Planning Board - Regular Meeting

likely changed. It had never been on the agenda for this meeting. If anybody's here for Rav, they were never on the agenda for tonight. And is is they are they going to be on an agenda? They're going to be on an agenda, but I can't even tell you when. I don't even have a date yet. So, all the people that are organized, I told them that I as well. Sorry. The earliest they'll be on the agenda is December 8th. That's the earliest. It might slip to end of year. I'll call ahead of time. You can find out until uh check the website the week before December 8th.

Definitely not. So early December, check the website. The town's website and subscribe to the news. Feel free to stand. Actually, I got Kudos. We should be live. Okay, we're live. Have a glass of wine instead of sitting here. I'm going to check on my should. Did you see that? Go get We have a two four five. We have a Yep. We're good. He's away. He's back. Oh, is he? Yeah, he's in Boston. Oh. Yeah, he's a lawyer. I guess he mentioned it. I don't remember.

Oh, maybe. Okay. Is everybody settled in back then? One of these eggs as a as a member. Don't give those eggs to the to the 632. You're getting closer, Chad. Welcome, Pilgrim. It's a really good one. Welcome. Yeah, I know. Miss Wow. Okay.

Okay. I'm calling to order meeting Rochester Planning Board of November 10th. Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay. Personal announcement. We have a secretary, a permanent secretary, even though they all love too. Not only a secretary, a great secretary, a great

I'll second that. I'll second that emotion. So, uh, Miss Great Secretary, would you, uh, call the role? Yes. Um, chair Jones here. Member Nelson here. Member Judah here. Member Peter here. Member Farwell here. Member Pinsky will be back right there. Yep. And member Roberts and we have Dave Church and then Okay, we have them for um project updates. Jennifer, do you want to give an update on Pinker?

Yes. So, we received a revised map from Bill Edgars for Pinkeris. That's the pink links, right? they're converting it to they're proposing to convert to the orthodontist office. Um the so we did receive the revised math but unfortunately we received it just a few days ago and he hadn't paid escro until today. So we've been able to get it on the agenda first thing. It hasn't been reviewed by Dave yet. So in terms of next steps going to take a look at it. Um I've reviewed it. I shared my feedback. Uh Dave will also took a look at it. We'll combine our we'll send it to via applicant. Um and then obviously everyone here will have an opportunity to review but we'd like to refer it to Olster County Planning Board hopefully the next time we meet depending on you know assuming that we get everything we need. So I think that's where we are with it. And we also do want to set up a site visit. So when I send my note with our comments I'll also request a site visit with the applicant at that.

Okay. Unfortunately Mr. Pickris kind of got stuck in all the brewhaha with either no secretary. He was actually he had to go to Florida. He had some medical issues, didn't get his money in, etc., etc., etc. So, I think he has everything in him for the county, right? And to us, I want to I want to defer I want to wait for Dave to provide us with comments. I think we're probably there. Um,

so I'm going to do something unusual. Um if we wait to the December, well, we might have another meeting in November even though I cancelled it in order to just do um Horizon. We'll see. But if we wait till December 8 to send it to the county, it misses the county meeting of December and slips to January. And this is kind of a no-brainer um project. It's a small business that, you know, we want some small businesses. Um, want to increase the tax base. So, I'm going to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to ask the board if it would be okay to send it to the county as a result of you all agreeing to them, assuming both Dave and Jennifer report back to me in the next day or two that everything's ready to go to the county.

Yeah. In terms of comments, I mean, my comments were on lighting, parking. there wasn't the only other comment that I don't think we've mentioned is just to reflect where the subject is on it. I think the subject had the subject. So that maybe we would actually need the map revised and resubmitted, but but nothing was really that could be a sub subsequent. It doesn't hold up the county looking at it. Is Yeah. So is the board okay if I You need a motion.

It's better to make a motion. I'll entertain a motion to send it to the county assuming that Dave and Jennifer who is sponsoring it. Gives me the assurance that everything is ready for the county. We'll send it to them so he gets it on the December agenda. I'm in favor of that motion. I'll make the motion. Second. Second. Everybody in favor? I just say I. Yeah. I just so I's and for is is out. So, one absence. Okay. And Jennifer, Mr. Pinker wasn't so happy. So, could you right now send him a little note and let him know what we just did?

Okay. Maybe he'll come in with donuts for us. Okay. So, you made the motion. I made three months. I'm just Okay. Just post. Yeah. You want to do the minute? Oh, wait. Well, you can go ahead, John. Um, I'm really moving ahead quickly. Are there any other projects to update on it on Hans? So, so we had a cookie business which was supposed to do roadside stand. They didn't provide the zoning. So, the the print has to be withdrawn for the application.

