Planning Board - Special Meeting

All right, Greg's in the waiting room. But now I got to find the other thing that shows. You got to look at my phone because I don't see any.

Hello.

Greg's there.

I'm going home. Okay. I mean, you're alive.

All right. We're live on YouTube.

Okay. So we're live on YouTube. Hey, Peter. We're not sure if you're going to make it. Yeah. Okay. Chris, why don't you sit in the corner? No, right over here. At the table. Oh, you're welcome. Not in the corner. Okay.

Before we need to order.

I join you for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Stacey, would you like to roll call?

Well, I just unmuted it because I thought then we could hear Gray. Gray, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yeah. What did I do this last time?

Yes, I can hear you.

But then if I mute this. I don't know.

All right, so let's. Am I going to be hearing myself on delay on this thing?

I don't know.

All right. Let's, let's try it.

All right.

So great.

I just muted it, but I can unmute it when Greg talks.

Oh, let's do that. Okay. So let's do the roll call.

Okay. Chair Jones.

Yeah.

Member Nelson. Yeah. Member Butcher. Yeah. Member Duda. Yeah. Member Roberts. Yeah. Member Penske. Yeah. Member Farmwall is absent. Yeah. Dave Forden's on his way. Dave Church is absent. Myself and Chris Mader.

Okay. So we have what appears to be a short agenda, but we have some pretty weighty items going. For full disclosure, we did have a meeting at 4.30, was it, Abelina? Yeah, 4.30, with the fire department. the chief and one of the captains, Mike Maddock, and Chris Meter, representing our engineer and the people from First Student. So just let you know that to just to chat with them about where we're at and where they're at. So we'll go more into that when I get to it. that agenda item. So the first item on the agenda is I asked Greg to give us a summary of the meeting that number of people made about three weeks ago, a meeting with the representatives from Rav Tov. If you remember, they were meeting to talk about hydrogeologic study, the septic study, and lighting, a whole host of things as part of the DEIS. So Greg put together some notes about that. I just wanted him to verbalize and go through what happened at that meeting. If you have questions for him, fine. But Greg, I figured we could spend 15 to 20 minutes just summarizing the meeting. You know, what was the net results? Were we pretty much happy or is there more work to be done? Where do we stand?

So as a result of the meeting, we had basically given them additional. Can you hear me?

Hang on. It's like delayed.

OK.

The net results. Were we pretty much happy or is there more work to be done? Where do we stand?

So as a result of the meeting, we had basically given them additional... Can you hear me?

Hang on, it's like delayed. Why is it not?

It must be the library of intros.

So as a result of the meeting, we had basically given them additional... Can you hear me?

Hang on, it's like delayed.

Okay, so during the meeting we talked about the work plan that they had put together and we had added some items to that work plan. I had documented those in a letter to the applicant and then the applicant prepared a revised work plan on August 21st. They had put together and we had added some items to that work plan. I had documented those in a letter to the applicant and then the applicant prepared a revised work plan Okay.

You know what, Greg? We're going to mute you and we'll come back to the, you'll be able to hear us, but we're going to mute you and go on with the next agenda item. Stacey's going to try to see if she can figure out what's going on.

Understood.

I'm going to turn the Zoom on my laptop and I can have him talk to the laptop. Maybe that'll work.

And will we be able to hear him?

I can turn my laptop off as long as it goes.

Let's try it.

It's the only other thing I can think of right now.

Okay, let's try it. Greg, we might have a workaround. Just sit tight for a second. We're having some technical difficulties.

It's a good thing you're here to fix it, David. Absolutely. Don't steal my lines.

That's what I meant.

Nothing. Seriously. Seriously. Okay.

The Pledge of Allegiance.

I said that and a few other choice things when I was taught and I was blocked completely.

Did you come over Mohawk? Yeah. Okay. So did you go back through Alligerville and Topaz?

No.

Oh, and you can ask the spirit circle and Mr. Hawking. Don't you?

Okay. Go out of the town. So we may have.

No, we should give up right now.

Obviously, I don't have any technical difficulties.

It's hard for attorneys, I just said.

For the public who may be listening on Zoom, we're having some technical difficulties that we're trying to fix. And what do you think?

Oh, but then I have to mute.

Hold on.

All right.

Greg, can you unmute and see if we can hear you?

Can you hear me now?

Is that any good? Speak again, Greg.

I will speak up. You can hear me when I speak up. Is this loud enough?

You're good. That's great. Go ahead, Greg.

Okay, so a subgroup met with the applicants engineer to go over the work plan that they had drafted and we gave them some additional comments that they incorporated into the revised work plan dated August 21st, 2026. I reviewed through that work plan and basically documented in an August 28th letter that they had addressed virtually all of the comments. There were a couple of comments that were added. They were not discussed during the meeting. And those comments were that the applicant document the classification of the system. Is it a community water system, a non-transient, non-community water system? or a transient non-community water system as these carry with them different regulatory requirements related to operations. And then also some minor additional sampling that would be conducted at the end of the pump test for bacteriological TSS color and any other parameters that the Ulster County Department of Health requires be monitored for their water supply. But for the most part, they addressed all of the comments. They are going to send out certified letters to surrounding neighbors. There was a list of... properties within 500 to 1,000 feet at the back of the document that they sent out on August 21st. So they would send out certified letters to those adjacent property owners to solicit wells, at least two wells that could be monitored. And once they have responses, we'll meet with them and determine which two wells will be monitored.

So Greg, two wells that I thought that you had been talking about four wells.

We had settled on at least two wells. If we can get up to four wells and they're willing to do that, we will do four wells. Okay.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, All right, Colleen, you had a question. HAB-Masyn Moyer, So Greg the summary that you'd prepared. HAB-Masyn Moyer, You sent that to Stacy to put on a newly collaborate. HAB-Stacie Stowell, Correct. HAB-Masyn Moyer, All right, did everybody get a copy of it. HAB-Stacie Stowell, yeah okay. HAB-Masyn Moyer, Was.

HAB-Masyn Moyer, highlighted did you need comments on the on item age that was highlighted in yellow.

No, what was highlighted in yellow was simply what was added from what was not included in the work plan that we had added as an additional item to be included in the work plan.

I think it's a good addition.

That was the one having to do with the regulatory issues?

No, this was the classifications because this is where It's a classification of the water systems, whether community, non-transient, non-community, because each, I think each category may have a different sheet gallons per minute associated per person, right? Okay, yeah.

Well, they also have a different monitoring and regulatory operating requirements. For instance, depending upon the classification, they would have to have a licensed operator and the class and the grade of that license operator may change depending upon that classification as well.

And Craig, are you all anticipating pushing for regular monitoring, if you would, you know, weekly, daily, whatever monitoring and reports of usage? Is that one of the things that's been included in conceptually?

This is the work plan to do the hydrogeologic study. I think what you're referring to would be part of what I would consider to be mitigating factors, depending upon what the results are of this hydrogeologic study. If you're talking about going forward over the years. Yes, I would recommend that they do more periodic monitoring. Right now we're just also trying to get, which is included in the work plan, the engineer to document what monitoring is available and what, you know, monitoring is being done now.

Okay. Other questions from the board?

I want to define what category to use when we know how many people, how long they're going to be there.

Yes, once we have that information, we'll know what their classification is of the water supply.

And I just thought of something. It might not be bad to see what the numbers are for each system. Do you know what I mean? Because people have been cherry picking. One engineer uses this. It's all to fit the 27,500. It'd be interesting what, you know, for the non-transient, what the numbers per person would be, or if it was a community water system.

It might be interesting maybe in the DEIS to have them

I don't think that impacts the calculation of the per person usage, the classification. The classification is impacted by the number of users. by the number of people who occupy and use the facility that are there year-round or at least a six-month period, which then defines it as non-transient, where if it's different people every day throughout the year, then it's considered transient.

Okay, so you're going to look for them to make a recommendation of what it should be, and then this little group is going to, and when we get the DEIS, we'll have to make a decision, yeah, that makes sense or it doesn't make sense. Is that the approach?

Yes, and that would also be in conjunction with discussions with the Department of Health.

Great. Okay. Good? Yeah. All right, great. Thank you, Greg. Thanks.

Okay, thanks.

What's the next milestone here?

So the next milestone would be to go ahead and give them the go ahead to start this monitoring. They're going to start the monitoring after the camp closes down so that they're able to operate these wells at full capacity without any impact. Because they're basically going to operate them to waste so that they can operate them at full capacity. And that would be done after the camp is closed. Shuts down for the summer, which I believe is pretty soon, if not already.

