will often say things to, you know, disabuse a potential issue, but what I'll say is that can be fine, but that becomes a condition of the approval. If we were to put lithium ion phosphate buses as a condition of approval, so we wouldn't have the alternative which in these burns uh much less risk of fire right correct does that solve boards problems and would that solve uh chris's problems if we just make it a condition of approval that we're talking about lithium ion phosphate buses and that's going to be one no it's the acronym okay okay l-i-p l-f-p larry frank papa yeah what's the fit what's the f it's the iron there

all right so you need to you need to come up with some something other than gravel for this containment area we just i think the board is working is that okay with the court

Okay. It all assumes that the fire department is not going to fight this with fire ever, with water, which creates the potential for significant runoff. And you guys would, so a lot of these will become conditions within the approval.

Understood. Could you also provide us with all the materials that you have received from the studies?

It will be just a summary email. We're not doing an official.

We're trying to do it fast. It's me calling my colleagues around the country. Fortunately, we are even though we're not documented at all. So it supports your applications. All right. So we do that. Unfortunately, our competitors don't mind being named in this. They know we want to have to say here. Okay.

So number six, I think we've resolved. Sounds like we resolved number six. And Mike, I know it's more paper, but I want to see something bad from you guys confirming what we've said here. Sure, fair enough. Number seven, Chris.

For the record, so the planning board doesn't want to see any stormwater improvements. Chris, I'm sorry, I can't. For the record, the planning board does not want to see any stormwater improvements geared towards containment unless the fire department indicates they may use water at the site. Is that correct?

Well, the board does not want to ask for stormwater containment. Right. And I mean, we can't tell the fire department what to do, but it does appear as though everybody here, including you, Chris, and certainly applicant is saying, and industry experts are saying, you can't fight these things with water. It's a waste of time and water. So I don't think we're going to come to the point where the fire department is going to go against their own industry's best practices. And that seems to be an industry best practice. Okay.

Just a quick question on this. If there were a fire and so certain chemicals or whatever residues end up in the soil, but let's say because there's no water, they're just, you know, on the set.

Have you seen driving down the road and seeing the results of a car fire? Everything's sitting there on top. Your metals just won't go to molten. They don't go to pure liquid. They just drown. and collect right there on the surface. And the organics volatilize and are released into the atmosphere.

Okay, so I don't think you finished this question.

What we're relying on here is that the fire department's not using water. But what happens if two days later it rains? I guess my question is, if one of these events occurs, is there some sort of immediate cleanup? Yeah.

A day later it rains and now we've got the same problem. No, we would have a response contractor come in and remove all the material because we want to get that battery out of there. We want to get the whole system out and recycled.

And what's your basic time frame on that?

It's usually less than a week. Again, we've only had one fire related to an EV, which was not a battery fire. It was related to the defroster. So our process went in there. Actually, the OEM, the manufacturer of the bus, showed up within a week and claimed it and took it back.

I would like to throw this out to the board then. If the rationale for not going further on this is that the fire department is not going to use water, Um, is a one week response period. I'm thinking now just generally about rain. It could be something else, but it's still rain. Is a one week response period satisfactory or do we want to try to load something else in here?

We don't know if there's going to be an impact and just applying less time. It doesn't seem to have any scientific basis here.

I understand your concern. I understand your concern. So we'll offer this once it cools, which generally takes a day. we will cover it with some type of plastic material. That's what I was thinking. We'll fill it from any water. That's what I was thinking. We'll talk to it. Yeah, people have it.

Yep.

It's a very nice little dam. And then you have what you call the containment response team.

that comes anywhere.

I mean, yeah, we've got an emergency response. Anytime we have a thermal event of any of our vehicles, be it a light duty car that's gasoline, we have a response team that responds to start a study. They're going to cover it with impermeable plastic, right?

Useful to use language like will be remediated by a license. You could say something like it would be remediated by, I don't know what the licensure is.

We'll tinker with it. Let's see. All this needs to be in there. Yep. Number seven. Thank you. Chris, number seven.

It was just a seminal reference to previously using the 2020 building code. We asked that they use the most recent building code, which is the 2025, with all their applicable codes and standards. Number eight, the comment was addressed on our project submittal. Comment number nine, we had asked what and they'll be appropriate signage and striking just ask for clarification as to when signage will be placed and what portions of the uh container area will be striped okay obviously it's going to be portions that are asphalt will be striped totally signs in the gravel area you know not perfectly based on the board's uh assessment of uh that you look at The power queue appeared to be separated by a site security fence. That's how we maintained that they had access along the frontage.

So that was agreed to? Of the property. Number 11?

Number 11, we indicated then that the portometric plan that was provided was incomplete based upon section 140-20H4 of the town code. Okay.

That'll be on Wednesday.

Sorry.

We'll have that to you on Wednesday. Okay.

Right. Well, we're going to try to, Stacy, we're going to try to revise all the plans and have six physical copies to you by the end of this week.

Okay.

Okay. Number 12. We asked the petition as to whether a security fence will be proposed around the property and what's the desired height. I think the most recent plans have clarified fences that are going to be removed. The previous plan said fences were going to be removed and relocated on site. Now that we understand that they're going to be removed, it's going to be open on the site. It's no longer along with the defense area. So they've clarified that on the most recent plan.

So Mike, this is another thing you need to clarify on the new site plan.

It's clarified on the revised plan. And the ones that were received this afternoon, it's on the... It's clarified? Yep. They clarified their fences that they're removing. So they're removing it and it'll no longer be a fence.

And you're not going to provide any other security? Not at this time, no. Number 13. If the board objects to any of this, please pipe up. 13?