We're going to get free cookies now. We'll have to wait. Um, Okay. Um, let's do the minutes before we go on to John Pson. So, um, somebody has read the minutes. Um, they were pretty long. Stacy, thank you so much for capturing it almost verbatim and most importantly capturing the comments that we made when we went over the 17 points the last time about the uh, about the Verizon project. And I think it captured very accurately what our decisions were. So this is an an important piece of information for when we get into the seeker process. So I went through them. Everything looks good to me.

Anybody have any comments? Anybody? I'll enter a motion to approve the minutes of October 27th. Make a motion. I all in favor. Six in favor. I wasn't asking. Okay, you can read it and if you liked it, you could have, but you're abstaining. So, five yays, one abst one not abstinence, but one abstain and one absent. Don't worry, I got it. Oh, it's going to be a night. I'm losing my voice early. It's only 6:30.

Okay, John, is this the chair? This is John Post. He's here for what is meeting the spirit circle. Oh, I was gonna I was gonna skip that, but okay. No, it's fine. There's a new project coming in called Spirit Circle. It's fellow by the name of Dan Hman. It's the gentleman who owns property down by the what is it? Ble Hall. Deepole. Thank you.

And he's coming in to do um a dance studio, I guess, is what you can call it. A a meeting place. Um, so yeah, we're meeting with him, his attorney, and one or two members of the board during the week to get an idea, kind of a premeating. They wanted to be on this meeting. I told them, "No, we're too busy." Um, so I didn't want to hold them up till December, so I want to get an idea what's going on and they'll be on the December meeting. Okay. So it's it's a special use for the site plan.

Thank you. I guess uh and as long as we're we have on the agenda dignified dwellings. Um if you remember last time dignified dwellings was here, we were still not happy with what they submitted. Um Dave and I collaborated then on a six-page memo to them as to why we still don't agree with what they want to do. And that was we sent it on uh September 24th. uh a month and a half has lapsed almost. And they came back to me last week and said, "Okay, we agree to decrease the four lots to three lots and to take all the lots in the back in the west side down by the wetlands. They're not going to touch the wetlands. They're moving everything up and they're going to have a clustered development up top. They'll need a probably need one or two variances because they will be encroaching on a little bit of the buffer zone buffer zone, but we're able to vary the buffer zone uh by 50%. So maybe maybe not. And they may have a few other variances, but it's a heck of a lot better than having all of the was it 2,000 or more long driveway private road. you had two houses sitting on top of in the middle of on the other side of wetlands. So it was Dave's convincing arguments in the September 24th and I think it was actually boiled down to we suggested that we were going to get a another wetlands specialist and environmental specialist Eric Kitty from Hudsonia and or we would um we would wind up doing a pause deck because of the the assumed impact on the environment. So they agreed. So, I don't know how the meeting is going to come out, but that's what they told us so far.

When are we meeting with them? Dave, when are we meeting with them? Friday or Thursday? Wednesday. Wednesday. Wednesday. When I sent you the email, Peak Engineering at 2:00. 2 o'clock. But I sent you the information to call in. Okay. Thursday. She and I think it was Thursday. Thursday at 2. Thursday. I sent you Dave is providing right downtown right very close to the line. Yeah. Okay. Today I think it's in Municab, right? Didn't you send your Didn't you do a write up on dignified dwellings and post it today? You did a revision of it. Oh, there was a Zorian found a citation glitch that I fixed. Okay.

Uh I jumbled up a couple of the subdivision citation letters. Got it. And numbers versus the zoning, which is fixed. It's just that section on wetlands. No. Well, that's the most fair enough. The most important part. So, I think we got everything. So, it's a minor edit. We're minor edits. I think we got everything that we wanted. I'm just going to see now what they're going to do in terms of our conservation subdivision. And we're going to go through it a little bit later on if you have any questions about that. Um, okay. So, I think that's just for the record, Rick, possible they could use waivers, not variances. Thank you. Like I said, they could use waivers, not variances. You can grant waivers. You have to go to the zoning board very

correct. Okay. I affate even honest. All right. John, how are you? Great. John, did you pay us um the $150 that we asked for? You have a receipt because we didn't get it. Did you pay to the building department? Paid it online. You paid it online. That's why.

Okay. I thought you what you you did, but thank you. Okay, so John Post is here. Um, everybody remember the project from last time or the time before? It's a simple lot line where he's taking a non-conforming lot and just joining it with a larger lot. It's over on Airport Road. Um, there's a map there. Do you have it? Okay. Um, non-conforming lot combining it with a conforming much larger lot to make one bigger lot. And I have the Wlined certification document here. Anybody have any questions or

I have a comments comments have typ in in town engineer about the dislocation of the blood. It's uh identify and we repeated it 660.4-3 4-3-8 should be 603-38- 18 very beginning. Well, your numbers don't match any of the numbers that I have.