Campus is shut down as of last week. Yeah. So are they looking something from the group that you're part of? They looking for something from the planning board? I go or they're. they're doing and you're happy with what they're doing next, which is it?

I think what was agreed to previously is that the subgroup would give them the go-ahead and report back to the planning board as a whole rather than this be a formal planning board vote. It'll just be the subgroup will give them the go-ahead.

Everybody's still, that's what we did say, so we're fine with that.

There's some question about procedure with letters from the town of Rochester, as well as from the applicant. Do we sort that out?

Stacey's got, she's all over.

I'm going to send them out on Thursday.

She's all over it, like the fireside. You know what?

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for that. I appreciate that one.

Okay, Greg, so we're good. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, good. It's working as planned, I think.

All right, let me switch. Yeah, Greg's got to mute again. Okay, we should be good.

Okay, good. All right, next up, Wren Hawkey. Wren, why don't you approach the bench? I mean, you can sit out there. And I see you have... The gentleman and his friends and tenants, they can join you if they want. So a little bit of, there's been a lot of things flying around with this project. in an attempt to get things. And so I wanted to reassure the board of a couple of things that there were some things that came in today from the brand. And of course, you probably didn't have a chance to look at them. There was something, I think, on the electricals There was something that came from his engineer. So all the things that might have been posted to Munich Lab today, there's no expectation that the board would get to them tonight. So they're there for the next meeting. But what I was hoping to go through tonight, some comments that he has, what I would like to go through tonight is Greg's memo. that Greg sent to us on the 26th, on August 26th. So I'd like to go through that because there are some things in there that we need to make some decisions on whether whether what Greg wrote is what our position is going to be or if we want to look at something different. I had a discussion with Greg on some of the items. So I want to relate that discussion to you. And we'll go through that. So that's one thing to mention. And then, Ren, I'm sure the board has lots of comments after the site visits that they made. But I did say we also want to go through the secret typing, declaring meet agency tonight. Dave Church in his write-up did indicate that this is a tight two. So that being the case, I mean, we can make it as part of the resolution, but it's tight two because of what it is. So we'll do that in a little bit during the course of the meeting. So, Ren, do you have something you could put that up? Yes, please. Why don't you just put it up? Maybe in that corner over there, and that way the public can see it as well, the public that's here. And then why don't you spend a few moments just telling us where you're at, and then I want to launch into a couple of decisions that the board needs to make on a few items. That's good. Okay. Can everybody see that? Yes.

Just a quick refresh. We're here seeking site plan approval, as Landward Chair mentioned, for the adaptive reuse of the Commercial Building 11 towpath. I'm the owner and project manager. These are my tenants, Ezra and Kerry Firestone, and we are composing a martial arts business, which is called Firestone, and River and Sky, which will offer yoga, Pilates, and dates. Gareth J. and give you a couple of quick updates. Gareth J. My notes at home. Gareth J. Try to do some updates like for since the last time we're meeting yes yeah okay. So we're no longer asking for a waiver on the parking spaces. Originally, we were asking for the 9 by 18s. We're now asking to reduce the amount to 25 parking spots. We're asking for no waiver, 8 by 10, which reduces the amount of 88 parking spots to just one. I think a question came up as to what the material would be. We're going to do crutch stone and gravel. um and all this is reflected in the updated site fundraising uh we met with the highway department since the last meeting uh they gave they've given up their blessing with a written report i think that was handed in for you guys um which was basically the reduction of the giant curb cut and that channelized the entrance into the parking area Also on the site plan you'll see that there's a we put a container for the refuse and on the back it's just a small wooden container to hide everything. And I think there was some question as to how we were going to address the back and right now you look at it's the last frontier of that building so we're going to be forging it and painting in a similar color to the existing site. Fire. I met with everybody. No real concerns came up, although it was kicked to the fire inspector, and we're still waiting on it.

We're supposed to get a letter from Keith as the fire enforcer, whatever his title is, and we'll get something from him shortly. I don't have it yet.

Also, since the last meeting, we submitted a traffic study, which you should find in the... We did a well test, which indicated a recovery rate of 19.23 gallons per minute. And also the project engineers submitted a detailed report on the proposed water usage, as well as detailed report on the capacity and condition of the septic field. And that's kind of it since the last meeting.

Thanks, Rick. So what Brenner gave out tonight, there's a new narrative. You had an original narrative. That was filed in Unicoamp on August 17th. And there was an updated one, which I know there's a copy of tonight. There's an update of one there, I think it was as of 8-28. It was fairly recent. But it updated information about the parking. It updated information about the traffic study, so on and so forth. And when I go through Greg's memo, we'll put Greg back on so he can speak. And Greg is prepared to make some comments about the traffic study and some of the other items that Ren mentioned. You took care of the rear of the building. You're going to make that look presentable. That's great. Let's do the Seeker typing right now, and then we can launch into the discussion with Greg's memo. So what I do, what I would like to do is make a motion that we declare ourselves lead agency. Wait, isn't it type two? It's a type two. Type two is exempt from Seeker. Thank you. Forget about the resolution. And that's on the recommendation of Dave that it's a type two, so... Okay. So let's go to a great.

Yeah. I'm not applicable then.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. EIFs are often used as sort of a basic information submittal, sometimes actually require them. But strictly speaking, you're right. In the EIF, it's a document, which is the basic document for Seeker. There shouldn't be a requirement here. If they submitted it, fine. It's just a piece of information.

Sometimes I require it separately. Because I have a couple of questions, but I guess it's not related.

Well, it's not required. questions, if it's like them submitting any document to you that explains what they're doing and you have a question on it, go ahead and raise it, especially if it ties into something you'll have to approve for site plan approval. But the extent that we're talking about CEQA or CEQA is not an operating agreement.

We did submit a short form EAI.

Just as a matter of information submittal.

Yeah. Yeah. That's not a problem.

Yeah. I understand. All right. We've got a couple of questions.

Does everybody have Greg's email? A letter from the 26th. Can you put Greg back on? Greg, hang on a second. We're going to be making you live again. That'd be good. Okay. Can you hear me now? Of course, they raised some excellent questions. And, Ren, do you have a copy of it? Okay. And I'm going to make some assumptions based on what you told me, so... Sure. Correct me if I'm in the way.

My engineer did respond, the city lighting designer. So, you know, updated documents.

And the board will take a look at that over the next couple of days. But we don't have that for tonight.

There was some confusion over the code that we were referencing, which I think as you guys probably experienced already, the E360 that's available on the website still has the link to the old code.

He used the wrong. Yeah.

And so to find the actual code, it's a PDF file. So we want to wear that until Friday.

Okay. So you're getting us a new lighting plan and you get your engineer sending us a response to Greg's point. Yeah, he already submitted. Okay. All right. So the first item has to do with the photometric plan. So that's being updated. So that's number one. Number two, same thing, photometric plan. He's addressing that in what he's sending us. He's very simple. Okay. Number three is again lighting. So that's also included in what's coming to us. There's no indication on the lighting plan that the area around the residential structure will be provided with lighting. This should be addressed. So I want to address the residential property. The residential property already has a certificate of occupancy. If there's a glaring No pun intended, but if there's a glaring need to change the lighting on it because it doesn't comply with dark sky compliance, yeah, we would want that fixed. But Dave Church recommended, and it's in one of his emails, recommended that we separate, since they already have a certificate of occupancy, there's really nothing for us to do with the single-family home. I agree with that.

All right.

So I think we're going to proceed on the issue of the lighting. If there is something glaring, let's fix it. So Greg agreed that you can kind of ignore this comment, except to the extent that there's some violation of dark sky. Dark sky applies to whether it's residential or commercial. Okay. Number five deals with landscaping. I want to bring you back in history to Accord Social. If you remember when we went through the landscaping plan for Accord Social and we tried to compare it to our code, our landscaping code section 14015, we picked up on a number of incomprehensible comments in the code that really don't bear reality to the situation in the field. And Greg agrees. Greg, chime in wherever you want. But Greg agrees with that. So instead, I reminded Greg, and I just want to remind all of us, there was a landscaping plan presented. You see it right over there. And I'm fine with that. Your landscaping person is going to send us something new. But if you try to use the code, and I can help you to get through the board can help you to get through it, there are some things in there that are not appropriate right.

Very nice, we can identify species.