Number 13, we just provided a note that we wanted to see an elevation of the power cube along number 9. They provided an elevation of the power cube. Our concern was... I reckon that she wants to use more mineral cone color, if they may, and provide some species of screening that are dearly significant.

I would point out to the applicant that if you do end up before the ZVA, that might be a help to you, that they're going to look at impact on the community. In this case, an impact for something in some type of facility like this in the buffer, maybe visual. And so- Name the color.

Yeah, we're happy to- Name the colors, we'll sign up, whatever. Okay. Well, if we can get maybe a little bit better than that, I mean, because there are 6,000 colors of the color palette. Is there some recommendation? Because I don't want somebody to come back.

Is there a recommendation from the board? You know the fence you have up there now, the busted up wooden fence? Isn't there a wooden fence there already? Behind it? The one behind it? I think so. Green and brown? Whatever color that is. It's a brownish color. It's a washed down brownish color.

Gray is more like a brownish color.

You know what? I'm half colorblind. If somebody has a better color. I don't need colors. I just don't want blue, orange, pink. How about we submit the color before we end? Don't give me 6,000 colors. There's something that's much more important now.

Right against the bench is the core of this historic college.

That's where I'm going. Your fence, we're just going to make sure you're complying with the new code. What do you got? Well, I don't know what it is. I haven't looked. You don't need my eyes. You don't need a fifth professional looking at the fence. It can't exceed 60%. Isn't it? Oh, I thought you were going to fence it again.

They're going to shield it with plant material. Right.

The power cube, yes.

And again, I'll let you guys choose. You're going to be worried about the deer.

Right. We talked about the one we had here in the yard yesterday. They didn't need them again.

Okay, number 14.

So 14, we asked for some information as far as a fire hazard assessment. We discussed it the other day as well. So they're going to give us some more information about fire hazards of lithium-ion phosphate batteries and their experience, but that will make that part of the record.

Were you satisfied with...

That additional material that they did you get a chance to look at the material, so we did not receive a fire hazard analysis yeah we discussed it on the phone the other day. So the other day, the phone call was focused on the emergency response plan and. Pretty satisfied with where we're at right now, I actually just got the updated document break for this meeting, I was looking for before, so I think they've addressed a lot of issues. I really like the fact that they've provided us two different versions of that document. So, and I think that's going to give the fire department an opportunity to look at the documents, see what works best for their organization. So I was really pleased with that work and how we elaborated the LNA.

So are you looking for, under this number 14, are you looking for anything else with these guys?

Yeah, so number 14, I'm looking for some more information about the risks associated. They provided it in the last letter. There's a lot of information about their historical experience with the lithium batteries, the electric school buses. I just think that should be part of this as well. So part of that fire hazard analysis.

We're working on that narrative now.

Yeah, that was based on the phone call we had the other day.

Specifically the LFP buses they're talking about?

Yes, specifically about the LFP. Okay.

All right, number 15.

So 15 I just touched on. So they've done great strides with the emergency response plan. I'm pretty pleased with where we're at. You know, my philosophy with the emergency response plan is a living, breathing document. It's going to be subject to changes over time, incorporating all the stakeholders, maybe changes in the site design or how things are responded to in the future based on more information we have about new technology. So I'm very pleased with where we are with the emergency response plan as of right now. Number 16, maneuvering plan. Thank you. They provided that in the documents. I'm happy with where we are there.

Number 16, you're okay. We did just ask that the existing striping where they're showing a maneuvering. Thank you. that they add no parking signs and they seal code the existing striking. So it's not inferred as parking space. That's fine.

So all these things are going to be on the new site plans. Okay. Number 17.

17. So 17 they've addressed. So it's in coordination with emergency services stakeholders. We still have to work with the local fire department incorporating those documents with their comments. And I mean, yes, of course, an officer, but we're working towards that. All right.

So we'll get to the meeting with the fire department. I have an idea about that. We'll talk about it in a little bit.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks. But I think it's coming with this. On the document.

Okay. This is, you just got some information. We just had a call.

I get it. I just wanted to make sure because Thursday or Friday.

Yeah. Yeah, so this document was written before we had a call on Thursday. Okay.

I just want to make sure because it's going to take some time.

No, no, I apologize. So we were directed by the chairman to get together and work on some of that stuff together, which we did. 18? 18. We had some discussions before the meeting about where the code and what is required on the code, and they're working on a plan with that. They had us all with their electrical engineer this evening. And I think we're going to hopefully find a solution.

That's correct. 19.

So this is going to fall into the emergency response plan and having those documents incorporate what's going to happen if we do have a battery that's heated, if we do have a battery that's on fire, we do have a battery that's subject to some sort of damage, whether it's something or it's it gets watered or something like that. That's all going to be part of that emergency response plan and some of those documents. We're incorporating that in the documents as well.

Okay. Which I believe a lot of that information as well as in those two documents.

You're saying like the two documents we just got from you? Yes. That's right. And you guys have those two documents? They do now. Okay. Number 20, Chris.

20. So as far, there's nothing that provides a standard, this is how far your buses need to be. So my comment was based on the documents provided and the initial review was really a lack of consistency. There were different numbers throughout it. I think we've addressed that issue. So I'm satisfied.

So it's a site plan issue that they- Correct. 21.

All right. So 21, they made it very clear that they're not doing any changes to the building. So 21, we can close out. 22. 22, they've incorporated some of the training documents into the documents they saw the other day, and that's going to be part of an ongoing process where the staff for the school district, the drivers of the buses are all going to get training as well as the fire department.