It should be okay. I have 69.3-2-39 being joined with 69.3-24-40 talking about host. No, we're doing the host. Okay, never mind. Sorry. Okay. Um, you got me worried there. Too early in the evenings. Don't give me No, I said I sent you a report because I came late. Okay. Um, no, we're waiting for you. Sorry.

Um, all right. So, this is a lot line for John and Jacqueline Post. Anybody have any other questions?

Okay. And, um, I already described what he's doing. He's combining a out of compliance lot with a larger lot that is in compliance. Um, and I'm jumping right down to the bottom of the page. The planning board has reviewed the plat and certifies the lot improvement proposed will meet town of Rochester lot requirements or will improve the ability of existing parcel to comply with setback road access or other standards for the A3 zoning district and for recording purposes only further represents an exempt lot improvement in accordance with section 125-18 of the town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given by the planning board. The planning board further grants the authority to the chairman to sign the plan certifying the lot improvement for filing purposes without further resolution upon receipt and the chairman's determination that that the plant meets the requirements of the code and is in agreement with the survey plan and maps provided for review. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or professional engineer to describe the conveyances involved by meats and bounds. Uh, also there needs to be a note on the map. These plans are acknowledged by the town of Rochester and for recording purposes only to represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with section 125-8 of the town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given improvement parcel shall not be considered a separate building lot apart from the track to which it has been added. The owner shall file in the office of the county clerk certified plant bearing the chairman's signature within 62 days of the certification. The owner shall have the responsibility to return four county clerk certified copies of the plan to the town of Rochester planning board

within 30 days of the final. Anybody have any questions? No. Okay. Um, I'll make a motion to Peter makes a motion. Second. All in favor? Anybody opposed? Okay. So, it's approved. Six to zero with one absence. John, you have maps there for me. Final maps. You have the note on it. Yep. Okay. I give the map to Stacy. I'll sign them tomorrow. At the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting. Yeah. Why you willing to wait around till 10:00? Holiday tomorrow. Yeah. Tomorrow's a holiday. It's a holiday. I can't really

Yeah, that's Well, that's right. I'm sorry. Yeah. All right. So, give us the maps. I'll hire for you on Wednesday. I'll be here tomorrow. I'm not going to sign a map, John. We have other projects to do. Yeah. And at the end, six signature. I'll wait till 10 o'clock. Yeah. Okay. Come back. Okay, that's fine. Um Okay, next one. The next one is also a lot line build. You're involved in this.

Anything you want to tell us? I've gone over it. Um it's kind of an irregular um shape to it and such, but uh

of between adjacent property owner ers, including a long and narrow strip provide pedestrian access to Rochester Creek. And the maps that you should have now last time we said you wanted a yellow line where the new lines were. You get those now. Is that the map that you just uploaded? I thought we had sent them through before, but just in case I got some There's something that just came in to be sketch data today.

Everything's the same other than essentially yellow line there. Nothing's changed on there except for the color of the line. Yeah, it's the same configuration. a little more detailed, but other than that, it was

good. It was there, but yellow was there, but so I think Oh, okay. Sorry, Bill. I know the new system is confusing, but just remind your office that when they loaded up to the Munich collab, the maps, we don't have the ability to make maps like this, so you have to still get the Oh, yeah. All right. So, tell us what we've got here. Did you give away all your maps? I did. Yeah. Here you go. That's all right. not meaningful. I mean

I just approved it. You can open it. So the most recently uploaded yes if you wanted to look at it on on it is the most recent one. It is but otherwise it's just it's basically the same as it had previously new map. I just added the yellow line here as requested just to show what was the new lines that were being created uh to help uh clarify that. Okay. Thank you, Bill. Anybody have any questions? No, never mind. Yeah,

since it was already on the map, we don't need a revision date. There's a revision I wanted to make at the start of this season. It was recopying what uh what uh court enforcement officer wrote. So SPL should be 60.3 but it says 60.4 before the very beginning first sentence of the decision. Oh, the decision. So, is the decision wrong or is the building inspector wrong?