We do want that with the species, I think you had it on the map somewhere.

there's a detailed sheet with planting with planting list. We could you know.

We would want that and we would want some indication on this plan of what's what. I think that takes care of that. Greg, you're the one who wrote this and we talked about it. Do you have any other comments on landscaping?

No, I really don't. I just real quick. I think that the, the agreement of the board previously was that the six inch caliper or 12, 12 feet in height was more than necessary. And so the applicant does not need to comply with that. I think as, as the chairman was stating, just simply state what the caliper, the trees that you're proposing are and the height. If they're not, Evergreen trees, typically they're a height, not a caliper. Deciduous trees would be a caliper. And then the same thing with the shrubs. Those are 36 inches in height, which is unnecessary at planting. But the planning board would like for that to be stated as to what the size of those planted shrubs will be.

I mean, we would probably... you know, at a minimum we use one gallon shrubs, you know, I mean, but if it's a dwarf species, clearly we wouldn't, he'd have a 36 inch, you know, and so, but I understand that you don't want us to put your twugs in, right? And just, you know.

So what I'd like to see is your landscape person just label that up and the chart be specific as to the sizes and with flexible, we want it to be realistic. and unfortunately, the code in some sections.

And Greg had also asked about if there were any attributes that were plan to remove, and there are two that are in the front. One is a 5.75 caliber. The other one is 11, but it's literally right in the middle of the proposed parking.

So I saw that note from you. Did it on the landscaping plan as these trees are coming down? Okay. All right. All right, so number six has to do with the parking. And Ren, part of the issue here has to do with the building department came up with one number and you came up with a different number. Your number is based upon the architectural terms, right?

So the building department, when we applied for the building permit, we used the gross number of, I think, 2,900 square feet, which I think is close to what I think Greg which is maybe off by 20 square feet or so. That was for the application for the building permits. Since then, we have decreased the interior size with utility rooms, storage, and a new interior wall system that we built to create some sort of a barrier from the external masonry wall so that we could have a continuous and civilian room. So that decreased the entire size to 2,720 square feet. That was the number that we used.

So, Craig, are you hearing this?

Yes, and I don't see a big issue with that. I mean, I guess one of the things is the code, the way it's read, it's per total square footage of the building, regardless of whether or not that space is part of the building. Usable space for the proposed use. So utility rooms would be counted as square footage.

I'm having to use the 2900 square foot. I mean, as you know, that we're proposing more parking required.

So why don't you use the code once you use 2900? All right. Update the and that gives you. That gives you a number that Greg has here, but Greg also included the parking for the residential facility. And we just said, we're not including the residential facility in this consideration of this project. All right, so you could, is the board okay with that? Yeah, totally.

Greg was trying to say something.

Okay, if you could just update it, take out the residential aid.

Greg was trying to say something.

Oh, Greg, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, the only exception I would take to that is long as they don't intend the residents to park in the parking lot.

No, they have a separate, and then you probably are going by the old aerials from Ulster. Those are from 2024, 2025, I'm not sure, but it's since been paved and it's larger. So they have their own separate entrance and parking lot.

Okay, so then clearly they would not need to be counted in the parking requirements for the property.

So if we do that, the residential, you're going to use one spot for every 250. That's the new code.

And that is on a new site.

Okay. And I think it'll turn out to be you only need two ADAs. One. Oh, one. I'm sorry. You're right.

Only one ADA. Right.

Okay. The board okay with that?

Yeah.

All right. Number seven talks again about sufficient parking. So that's been taken care of. Number eight, while there's no specific requirement for paving, there should be a notice on the plans indicating how the gravel lot is to be maintained. Striped. Striped. Where are you going to put the snow? Indicate some.

Yeah. Yeah, I can take a shot at that.

Just where you get an empty spot somewhere.

Yeah.

All right. Number nine, which is 140-17F. Oh, that's the handicap. We took care of that. All right. The next one, parking, we took care of that. Number 11, the dumpsters. You mentioned that you have that on the map on the site. Utilities that's taken care of.

I'm sorry, Rick, going back to going back to number 10. Go ahead. The code says that the parking should be in the rear or the side. I think the planning board should acknowledge that they're accepting the location of the proposed parking, which would technically be in the front of the building. There is no real rear or side that makes sense as that would be over the septic tank. And that's not desirable, but I think the planning board should acknowledge that they're accepting the that the parking will be where it's shown as opposed to, because it says that where possible shall generally be located. So it doesn't have to be in the rear of the side. It's just, it's a consideration.

Everybody shook their head yes, they're acknowledging that they're fine with it.

Okay.

Okay. Utilities. Utilities.

um this has to go do with the ulster county department of health randy you want to address that yeah i've kicked this to my engineer i three four times please could you give me some correspondence between him and the board of health but he has said that they just as part of their procedure they just don't issue any sort of like correspondence when it's, until we actually are occupied and cross the threshold. And so they said, once we cross the threshold, this is just a matter of conversation between Scott Ogden and the Board of Health and my engineer, Alan Huron, that once we cross the threshold, then they will regulate our water.

Okay, so Greg, there is correspondence from the Ulster County Department of Health, and I think that should satisfy this number 12. yes okay number 13 we need to talk about under our code the project um is in the aquifer protection zone and under the code it requires that if there's usage of over a thousand gallons per day for either commercial or mixed use project a hydrogeologic study is required the um and the number for residential is 2500 I'm going to mention again that the residential is not part of our review. So that's sort of out of scope, if you would. The amount of water in the report, his engineer's report from about two weeks ago, indicated that there would be 588 gallons per day used by the anticipated number of people that are going to be using the both facilities, the dojo and the Pilates studio. And then the amount of water, remember this is all from one well, the amount of water coming or being used by the residential, again, by code, by standards is 440. So either those two together, you get 1,028, which is 28 gallons over the $1,000 threshold, 1,000 gallon threshold. So what I'm going to recommend chat it with Greg about it, also chat it with our attorney about it. What I'm going to recommend is after 28 gallons, I don't know that it's appropriate to ask them to do a hydrogeologic study. Plus, if you want to go by the strict letter of the code, The residential facility is already up and running. Now you could say, well, it's from the same well. At one point we chatted about what, and it's giving 19 gallons per minute. The issue isn't, is there enough water for safety and for the use of those buildings? There certainly is compared to the previous use, which was a laundromat and a, The issue in the code around the aquifer protection zone is to protect the water supply of the people that are part of that aquifer. That aquifer goes for miles up and down Route 209, but specific to Accord itself, to the hamlet, is there going to be any impact on the hamlet as a result of this facility? Again, I'm reluctant. What's the difference between 1,000 and 1,028? 28 gallons per day. So it's not for me to decide, but the board can simply say, look, this is not reasonable to ask for that kind of a study for those number of gallons. And it would be our decision weighing the notion of impact on the nearby residential units. Hans, you had your hand up first.

I would think it's not proportional to us for hydrology.

It's what?

It's not proportional to us for hydrology. Proportional.

OK. I would agree. I would imagine that you put all the water use into the, yeah, so.

Plus, I mean, it's kind of a maximum usage. I mean, we have not expected it to look.

Right.

Yeah. And it's not a certain hours a day. It's not that it's going before.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Okay, yeah. HAB-Jacques Juilland- All right, so i'm actually going to ask for a motion for this. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Peter makes the motion to accept. HAB-Jacques Juilland- The next accept the recommendation, not to have a hydro geologic study, given the minimal impact over the threshold. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Peter made the motion second. HAB-Michael Leccese Jr.: I did. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Anybody opposed? No. Okay. So we've dealt with the water and the hydrogeologic survey issue. Drainage plan. Talk to me about the drainage plan.

So there's the town sewer right in front.

Hopefully it's not the sewer.

I know what you mean.

Dorm water. And Greg, you had some comments about the it's a fairly flat parcel.

Yes, it's a fairly flat parcel and it's, it's, um, uh, Less than an acre of disturbance. The only thing that I would say is if you're doing construction and you've got truck traffic, you're going to need some kind of a stabilized construction interest if you're bringing trucks on and off the site just so that you don't track mud onto the roads. It's such a flat site, I doubt you'll have a real... concern of runoff from the standpoint of a silk fence, but I think it should just be noted that if necessary, um, silt fence would be provided and construction entrance, stabilized construction entrance.

Yeah, Zorian just made a very prescient comment. The construction's all done. It's landscaping. It's just the landscaping that we still have to do.

Oh, okay. In that case, then it's not. But they do have a detail on their plans for stabilized construction entrance. Yes. But if they don't need it, they don't need it.

Okay.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- I agree, why we also chose the crush. HAB-Jacques Juilland- percolation.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Last page number 15 and 16 Greg you want to talk about was 16 is the highway superintendent has indicated additional letter indicated that he's fine with it, you want to address number 15 Greg.

So all I was saying is while it is not uncommon that you would have a property line that goes to the center line of the road, I just thought it was important that the highway superintendent does maintain the road and there should be some acknowledgement and statement from the highway superintendent that that will continue and the property owner does not have the right to prevent that maintenance of the road.

I'm sure the highway superintendent is going to plow the road. That's fine with you, right?

Absolutely. And we acknowledge their right and responsibility to plow.

They have it already. It's a user road. Your property line goes to the middle. Correct. So we're going to leave that one alone. We're good with that. And last but not least is emergency vehicle turning movements. We typically would ask for some indication of how and by what means of ingress and egress the trucks or ambulances would get on.

Yes. So Alan, in his response to Greg's review, indicated that he's going to submit an emergency vehicle drawing, you know, showing movement. Just to be, you know, we're not expecting any deliveries whatsoever. This is like in the rare circumstance where an emergency vehicle would come in and you would not, you know, We're not producing a lot of waste. We're not bringing a lot of material in unless we're selling a lot of BJC furniture. Maybe we will. We'll see.

So where are the delivery trucks coming in? They're coming in on Tobacco Road?

If there are any at all, I would say they would pull up right along Tobacco or maybe Lots MT.

And you had mentioned to me that you're not going to have a Dempsey dumpster. You're just going to take care of your

waste so I think two 96 gallon um you know trash bins put in a nice respect with a wooden uh you know storage chain it would look nice and probably any garbage we picked up

whenever it's picked up.

Well, I mean, yeah. And we'll, you know, I haven't opened a contract yet with waste management, but likely they would be pulled right over to tobacco, really, where they would continue on their way.

Okay. All right. Does the board have any other comments?

Yeah. I would just like to say, I think that, you know, they've really put together a good application. They're very efficient. They're getting documentation and thought about a lot of stuff. It's making it a really good, solid application.

I have a couple of questions. The way that the narrative was written in the narrative. The way that it was written in the narrative.

Go ahead. Yeah. What is the difference between dojo, aqua, LOC, and Firestone? Because you designated this name as responsible for.

It's just kind of a nickname in the building to call it the dojo accord instead of saying, hey, have you been to Riverstone? And have you also, you know, it's like it, I think it's the legal structure in the narrative.

I think it's indicated. It's very clearly specified. How many employees independently And the customers will be on the side at the same time.

Two full-time employees at the same time? Yeah, right.

It all depends on the day.

Depends on... Let's imagine that like full capacity, like really being very successful. Sure, you can imagine two full-time employees. And then for yoga, I think that the plan is we're going to be bringing in independent contractors to come in And so it's kind of a rotating feature.

Well, we're expecting 15 people that, you know, if we can get to 15 people per class, that would be.

All right. So it's perfect. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. You're also writing open house, outdoor space sometimes.

Any music in the background before I have to play? Outside? No? No.

Maybe just for me.

I mean, that was, I mean, look, I think it would be really nice. I mean, I'm a big fan of music. You know me now, but... I think it would be nice to be able to have a little light music while we're having some sort of like a community-facing open house where we're welcoming people into the businesses to learn about it.

I don't know. I think it's a theoretical issue, so we shouldn't really take this into consideration.

You're not proposing you're going to have a Friday night? Never.

He doesn't have a dance party out there, right? You don't have an open bar on Friday nights, right?

Maybe.

No.

So there'll be something in the, I'll make sure there's something in the decision that says any outside music must comply with our nearest standards.

Yeah, and we would absolutely respect the vote and the neighborhood. Okay, it's important. That's all I had to say.

Good, anybody else?

I just want to echo what David said, and it's great to have you together with me tonight, but it's also, I mean, it's essentially, yeah. Absolutely, thank you.

Yeah, I think it's really reviving the six-hour time.

You did a beautiful job with the message. Thank you, James.

Having said that, would somebody like to make a motion for a public hearing at the meeting of September 14th?

I'll make that motion.

Peter makes the motion. Alina makes the second. All in favor of a public hearing for the 14th?

Aye. Okay.

So there are a few things you owe us, or you've gotten us already, and the board will review those between now and the public hearing. It's the new lighting plan, and it's the information from your engineer. And then I want you to work with your landscaper to come up with, realizing that the code is a little kludgy, come up with something that works and identifies where the plantings are going.

Absolutely.

All right?

Yeah, one more.

Okay.

So September 14th.

September 14th, you'll be on the public hearing agenda.

Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dave, you haven't had a chance to visit and review, but I'm glad that you guys want to come by. We'd love to.

Stacey was trying to get another date. Stacey, another site plan?

I had one response from Jen.

I want to go. Respond to my emails. I tried.

Read my mind. I know. I should have just done a group text.

My mind, you know.

Okay, first student. All right, so as I mentioned for full disclosure, we did meet with the fire company. We had been trying to put something together for the last two weeks. So we didn't meet today. It was myself, Hans and Helena, Pat Davis, the chief, the captain, Mike Bannock, and the ladies and gentlemen you see here, along with Chris Meador. And then the purpose of it was just to let the fire department be aware of the things that have happened since perhaps they were last familiarized with the details of the project. The things that have happened in terms of detailed safety plans of one sort or another, emergency response plans, et cetera, et cetera. I think it's safe to say that, you know, the, um, the chief and Mike, the captain were very courteous, courteous. They understood, um, they still have some of the same concerns that they've always had. Um, and I invited them to, to be at the meeting, to state those and they're dealing with whatever's going on at two or nine. So, um, I think it's safe to say that all the concerns that you've heard about in the past from the fire company remain. And Helena and Hans, you were there as well. Why don't you just chime in? Helena? I'll catch on. I was just looking. Hans?

I completely concur with you. I think the concerns continue to be there.

You know, if I was to categorize them, the biggest concern still appears to be the size of the site. Right.

And I did, sorry, I was in the, one of my concerns, well, what I tried to do is try to get the chief to focus in on what his main complaints were, what are the concerns. And obviously it was the density. So then I asked the applicant, you know they have data from all of their sites throughout the US and I asked what is the typical density of the site with EV buses and it's typically what three feet in separation and here you are giving us four four and a half because that too was one of my concerns I'm trying to think I don't know if they were satisfied with that and then the other thing that I did not I had not thought of before was if there was a fire, the closure, the potential closure of Route 209. And that was Captain Davis, no, Chief Davis's primary, that was his concern as well as Captain Bannon.

So I guess it's safe to say that they still have the same position. They're concerned. I think that's the best way I can put it. Dave, did you have a question?

Well, I was just saying, you know, from the density, and I guess they're concerned about the proximity of the buses or the density is that in the event of a fire, one will catch. Right. But what we've learned is that, you know, with the early warning systems, that seems to mitigate that risk significantly.

Correct. But I felt I wanted to ask that so that, you know, because we are sitting, first student gives us data that's from around the United States, and I thought it would be good for the chief and the captain to hear that the density, what the typical density is, and... What they're proposing. That was, sorry.

Yeah. And we did also ask them, or maybe they mentioned, you know, the opportunity for a different site. And, you know, we went through a lot of past history of looking for additional sites. The comments about putting it all on the school district, and we went through that again, mentioned to them pretty clearly that this whole board had told them a year and a half ago, put it on the school district side. It's bigger, and it'd be easier to get it done in some ways. But that's not something that's in the cards for a whole bunch of reasons. Primarily, the school district is just not receptive to doing it in that fashion. So I think, you know, we're still not saddled, but we still have the job of sifting through the information and making sure that we're satisfied and then coming up with a decision. Now, I did want to... I don't know if this is in your minutes, you know, the minutes that you look at on Munich Collab.

The agenda.

The agenda minute. Thank you. The agenda. There was a... It's not here. Did this go up, Stacey, from Mike Klein?

Yeah, but I did just this part.

Okay.

So it might look a little different.

All right. So I had asked, there were a number of comments after the last meeting that we had, and I sent Mike Klein an email, and he responded to it. So I'm literally going to, and I believe it is in Munich Lab, question mark. I apologize if it's not.

Is this the clarifications?