Both because we're copying was building inspection wrong. In second paragraph you're writing 64 and three build are the parcel numbers right bill on the did you get a copy of the decision? No. Well, you can look for you got the agenda here. Are these parcel numbers right? That's Yeah, agenda says 6.3

and so is the decision. Well, meaningful is different than the decision. So, you said the ones on the agenda, which are the ones for the decision. Correct. Correct. There's a difference. But we have Miss Stacy, we caught this. It was they were wrong in the last agenda they were posted to, right? The one on the agenda says 60.3-3-18 and the one in the decision says 60.4-3-18, right? And it's 60 and the one 60.3 is what's on meaning

and the partial viewer. I was going to say I didn't check partial viewer to double check it. So Stacy, what are you saying? The decision is wrong. Can you check? Yeah, I just checked. So, the decision should say 60.3-3-18 instead of 60.4 and you Oh, yes. Okay. And you wrote it because uh uh because you wrote it. So Dave in the third line of the decision needs to be 60.3-3 and in the location and in the reason third request both spots need to be changed. The confusion arose below it's right.

No enforcement determination had the wrong parcel number. Exactly. All right. I you know what as long as the decision is right that's not worry about does everybody see that the third line in the decision for should be 60.3 not four okay thanks thank you thank you just to make sure that in the future to the applicants too

all right um so Bill explained what this is what this lot line is all about And I'm not you did a good job. I'm not going to try to replicate it. So, I'm just going to um indicate that you have a lot line um improvement in front of you. It meets the standards of the code 125-18 um in that it improves the access to uh various properties involved in the lot line. You have to put the lot line uh note on the map, the final map that you give us for my signature which is on the second page of the agenda of the decision.

Yeah, the standard by the town of Rochester that Yeah, these plans are right. You have to put that on the map. It's on the signature block all the way to the right. Got it. Okay. Um, anybody have any comments? I'm not going to read it. I just had a motion to approve the lot adjustment. Make the motion. Peter makes the motion. Seconds it. All in favor? Six in favor. One absence. Okay. Bill, so you'll get the final maps in me. Yep. You're working tomorrow.

Oh, yeah. elementary tomorrow, Wednesday, I'll sign those won't be that quick. Okay, a little while. So, thank you. Thank you, Billy. Yes, just the next project is um Landon and Dorson. Um this is a single family uh dwelling which happens to be in a flood plane. It's a special use in a site plan. Um, we have a public hearing tonight. Alina, would you mind seeing if there's any umbody in for the public hearing?

That door shut. No. Okay. Is there anybody who didn't sign in but wants to speak on this project? the public hearing. We open the office. Just so I'm going to open the I had to open the public hearing. Need a motion to open the public hearing. No, I just opened the public hearing. Need a motion to close it. I'm opening the public hearing. There's nobody to speak, so I'm entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Good motion. Hans makes the motion or I'll second it. Alina seconds it. So all in favor of closing the public hearing I

I I motion is six to zero. All right. I have a decision uh to read. Does anybody need a description of the project? I have a comment. You have a comment or a question? Go ahead. in uh in a letter from from professional engineer he does not address that uh septic t located in flood zone. So any measures taken to to protect except from leaking when there's floods there.

What s you want to comment on? Go ahead. Well actually as per engineering they prefer to be wet ground because that's what actually the driving unless it's a a raised bed system that evaporates up the air. an ingground test goes out to the soil if it wasn't it's well it's never flooded and it's okay

uh but still there are requirements for construction of uh septic tanks in flooded zoom and it's not addressed by perfection engineer and we don't know when it was built if it was that part was taken in consideration in construction of the septic. Okay. Well, we we've been through this already. So, okay, you've made the comment. I'm not going to address it any further. Anybody else? The melee did approve the uh the subject was approved by melee, right? The engineer. Yeah. My melee Paul Melee, right?

He said it was suitable suitable. It was a suitable existing septic system. We didn't but he didn't mention anything about the flooded zone and specific sorry the comments made. Does the board want to do anything about it? Okay. But

just to give you an update on or a reminder, this did go to the ZBA for two variances and both variances were um granted and it also had to go to the CEO for a permit and the permit was granted. A flood plane development permit was granted and it's sent on file. So all of the exceptions uh to the project that had to be done were done. Um, does the applicant have any comments to make? Okay, board. I have a decision. Good to read it. All right. This is the decision to approve a special use um and site plan for single family dwelling in a flood plane. Um, in case anybody who hasn't been here before is wondering why are we doing this? Well, it's because the existing house was in a flood plane. the existing house burned down. So the applicant is replacing the existing house that burned down. So the conditions are essentially the same as they were in the existing house. The code allows him to build in a flood plane uh with variances with approvals and it also allows a certain amount of extra space to be added to the previous house which was taken advantage of by the by the applicant. Um, so they all within code and as I said they had the approval of the CDA and also the CEO. So, um, I'm not going to read through all the items. On page two, you have a list of all the documents that were provided. Page three, uh, you have the notice of public hearing uh, for tonight. Um, the findings, I'll quickly go through some of the findings. Um the board found that the uh on page four