Yes, the clarifications. It starts with... Is it from Chris? It's from my client. It's dated August 28th. Good morning, Rick and team. Yes. Where did you find it, Peter?

It's in an email. It's also, it's repeated in an email from you on Sunday, August 30th.

Okay. So I'm going to go through.

So it's not in Unicolab?

No, dear. Okay. It's on email.

Okay.

I'm going to go through it because there were some significant comments. I sent them to Mike and he came back to me with them. The first one was a battery. We're working on the batteries and storage of batteries. And you guys, I'll stop after each one. You can comment on them. I had said we originally said no battery storage, no battery work. But then we got the impression at one of the meetings that that had changed. And you reiterated absolutely no storage, no work on batteries. one of you, if one of you want to add some color commentary to that, fine. You'll still be working on the diesels as you do today, but no work of a battery nature is going to take place at that site. If there's something wrong with the tires, if there's some other mechanical, you're going to do it there, but you're not going to, you'll warrant to us that you're not doing any of the battery storage or battery work. Mike, you want to? That is correct.

So that would be Typically, such work would happen off-site, either at the dealer or some qualified technician, but not at our site.

OK. So I wanted to elicit that, which was, I think, all of our initial impression. Lighting, we asked for a mention of the lighting again, and they came back indicating that they will comply with the requested 10 o'clock lights out. And the only lighting that will be there is whatever you need for security reasons. So those huge floodlights, as we've been talking, are gone. You have to be dark sky compliant. And there'll be a lights out at 10 o'clock, which is similar to the lights out, I believe, on most of the gas stations in the town. Really? That's not the case. You should report it to the CEO. But the one on the corner of Queens is lights out at 10.

So when I come home at 11, I don't know. It's never close.

Okay, so I take that back. You have to do it at 10, even though not everybody else is doing it. When they come back to us with a project of some sort, we'll tell them it's 10 o'clock lights out. Okay. Okay. The next item that I mentioned to him is charger monitoring. I'll read it specifically. I had asked, where exactly in the documentation do you talk about the monitoring of the charging function? and what kind of response as a result of there being a problem, where is the explanation of that in writing? And they came back to me, the monitoring and notification process is described on pages six and seven of the fire department quick response guide, version one, and pages four or five of the ad court emergency response and fire safety manual, version one. So it is there. I wanted to make sure that it was, we talked about it at length. And then AMP control, Which is your?

Charging management software.

Okay. And who's monitoring that? That's a software. Who monitors this?

That's a 24-7 monitoring system by AmpControl, staffed by AmpControl. And they are set up to provide notifications for student personnel based on what they see.

Okay. So that was the answer to that question. So that web-based, I guess, internet-based notification if there's something wrong. Either there's something wrong with the EV charger, it's putting out too much, or the bus is not able to take...

Charging disruption would be notified. And 99% of the time, it would be something minor. But that gives an indication for us to look into it and identify if there's something additional rather than just some other event.

So all those procedures are contained in those documents as noted here. The next one was emergency notification. Amp control does not automatically dispatch the fire department. Designated first student personnel review the alert from amp control and calls 911 immediately if the condition indicates a potential thermal event or other life safety hazard. So at least in my mind, that clarified what I thought I heard. Vehicle monitoring. The buses contain OEM-installed battery management, thermal management, diagnostic, and protective systems. For students, maintenance and EV teams can review vehicle fault information and historical logs when an issue is identified. However, this is not a separately staffed 24-7 vehicle monitoring service. So if it's not 24-7, what is it then?

So it's something that is noticed When the vehicle is being operated or charged, we have like vehicle telemetry software so that can identify, but it's not a continuous monitoring operation like the charging management software.

So the charging management is 24 seven. This is more of a maintenance that you can go back as you can with some cars, you can go back into the record and see what's going on.

Yes.

Okay. Automatic protection. The vehicles, the chargers, and electrical equipment include protective systems that can interrupt charging or isolate faulty equipment when abnormal conditions are detected. An exterior emergency stop device will also allow responders or authorized personnel to disconnect power to the charging equipment. This does not de-energize the batteries inside the buses. And all of that would be part of the training that you would do to the 911 responders. Correct. Okay. Just the board have any other quite those were a few questions that were asked by a couple of you. So I wanted to get that on the record.

Was this provided to Chief Davis?

You know, I don't know if he's seen this email.

I mentioned it, but I can't swear to it that it went to him.

Do you want me to forward it to him?

Yes. Well, let me just check who it went to. He's not on the list. He's not on the list. He's not on there. He's not on the list. So that didn't go to them.

I think that, yeah, good call, Peter. This is really good.

So would you forward that to Chief Davis, to Mike Bannock?

Because that could potentially.

And copy the folks on it. First student. And for that matter, copy the whole board. Thank you. Thank you.

Great. I have a question. I asked last time about your isolation areas, the bus, which you just started. You put insulation in it, but if it's really on fire, it says, don't touch it. My question was, what happens to adjacent buses? So would that be a clarification in your manual, short manual for fire department? Yes, so in our emergency... And also, I want to say, all right, so you don't touch, because otherwise it's going to be like... Propagation. So why don't we move, okay, don't touch adjacent bus, but remove the buses next to adjacent bus.

Right.

That's my point. Otherwise, everybody, I mean, everybody started... No, 100% agree.

So what we're seeing is If it is safe to do so, I mean, many times you will get an indication of a thermal event about to happen before it actually happens. And in that situation, it might be safe to move the bus to an isolation zone. But if it's already a burning bus, then nobody is going to, I mean, incident command will have to take over. But if it is safe to move the adjacent buses or the buses adjacent to those, by all means, yes, we would try and move them. But it all depends on what situation we find ourselves in.

Yeah, I understand. So great. Paul pointed out and mentioned that in your short instruction.

Yep.

So I think you're hearing agreement. In the midst of something happening, what is it, belief happens? and they'll do the best they can in order to deal with whatever the bleep is.

I think they did address that in the commercial response plan.

They did.

All right. They didn't address that part when- Yes, they did.

I read it today. They read it. If it's safe to do, they will allow, but- I didn't have a chance to- Yeah, yeah.

But if it's not safe, we don't want them to.

Yeah.

So again, when you have an emergency, you do whatever is possible as long as you're not risking somebody's life. Okay.

And I think it's worth raising the comment that Chris made in our discussion earlier today with the fire chief and the fire captain that in the extremely low possibility of this thermal event, Chris has been unable to identify or your consultant has been unable to identify any thermal event regarding battery. Is that correct, Chris?

So my research had been towards LFP batteries in vehicles. So I basically set up an alert so that if there was ever a fire in a bus, it would get me as much information in real time as is happening and keep on updating me. The goal was to kind of educate myself as to what's happening out there. There are a series of buses that are not school buses that are using a different technology. They had a lot of failures. That's a completely different product than what we're talking about here. To date, and I just got an email this morning, I have not been able to find an LFP failure in a vehicle. I just have not been able to find any yet. So part of the discussion today, for those of you that weren't there also, is Bus fires, when you look at the buses, whether it's a diesel bus or an electric bus, they're essentially the same bus. They're the same vehicle, with one exception. One is powered by a diesel engine with a diesel tank, and the other one is powered by using batteries, which are inside the rails of the vehicle. Hypothetically, you have one on fire versus the other on fire. I'm just talking about the bus, though. I'm not talking about the batteries. You're going to treat them pretty much the same, whereas if there was a failure with the with the battery, obviously you're going to let the battery burn out. You're not going to be able to extinguish with our current technology, with what we currently have available to us in the firefighting profession, to be able to extinguish that battery fire. And that's just where we're at right now. Over time, hopefully it changes. I know there's some products coming out of the UK and out of Europe about extinguishing these things, but The LFP battery is sealed in a metal container between the rails of the bus. There's a couple batteries. There's two or three, if I recall correctly, right? On the buses, depending on the capacity. Depending on the capacity, yes. There can be two or three, correct? Correct. So that's pretty much where it's at. You're going to treat them like, if it's on fire, if it ceases on fire inside a bus, Or if it's the cab of the bus or something like that. You're going to treat it the same as any other bus. It's when the batteries get involved where the operation is going to change a little bit.

Does that answer the question? Yeah.

I just wanted to reiterate to the planning board members who work here at Curfew.