the board found that this needed uh approval by the CDA which the applicant did get. Um it also needed the approval of the CEO needed to get a flood plane development permit that was obtained as well. Um that's really it with the u findings. So, let me read the conditions of approval. The general conditions of approval. Actually, I'm not going to read them. They're the usual ones having to do with the paying of u escrow. And um on page five, I'm going to go down to the specific conditions of approval. One, the applicant has stated that the dwelling will not be for short-term rental and will be for long-term rental and/or owner occupancy. Two, the approval is subject to any and all statements, conditions, and findings are made by the town of Rochester zoning board of appeals for two area variances variances as cited above in the findings. Three, all these specific conditions of approval for this project shall be recorded on the final map before signing by the chair. So both uh one and two items and two have to be recorded on the map that you give me for signature. All right. city can have Bill put those on the map. The first two u specific conditions. Uh the town of Rochester planning board further grants authority to the chairman to certify that these conditions have been met at which time the chairman is authorized to sign and date the plan without further resolution by the planning board. The town of Rochester planning board further grants authority to the chairman in consultation with the town planner and/or CEO to approve minor site plane site plan changes of a ministerial nature which may arise due to unforeseen circumstances in the project site

development. The site plan approval andor special use permit shall remain effective as an authorization to establish the use for a maximum of one year from the date of approval. The planning board shall have the authority to grant an extension within the one-year time frame in writing provided the applicant has diligently pursued the implementation of the plans. Such extension shall be granted in six-month increments up to a maximum of four increments. Absence such an extension, the site plan approval andor special use permit shall be deemed to have expired after one year. The effective approval this site plan approval and associated conditions is that Gordon said the site plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant. All successive owners of the land as long as such use uses shall occur. Signed decision shall be delivered to the town clerk within 5 days of said decision by the planning board. Three, the owner shall have the responsibility to deliver four final site plan maps to the planning board office for signing by the chair within 30 days of this decision. One map one map will go to the owner building department assessor and the planning board file. Draft resolution was prepared by the chairman andor town planner was read and discussed as needed by the planning board in a public meeting at the time and place of adoption. I'll entertain a motion to approve the decision. Jennifer makes the motion. I'll

second. Seconded by Peter. All in favor? I. Anybody opposed? Abstain. One abstension, one absence, and five yays. Okay. So, you just need to get me a final map. Yes. Can I ask a question, Rick? I was a little confused. Um, the permit is good for one year and building the home will take us probably a year and a half. So, my understanding is when we approach the year mark, you need to come back for an extension. You're talking about the flood plane uh permit or the decision? The decision.

Just come back. It's ministerial. We've had this before. Just come back ahead of time and we'll give extensions. You can get four extensions. Each extension could be six months. Okay. So, I need to we need to come and see your new secretary then. We have a year. You might be able to get it done within a year. So, mark your calendar for 6 months out to get on the agenda to get an extension. Okay. Okay. And that's a one meeting process or three or two. How did we do it last time for um it was like a two minute meeting. The Gregory was one meeting. Was it one meeting? My recollections we approved it. Yeah, it was. Yeah. You just need to get the request in writing, Cindy.

You just need to get us the request in writing and get on the how it work because it starts after when we get the building. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving right along. Um, next public hearing. Um, Verizon. Um, so we're going to have open the public hearing Verizon. Elena, are there any names on the sheet back there? And um I think everybody that I see out in the audience that might be speaking um you you know what the rules of the road are. We would ask you to uh stay on topic. Um the board won't be answering won't be answering any questions. Um so if you have a question, frame it in terms of a statement as opposed to a a Q&A. Um, we're looking for any information that we do not already have that will enlighten us or give us input to the project causes to a board member to change their mind about how they're looking at the project or not. Uh, so we're looking for information that we may not have available to us at this point in time. Um, so I have five people on the agenda. Um, is there anybody else on the uh list to speak? Does anybody else want to speak who didn't um sign in? Okay,

they might want to at the end of this time. Okay, that's fine. So, the first one is uh Jeremy back.

Great. I didn't know there were no questions. Uh so I don't know exactly how to frame the question as a statement because I'll just ask it anyway and you can not answer I guess. that is um what do uh we the town's people what do we get in return for this right it's sort of a standard exchange where a fairly wealthy company wants to put a highly profitable device in our backyard and we have to deal with the negative consequences of that so what do we get in return so I'll reframe it for you as a statement because I'm going to answer the question. Okay.