It does bring up an interesting subject. When we were with the chief and Mike Bannock, they mentioned the amount of water that would be necessary to put out even just one bus. And I just made the statement as a non-fire person, but that the industry recommendation with these buses that might catch on fire is not to use any water. So I think it's not to say that it... shut that discussion down, but it ended that discussion. It's like, well, nobody's recommending that water be used. And I'm assuming that it wouldn't be water used because there isn't enough water that you can put on it to put it out. So I think that took care of that concern. So anyway, thanks for that update.

Any other comments? There was one other I've Sorry, I failed to mention this. The other concern that the chief and captain had had to do with the weight of the buses and the weight limits on our local bridges.

So that came up once before Dave Church was researching it. Part of the, I just made another note, part of the decision will be You need to do a thorough review of the bridge capacities in the area. And I'm almost certain that Dave did some of that work for you guys. Yeah. Well, you're not going to send people those buses over those bridges.

Actually, shouldn't that fall on first student? Because you were going to have to figure out.

Well, we could check the routes.

Yeah, you are going to have to change routes dramatically. Maybe if if we need to. Yes. So perhaps you might want to start doing that homework. Will that be something that we, the planning board, require? No.

I don't know. I'm not an expert in which bridges do or don't have certain capacities. Most of our bridges are fine.

No, they're not. How many tons did you say?

Between 26 to 30.

And a lot of our local bridges are three tons, I think, three to five.

I mean, some of them were.

Yeah. So I think it'd be prudent that you provide us with a list soon. The result of your research into which bridges you can't go over. You've got to do it anyway.

You should be doing it now because your buses... You're going to have to know what the proposed routes are going to be.

Yeah. The proposed buses are 30 tons, right? Right. The existing buses, if I understand, are 20 tons or 18 tons.

So diesels are up to 26 tons, and then EVs can be between 26 to 30, depending on what... What about the diesels right now that you're running?

How heavy are they?

They're heavy.

18?

No, maybe higher in the 20s. So there's going to be...

The point is you shouldn't be going over those bridges now.

Yeah, we're not going over the three bridges now anyway.

I want to see some... Well, if you have one end on one and... We just jump. We've ridden... So I want to see something.

It makes sense to do it now because it's a feasibility study for you. We're going to have the sense to do it.

So Mike or Brian, call out of what you're doing now and tell us which bridges you're not going to go. Just reassure this board that you know what bridges you're not going to go over.

Okay.

I want to see that soon.

Okay. So anything else?

I don't think I forgot anything. It's a slow reveal.

Anything else? I want to see if Chris had anything else for the meeting.

So I think we've come light years from where we were originally with the emergency response plan and training plan, although they're much more comprehensive. I did relate to the chief at the end of the meeting today that I'm happy to meet with him. The chairman said it's authorize me to meet with them again if we want to make changes or updates that document or if something doesn't make operational sense for that organization. So I'm happy to put that time in.

And there is one more thing that I have to mention. Late Friday or early Saturday, I got an email from Chris LaPlaine. And he indicated that he was concerned about nothing to do with EV with the diesel bill and he was recommending a system that would handle such an event it's my impression that that doesn't exist right now that kind of a system and the issue is can we take a look at something as a result of what's going on right now of redoing the site plan it's a it's a reuse of the property we're doing it with the lighting should we apply it to the potential for diesel uh spills This morning or yesterday, Sunday or today, you sent me a certificate and a SWIP. I didn't read the SWIP because it was 147 pages. The certificate is one page.

That was the PBS?

Right. What I mentioned to Mike earlier in the day after we finished our meeting, I said, I want something from you telling me what page of the SWIP addresses the kind of issues that Crystal Klein brought up. Where is it near SWPPP so we could direct ourselves to that page? Otherwise, we may have to have a discussion about dealing with that issue as Crystal Klein raised. So the next day or two, get me something on that.

We will do that. We feel very confident that our stormwater pollution prevention plan is very detailed and in the respect that it will address all the comments and questions that you have.

Proof is in the pudding.

Let me see in the pudding. Firstly, that's the primary issue. I mean, the rest of it, I feel satisfied from learning about the early warning systems and so on, but this protection of the acts with regular diesel is the number one issue.

Which is an existing use. I mean, we've been operating out of there

It may be an existing use. However, I think now is the time. We are getting the funds. I don't know what the funds, if it's all dedicated to the purchase of the buses, but let's bring that site up to 2026 standards. I mean, you look at that.

Well, we comply, right? We are fully compliant.

I understood, but.

The only thing I would say is,

that was spent and then some in the last two years. I just want to make sure.

You understand the town's concern.

We do.

I just didn't want anybody to think there's... No, I didn't know where the money, you know, if there was money for site development or it's just purchase.

Helena, there's something here from the DEC, that certificate.

Yeah, that's the petroleum bookstore.

But then it's also, I don't know when this was determined to be at the perfection overlay. That's a fairly recent thing, right? So...

Um, no, that's that's been identified as an act for protection zone for at least the last 8 years. Oh, years. Okay.

Well, since the, since the place has been, yeah, it wasn't done in 2024. If that's what you're saying after the current use was.

I'm not sure I was gonna say, I think it's been used. I think we have used it.

in the current use for seven or eight years. I think it had been used for a few decades. It's been in operation since the 89, I think.

All right, so I look forward to getting that information from you, Mike. All right, anything else?

So what time frame are we talking about?

Okay, that's where I'm going. That's what I'm asking. Anybody else? All right. So I asked Dave Church to put together a decision for the 14th, September 14th. He said he'd be able to do that. So the board will have a decision by early, not this week, but early the following week. And all the things we've been talking about will be in there. And if not, we'll take care of that when we go through that decision on the 14th. So we'll have a decision to render on the 14th. of the meeting today or the the gathering today i should say not a meeting the gathering gathering uh i can do a summary okay what i'll do is i'll do it i'll give it to you and uh helena hans and i'll add to it i'll try to do it first thing tomorrow okay all right as quickly as i can so you can review it yeah and then also on

I think it's good for... Yeah, just a summary of the gathering, but also because Pat has not had that... Yeah, I know you just sent it to him, so we can encourage you to... Yeah, it didn't go.

I think it's dated the 28th, so it's Friday. It's not that long. Thursday or Friday. Okay. Thank you. We're good. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to take a 10-minute break, and then we have a variety of things. Thank you.

Thank you.

27 pages. Yeah. The mic is on, so it carries over to the soup, so let's just get this. Yes, please. She might subscribe tomorrow. It's emotional. It's also emotional. It doesn't mean make it right. And, you know, that's a disease. And I get it. They should have to help me put in an RFP, looking for, I mean, the, I know it's, it's supposed to be, and the legal notice is looking for, and I don't think it's, I don't think it's, I don't think it's, I don't think it's, . . . . . . . . Right. Right. I remember the discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. It's not part. I don't do it. Yeah. Right. It's a guy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Some have a little extra .

It's not really a bad thing, because there are . And people change, that's true. They change, and some people don't know . Yeah. No, I hear you.

I know. But yeah, it was basically just like, yeah, yeah, exactly.

The deal is that you pay for the change and then you're meant to pay for the change back. So you have someone who's getting a cottage and is actually adding a roof. It's a large expense. You've got to go to the planning board.

So it's a huge expense.

Yeah.

But the logic is they should down. So what are you going to add? Yeah.

Oh, I don't think you'd have to. I don't know.

No, no, I understand. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be 2028. So that means probably construction not finished until 2030.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to see the water and I said, okay. Wow. This is the food that went so young on it. Fire with fire. I get it. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's because they all finally don't find it. That's it.

What else you got? But after that, it went well.

We apologize for it.

That's what it is. You just want to be able to work out the idea. And that is so satisfying. Yeah. It's all good.

It's not bad.

It's not bad. It's not bad. It's not bad. It's not bad. It's not bad. It's not bad. It's not bad. I put a whole bunch of it. You want it? Okay.

All right. So you said we were going to discuss the decision, which was sent, the draft of the decision was sent out on Tuesday to the board, was published, was not published yet on Munichland. Forget me.

as opposed to not correct me.