I'll reframe as a statement um that you're concerned that a multi-billion dollar company is coming to town putting up a radio tower. Presumably they're doing it because they want to extend service to what they have portrayed at people who don't have service and um so they're providing a service and in turn they're getting paid for their service and you want to know what the town is getting is is I think a fair way of framing your concern.

Yeah. I mean the yeah the people who bear the burden of having to deal with it and you know the various negative effects of it what do what do they get in return for this is it just faster scrolling is just faster that it what what else do we have we note your concern thank um so that was my

yeah that was my question I had another couple comments um that is just in general um you know last at the last meeting it seemed like there was a lot of very carefully worded kind of Bangi legally to dis discuss a pretty simple situation which is just that a very wealthy corporation wants to put something in our backyard and um no one wants it. Nobody wants it. It's pretty pretty straightforward. Um so that's just I just wanted to sort of frame it in simple terms. Um, and you know, I I recognize that uh we could have a discussion about the words um health and environment and what they mean. And I recognize that the board's hand proverbial hands are sort of tied regarding making a a a decision solely based on that. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it. And um I mean I think that I mean it's not rocket surgery. Everybody knows that EMF radiation is sketchy at best and it's deadly at worst. So, I think that it's important to just sort of talk about the elephant in the room, which is that um you know, Verizon and other wireless companies frequently warn their shareholders of the risks of EMF fallout if they get a big suit. And Verizon's had to be on the defendant side of many class action suits and countless other suits with the stuff. And they frequently warn their shareholders that there could be blowback if there's a continued correlation between EMF and negative health consequences. And even insurance companies will not insure wireless companies or the dangers of EMF and things like that because it's known that this is obvious. So the point is it's out there in the public consciousness and we know it and it will

most definitely affect property values. The the people who shop at health food stores, they don't want to live next to a self self, you know, cell tower. The people who shop at the Accord market, they definitely don't want to live next to this big health concern. So, it will most definitely affect the property values in this area, especially if there are, you know, continued um let's just say the things that are the shareholders are warned about blowback lawsuits. If there's more of that and it gets more into the public consciousness, then there's going to be even more and it'll affect property values, you know, even more. And I think a lot of people feel like this is you know modern day asbestous you know and let's not forget asbestous lead paint biopsyomide BPA all these things were deemed safe and effective by some group of people sitting around a table until all of a sudden they weren't safe anymore. So I don't think it's too far out of lexicon to imagine these things going south sometime in the future. And this is also a slippery slope. a tower of a certain height doing 5G today. Tomorrow is going to be 7G, 8G, it'll be 12G in a little bit. When that tower comes down, there'll be a bigger one. And even if the laws on the books aren't written to allow something that big, laws on books are very easy to change when you've got deep pockets. So, I think this is a very slippery slope. And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that this is just a bad idea and we don't want it. And the reasons couldn't really be more obvious. Yeah.

Um since there's only five people on the uh on the list at this point, I'm going to allow um not 10 minutes, but if somebody wants to speak five, seven, eight minutes, that's fine, but 10 minutes is the limit. Uh Larry Freriedman. Yes. which is

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to address uh Verizon's need case for its proposed tower. Um, as you know, in order for Verizon to prove that it needs a fourth cell tower in this town, it must prove that there is a significant gap in coverage that the proposed tower will cure. The expert report we submitted last week by Dr. Dr. Kent Chamberlain confirms that Verizon has not proved that there is such a significant gap and therefore and they have not proven that there is any need for this town. As J as Dr. Chamberlain explains, the best evidence that there is no significant gap is found in the wireless coverage data that Verizon itself has provided to the FCC and that the FCC publishes on its website in what it refers to as the National Broadband Map. Dr. Chamberlain describes the national broadband map at pages 9 to13 of visual report as he explains the map depicts what Verizon and the other wireless carriers have told the FCC is the extent of their cell coverage. The map is published on a very granular basis and can be searched to show the extent of coverage for each individual street address and building in the country. Dr. Chamberlain reports that he searched on the map for what Verizon has reported to the FCC is its coverage at the Granite Road Tower site and in the surrounding area, including the four focus areas that Verizon has identified. As Dr. Chamberlain confirms the national broadband map shows that according to the data that Verizon itself has provided to the FCC, the entire target area in the town of Rochester that Verizon has referred to in its presentations to this board already has virtually 100%