It was posted on Friday. So I had sent a really rough draft on Tuesday. And then a cleanup draft, if you would, was sent out on Friday and was posted to Munich. the better draft still needs a lot of work um both in terms of i think as our attorney has said that it needs to be a little bit more magisterial um use that word you use that word and or just needs to be a little bit less uh folksy if you would or storytelling ish okay fine um Style, I'm interested in style, but I'm more interested in content and recommendations. Hey, you got this wrong, or I don't understand this. What about this? Those sort of comments. Now, admittedly, this didn't get out to you until Friday. I want to thank Stacey for all of her input. And also Dave. Dave did read a good portion of it, and I asked him to stop at some point in anticipation of we had this meeting. And he'll pick it up again at the end of this meeting, starting this week. So I want to thank the two of them. What I'd like to suggest tonight is we're not going to go through this page by page. There's 40 some more pages. What I would like to do is to gain from you general comments. about how it was presented. And then any specific comments that you have about mistakes that you may have picked up on. And then suggest, I know Dave may have some comments that he may want to make. And then what I suggest is that you send me your comments. And me. And Stacey. By, let's say, Thursday of this week. I think we've caught most of the grammar. items, most of the spelling and punctuation, that kind of stuff. But if you have any fine, but it's more content. And what I will do, don't copy the whole, don't copy the whole board because I don't want to have a board discussion over email. So send it directly to Stacey and me. And what I'll do is go through each one of them. And I'll respond either to you individually or call you if I need clarification. And then by early the following week, over the weekend, and by Monday of next week, I'll have more of a final draft for the next meeting, which would be the meeting of September 14th. And it would be at that meeting that hopefully we can make a decision. So I would really appreciate Wednesday, Thursday of this week, Thursday of the latest, so that I can get to it quickly. Again, Stacey was very helpful. But Dave and I are going to spend both days out and spend some time making sure that we've got everything tied together. Just a comment on the style. and the organization of the first section as we've done with shorter decisions is the findings comes first. So the findings of fact regarding things like visual impacts on plants and animals, impacts on land um on recreation on um so there's a whole section on findings and it's also a very large section on findings uh of the need for the tower spent about five pages four and a half five pages um somewhere around page 26 i think it was 25 on the needs um And then after that are the recommendations or the conditions. Now the conditions, well, findings and conditions, but the conditions in particular, I went through every part of the code to make sure that I covered all the site plan um sections of the code that needed to be covered and that both findings as well as decisions or recommendations conditions um that evolved from looking at those sections of the code all the sections of the code were in this document so you might ask well like what well the requirement for bonding for example 140-56 I think it is there'll be certain bonding requirements the section on special use and site plan site plan being a site plan the map the plot plan there are six special use requirements that needed to be met so I went through those if there was something in a particular section that there was no findings about because it didn't apply or there's therefore no conditions. I just left it out. But I listed those and it gets a little boring. I listed those by the number of the particular code, 140.55, 140.56, whatever. So that's just a brief explanation of why I stuck those in there. Dave Church quite rightly reminded me that is not only 140-29, which is the telecommunications section, it's a number of other codes that we have to deal with. So I did that. And that gets a little boring. So with that, I'd just like to get your impressions and specific things that you think are either missing and or are wrong that you picked up on already. I'd like to know those. So who wants to be first?

I have one question before we open the floor. Stacey, was this sent as a PDF? Yes. Could you resend to the board as a Word document? Yes. Please. That way I can, it would be easier with track changes to put in.

Could I make a request of everybody with the track changes? I don't do well with track changes myself particularly. So Stacey will send it to you as word. Can you just put them in there as red line? Yeah, that's what I was intending. Not that track change stuff on the side?

Oh, you don't want the balloons?

Right.

Okay.

Just give me red line, purple line, whatever.

Understood. I do well with that. I have the track changes myself, so.

Okay. That's a good point. Stacy's probably doing it right now.

No.

Any other comments?

I had to say, will it be able to be printed out?

Yeah.

It's easier for you to... She'll print out a copy for you before we go home tonight.

How's that?

I can do that.

Anybody else want to print a copy?

No, I'm good.

I have a lot right here, but there are the old ones. I do well with paper coins, too.

I just like to cross-reference. I like it.

Peter? I'd just like to acknowledge how much pretty work this is. Yeah. You guys did. I mean, it's just like, my God, it's mind-numbing. Yes, it is.

My mind is numbed, as is Stacy's, as is Dave's. So thank you. All three of us appreciate that. It's very important that we include everything that the board has talked about and that the board feels is necessary in order to make a decision.

And the URLs are really important for referencing back to... And you yet to add the link to Babs or...

Oh, so Zorin had a good question about a reference in one of the couple of URLs that tab such and such. There were three big documents that I received from Verizon. One was the first one in November of 24. And there were at least two, maybe three other ones that contained the visuals, the actual visuals, contained additional information that we asked for. So there was another three documents. They're all on Munica Lab. um and within those documents most of all of them there were tabs so that's what that refers to one of them had 16 tabs another one had i think was eight tabs and so there were different parts in that document um and i referenced a tab in that thought you're going to make reference to those i'll make reference to those tabs And I usually identify the document as the document sent to us with the cover letter by Scott Olson of December 25th or whatever, tab number eight.

And hopefully those URL links never change because otherwise it's going to show up in five, six months, patient unavailable. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

I'm depending on Stacey to make sure that does. Okay, anything else?

Should we start? Go ahead. All right. First question, and I always get this question. Antenna, and it was perfect, but what I read, antenna, N-W-M-A-E, is for insects, but antennas for metallic objects.

So what word do you want me to use? A or A-E?

Antennas.

A.

Right, A-S.

Right, exactly.

Did you say that A-E is for insects and A-S? Right, right. A-E is Latin and A-S is English. Where is this?

It says English people using A-E in UK. Some comments are out. Okay.

I'm going to consult my Oxford dictionary, which I have on a podium. in the middle of my office.

Also some days, but I'm not going to discuss the dates right now. I send the comments. One thing was unclear to me. One place at the very beginning, you mentioned wetland and setback. And it says, if they do not move, then they must employ breakpoint technology. I will. But we're not agreed to use breakpoint technology anyway, regardless.

OK. So I think you're referring to?

It's page 11. Where are you talking about?

Maybe it's your page 11. It's not my page 11.

No, no, it was on page 11.

But let me comment. I know what you're talking about. Are you working all the Fridays?

I'm working on Lakers. Okay.

So maybe it jumped around when I'm thinking about it. So there were two places where I mentioned setbacks, if you would. One was having to do with the wetlands.

Mm-hmm.

in terms of the use or non-use of a wetland specialist to analyze what impact there might be on the wetlands. And so I had asked Greg to take a look at, Greg is still on the phone. I had asked Greg to take a look at specifically what the setback, from the edge of the wetlands, the closest portion of the wetlands, what was the measurement to the edge of the compound, the 50 by 50. It was, as I recall, 400 feet. And it was 300 feet to the setback and 400 feet to the wetlands. So that was one thing. The other place that I mentioned setback had to do with the The code says that the setback for the tower itself has to be 110% away from, and not the tower, but the compound, has to be 110% away from the side yard. And also, in this case, the apartment building. So in order to do that, to accomplish that, we would have to move, Verizon would have to move the compound slightly and Greg developed a diagram. I don't know if you remember the diagram to do that. Or we could approve a waiver in that section that allowed them to apply the breakpoint technology. And that would get around that. I had a discussion with the applicant. His preference, and you might change his mind hopefully soon so I can put it in the document, but his preference would be to move the compound. But I also thought that you said that you would be doing the breakpoint technology anyway.

We're doing both. So we're going to do both.

My point was essentially that.

Yeah, I wanted to give you the full.

Another question I have about the same subject. Instead of four feet from any wetland, which includes 100 foot required, why wouldn't say 300 feet from the 100 foot So in other words, it's clear it's at 300 feet, not to the wetland, but to the buffer. Okay.

Send me when you send me your notes.

Yeah.

And you're saying that's on page 11. Keep going.

Thank you.

Okay. One comments you missing on page 37, when you're talking about ARIA. engineer, you're not concluding what, what, what does it find in this? Again, I'm going to send it to Thomas. Yeah, and there is basically some typos.

Okay, I'll send it. Send everything to him. Anybody else?

I know I'm putting you on the spot a little bit because I only sent this out to you on Friday.

If you do have a wrong date under findings of the back on page six, where we discussed following additional discussion and public comment, this review was continued to the March 30th, 2026 meeting, not 2025.

Okay. Yeah.