outdoor cell coverage and there is no significant gaps. I tend to think that Verizon is not misleading the FCC when it provides this information to the FCC. There are substantial legal penalties to which Verizon would be subject if they misled the FCC. So I dare say that they are not telling the straight story to this board. These conclusions that Verizon already has virtually 100% outdoor cell coverage in the town of Rochester. There's no significant gap. These are illustrated in the screenshots from the National Broadband Map website that are included in Dr. Chamberlain's report at pages 10 to13. And I urge you to look carefully at these screenshots. They appear in blue starting on page 10 of Dr. Chamberlain's report. And there are three topics in these of these screenshots that matter. First, in figures two and three on page 10, you can see that Verizon has reported to the FCC that it has 100% outdoor cell coverage at the proposed granite road tower site and at all of the houses in the immediately surrounding area. Each blue dot that is shown on the map, it's a house. And if you hover over a dot with your cursor, it tells you that there is 100.00% 00% coverage at that house. Second, looking at the area to the south of the Granite Road site shown in figure 4 on page 11 of Dr. Chamberlain's report, you can see once again Verizon has reported to the FCC that it has 100% outdoor cell coverage with the sole exception of four houses on Stony Kill Road. Now, these four houses, as Dr. Chamberlain observes do not receive 100% cell service because

there's a steep rock ledge that rises behind and that ledge stands between those houses and the existing award and perhaps towers and those that ledge will also block the signal from the proposed granite road tower. As a result, as Dr. Chandling confirms, service at those houses will not be improved by the new tower. But in any event, members of the planning board, four houses in a town of nearly 7,500 residents and 3,000 households is not a significant gap. Third, and finally, you can also see from the remaining screenshots in Dr. Chamberlain's report that Verizon has reported to the FCC that it already has 100% outdoor cell coverage in each and every one of the four focus areas that Verizon has told this board have coverage gaps. That's figure five on page 12, which is focus area number one on Zolotto Osen Road. The map based on Verizon's own submissions to the Epsc shows 100% outdoor coverage at each house. Figure six, also on page 12, shows focus area number two, Upper Granite Road and Polyana Place. Again, 100% outdoor coverage at each house. Figure seven on page 13, focus area number three, Old Minowasa Trail and Sydney Street. Same show. And finally, figure eight, also on page 13, focus area four, which is Granite Road and Burm Road. The same Verizon itself has said to you, "These are our four focus areas where there are gaps in coverage that we need to fill." That's the opposite of what they've told the FCC every six months when they submit information for the National

Broadband Map. And this is not a subjective opinion that Dr. Chamberlain is offering. These are objective facts we observe and that you can observe by looking at what Verizon has reported to the FCC and is shown in the FCC's national broadband map. And you can do the same either by looking at the screenshots that Dr. Chamberlain has given to you or better yet go to the website yourself. It's broadbandmap.fcc.gov go and I have instructions for you if you would like to see them as to how you can search the various addresses on that website, but it's there for everyone to see. And it's diametrically the opposite of what Verizon continually represents to this board about there being a gap in coverage. So the bottom line members of this board is the coverage area information that Verizon has provided to the FCC and the FCC has published in its national broadband map demonstrates conclusively that Verizon already has 100% coverage in virtually all of its target area using its existing cell towers and certainly there is no significant gap in Verizon's coverage. Thank you,

Larry. You said you had some instructions to uh to give to the board on how to access the U. If you'd like. Yes. Thank you. Can you repeat the address? Just Google it. It's it's broadband everywhere. It's on the instructions. Okay. It's broadband.fcc.gov. The uh the architecture is a little weird. So I tried to give the best version of how to access it that I could

already question. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Irish start. Hello. Thank you. Um, I had submitted some comments earlier today. I hope you had a chance to read them. I won't repeat them all. So, is that the one on the waiver?

About the waiver? Yes. Um, I just want to point out that the discussion after the public hearing was closed that night was a little confusing because the board was starting to look at the seeker topics whether it did or didn't um create a significant impact in any of the categories. The confusing part is what is the action until you consider the waiver and so is it 165 foot tower? Is it a 95 foot tower? they may or may not have the same or um impacts at different heights. So I I guess it was confusing um to understand what it was we're discussing and assessing. So maybe in subsequent um discussions you can keep that in mind so that we all know whether the waiver will be discussed separately under waiver criteria and your attorney has laid out the criteria for variances w and waivers because you're being asked to give away rights that aren't currently um available to the applicant without the grant of maybe doubling the size of the tower. So is it what's the size of the tower that you're assessing under secret? I just wanted to point out that it's just confusing to have heard the discussion about whether it does or doesn't have a significant impact. What is it until you discuss the waiver and maybe later tonight you'll discuss the waiver or the order of in which you consider the whole comp. Thank you.