That was incorrect. Um, And, you know, some is style on page seven, where, and I understand how we're developing this. Okay. And taking quotes from the studies that have been done. But I think we need to provide a statement that ties into the conclusion. So, for instance, where we were talking about their invention, we referenced the Delta Oaks group. with the USDA Web Soil Survey. And there's a statement that was copied, which says subsurface water can be expected at depths greater than 0.5 feet. Any reader could think, well, you know, what does that mean? So we need to add a comment that says, but, you know, because it's a 25-acre site, and yes, over by the wetlands, you're going to have water. The water table is going to be at 0.5 feet. But here, you can tie in with that in that bullet, and it was not found at the specific site location or something.

I know exactly the section you're referring to.

Exactly. So things like that. On other... You know, in some of the biological studies, et cetera, I think we need to add a statement that although there were concerns, this site does not contain this type of habitat. I won't go into the detail, but I'll send it to you, whether it be on the ospreys or the purple bergamot, which is in fields, not in wooded areas. You know, I think we need to have, if you're going to make statements, we need to tie those in. with a conclusion and not open-ended. So it's a path to... Yeah, because if you, yeah.

Fair enough.

Does that make sense? I mean, it's just little tweaks. Yeah, I have more. Okay. But they're just things along those lines, just to tie it in to be, you know, because when you are citing the reports, It's good to have what we've included.

That's all. In some cases, I thought I might have put it in the findings for that section, but I may have missed a couple of them.

Yeah, it's just a little. I'll go through it. Okay.

Greg had mentioned some conditions on maintenance of monopine, things that I think were good points to...

I don't know if it was... I think I put some things in there about the maintenance.

About the additional down-the-road stuff. I thought it was Greg's memo, but... You won't miss it.

No, you don't want... It was... I think it was a memo from... Greg, did you send us a memo about the maintenance of the monopine?

Hang on a second.

I don't believe so. I didn't say anything about the maintenance of the monopon.

Yeah.

Scott's going to be going to have to come up with in the decision. It'll mention we need. Greg is going to have to come up with the numbers, for example, for the performance bond, along with the engineers from Tectonic. Right. So Tectonic will give us the performance bond, the maintenance bond. and the remediation bond, gradually review them as we normally do. And then they have to get a fee. They get acknowledged by this board, and they get approved by the town board.

We've already sent the town board a town assessment of what the removal costs and remediation costs would be. And I'm expecting to get the grant bond, so the town board is going to want to see the cost. The state has to approve all plans. Obviously, they can seek their own terms, but under the law, it goes to them directly.

I don't know if it goes to them. Under the TCA law?

No, under your section of the code. It's 140-56. We want to see it. I don't care if you send it to me. I want CPL.

The town board's been in the habit of coming back and saying it. They're in the habit of seeing it from us, and when I send it to them, I indicate that it's been reviewed by our engineer, so I don't have to worry about is it accurate or not.

I'll send it to you tomorrow. Okay.

Yeah, reread the code. I thought it, whatever. Okay. Dave, you have any comments?

Nope.

Okay. Stacey?

No.

All right, so by Wednesday, Thursday, if I can get as much as possible. And Scott, let's talk about the bonding so we don't fall, get in each other's way on that or fall all over ourselves.

Yeah, I would look at, yes.

Okay. I'll have to reread 140, 56 myself.

Awesome, that'd be tomorrow. So I'm looking at the, with the tree, but what Matt Allen said about, you know, you have to maintain the tree and the landscape. So I was going through what the code said, and like you may have seven or eight items. I only thought two of them were probably applicable. So then we just have to talk with DeBoer and Greg as to what those numbers are.

And we'll start with your numbers and then he'll just take a look at them.

Yeah.

Aliyah, were you going to say something else?

Did we discuss... Long-term maintenance, because once this gets approved, then the site gets turned over to another company for?

Not automatically. The site is, once it's approved, the site is two scenarios. It's owned and built and owned by Verizon, or they are, all the carriers are in the habit of sometimes also assigning them to a power company for the building of it, who can have maintenance on it. But if there was an assignment, they have to comply with your code.

So then if there is a decision, do we have to have language in that decision that would state that these conditions apply to all successors? I think you should. That's what I'm kind of going with.

Well, I wonder.

But I don't know the legal. I agree.

We haven't, but I can tell you now, I haven't presented it to any of the companies yet. My gut is no company is going to take it because it's an extremely pricey. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Situation. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, that's just my gut.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Good sense to have that in there because somebody wants to come along and say, HAB-Masyn Moyer- Well, and also, HAB-Masyn Moyer- Matt shook did indicate

from matchup from PIPC had indicated that that is a prudent way to conduct business.

I'm going to turn to you, David, but I even think, you know, if there's an intent of doing that, we have the right, I don't know, do we have the right to refuse whoever that person is if they have a bad history?

HAB-Masyn Moyer- That I think we can well let's take one step at a time there's nothing appropriate about what we're suggesting I think it would naturally apply anyway, if you give a site plan approval and they say assign. the right to build or to use the site and leave leases to somebody else, that person is bound by the site plan. I can imagine a scenario where they're not, but it doesn't hurt to state it. Now, Rick's taking the concern and sort of finding the crack in it and amplifying it. If they want to assign it to a bad guy... Maintenance one.

The maintenance of it.

Whatever it is, the development of it. I mean... You know, planning boards struggle with this, agencies struggle with it. DEC helped me going back, what, 30 years, developed a bad guy policy. This comes up, what if somebody comes before you and everything's fine, but they're just bad guys.

And what was it? I can't remember what it was called, but it was more related to enforcement. So if you were a permittee, with open, well, not open enforcement, and let's say you were under an order on consent and you failed to meet the orders of the order on consent, whether it's fine and corrective actions, and then the same corporate entity comes to you for another project on a permitting basis that you could suspend, you

basic point is, number one, we did formalize a policy where applicant was basically a bad guy. Two, the applicant's a really bad guy, very often tied up in types of applicants that play games with toxic waste sites and things like that. And so under certain circumstances, DEC has their policy is that DEC will question and maybe even disqualify certain applicants. Beyond that, we're dealing with the site planning.

And it's very easy just to change the LLC, which is the way.

Well, yes. But the intent was there. It was like the bad actor. I mean, let's not even... I mean, we can take hypotheticals and worst case scenarios wherever we want. Your concern is, I would say, it's basically embedded in the process, but if you want to go ahead and have some language, make it clear. I think we should have that out there.

Seminar over. I have a question. In terms of the founding notifier, did they select a particular contractor or something to build it on evidence?

PB, David Ensign — He or She. : With now could make it again. PB, David Ensign — He or She. : The natural presumption and most land use matters is is no, I mean you'll you'd be notified there's a violation, but you don't suspect a priority that there will be violation, so you don't load it in. PB, David Ensign — He or She. : The subdivision, this is that you know it can be anything to be a subdivision, and so, in my experience. You'll know about it. They start the sub divider developer starts messing things up. You may, you may want to hear about it. You hear about it. If you're, if you have enough of a concern about this process, could we say, could we say we're notified if you assigned it or whatever else? Sure. You can do that. Yeah.

Because if somebody brought by, for example, new properties, they kind of modify. So sales records founded who is the owner or through the,

So you've been on the board for I don't know how many years. You've dealt with I don't know how many dozens or even hundreds of subdivision approvals, site plan approvals. I mean, it's the same answer. A five lot subdivision coming in terribly in time. We've seen it before. We've seen people come in.

No, but I'm thinking about who owns the Pacific, essentially. Because we give them their need to Verizon and they find some subcontracts, some other companies would now be notified who they have to deal with this now.

Again, we don't typically do this. If you want to do it, we can do it.

But I mean, do we have a sense that Verizon, you know, they're not looking for, they went to Verizon and said, we don't own it anymore, so.

then I think it would be simplified. If somebody is doing something on the property that's wrong, dangerous and violates plan approval. The building inspector can go out there and shut it down no matter who's on it. You don't necessarily have to write a letter to the corporate office in Indiana. You go out there and shut the property down if they're doing something wrong. This is the way it works all the time. I understand.

You always know who the landowner is. Yeah, essentially.

How does it know who is now the woman?

Yeah.

Well, again, the landowner is a matter of public record. You can go to, the county's got, the county's got... It's a property, yes, but I don't know how is it... I'm sorry, I don't get it. Are you saying that we need to... I mean, I'm not even sure where we're going with this. We can put a condition in there if you want. My only suggestion to you, again, unless you think that this particular developer, Verizon, is in some way more suspicious or more concerned about...

I'm not saying.

Why didn't we do this last week when we approved X, Y, and Z? I mean, I'm not getting what the story is.

This is not the land. I'm talking about this piece of equipment.

Give us title.