I won't answer I won't answer your question. That's right. Go ahead, clap. I don't want to interfere with his new his new um I I I won't answer the question, but I'll just give you some direction if you hang out tonight. Um we did talk about the waiver and the order in which we were doing things probably about four or five meetings ago. Um and my intention was to discuss that again in in the context of seeker. Uh so I won't go any further. But in about an hour we'll be discussing it. Okay. Um Julia Walsh.

Hello again. Hi, my name is Julie Walsh and I own a house and act and land in Kernson. I'm here again today to speak uh at the public comment after penning in full. The last two meetings of the planning board in which his special use permit and highway have been discussed. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I served four years on the new falls village board and as a liaison to the village planning board at that time. So, I know the dedication and time it takes to serve as volunteers on this planning board and sincerely thank you for your service to our community. Uh, there are a few specific items I'd like to address from the last meeting of the planning board discussion. Uh, first, I've taken some time to look at the town of Rochester comprehensive plan. As you know, it is a document that was created to provide the framework and general direction and is meant to guide the decisions of this planning board. I did so with an eye out uh for what the document says about protecting our community character, which is quite a lot since that is one of the reasons that many of us live here. We all enjoy the scenic, unique, and small town life here. And as the plan states, development should only be allowed that quote compliments and strengthens Rochester's small town quality and character. But appreciate that word strengthens, which this project does not. uh and is one of the main reasons why I believe the cell tower permit should be denied. Uh as planning board member Roberts eloquently spoke about and summarized in his comments, many members of the public have been speaking out about the impacts that the cell power will have on the breathtaking scenic views that we enjoy every day and the hundreds of thousands of visitors uh who come to this area every year. In 2024, it was reported that over 500,000 half a million

visitors go to Minowaska alone. That cannot be underestimated. I know sometimes being in these positions, you're very much in the details, but really from that eagle's eye view of how many people come to this region for these scenic views, it is something to reiterate again and again. And quite frankly, shrinking the cell tower from 145 ft, which is about 14 stories to 120 feet, which is about 12 stories, is insignificant compared to the enormity of the tourism industry here. That was discussed last week. That said, board Roberts spoke about the cumulative impact of not just seeing the cell tower from a distance, but also from Granite Road itself, where it will be continually looming over residents that the neighborhood as a whole will suffer. We will literally see it all the time. And not just once or twice, but for the rest of our lives, it will be sticking out like a sore, ugly thumb on what is considered literally one of the most beautiful landscapes, if not uh only in this country, but one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. It will indeed impact our community's character, especially as Robert suggested in that neighborhood. uh it is detrimental to have such a massive piece of commercial industrial in industrial infrastructure in a residential area overall. The comprehensive plan supports that in the community character section stating that quote to prevent the intrusion of incompatible uses in residential areas which I'm not 100% sure of the zoning there but is is very much an industrial uh size project. Secondly, the comprehensive plan speaks about protecting the environment of the town and I appreciated the board's discussion last week about uh or last meeting about

the need to protect endangered wildlife and steps to do so in contacting DC. It's worth noting how important this is to the residents now with the passage of the community town of Rochester Community Preservation Fund that voters passed neck last week. This is a priority and not allowing a multi-billion dollar corporation to build a massive cell to power smack in the middle of our community. Our community has continually spoken in a sense in in the last election. Uh we the community are overwhelmingly against this. In fact, there's been only one person here to support uh who has incorrectly stated that you need cell service to make a 911 call. And on that Verizon's mouthpiece has accurate at the last meeting saying that is Verizon goal to save lives which is honestly seriously laughable. We all know that cell phones connect now to satellites. Uh as the chair spoke about in his his uh adventures in hunting uh Verizon is driven by profit and profit only. They are going to say whatever they need to get your votes and your job is not to give Verizon mitigation strategies your votes. Your job is to protect us, the health, safety, and the well-being of the residents and the environment of our community to vote on the proposal that is before you. Uh my town and the planning uh Washington planning board in Newalts, you know, there are many things that got denied just they were denied and they have to go back and I do not feel sad for a multi-billion dollar corporation that has no real investment in this community being deni denied. Uh also there to our knowledge are a group of supporters for this project. It's been well publicized. Uh we all get our self-service and you received the petition over 300 people signed against this. There was a whole operation to door knock and go around the community.

Uh and there is no significant or any sport. Uh lastly, if you allow them a special use permit and a height waiver, then they can continue to build out the towers uh with no additional permits. Uh the the towers I'm forgetting the word, but the the different uh pieces that will make the tower stronger. Uh and as you know, this will set a dangerous precedent for many special use permits and height waiverss from Verizon and other corporations in the future. Once this is passed, it's going to set a precedent that others can be passed. Uh without my notes, I'll just say, you know, I do think that uh this is a major mistake by Verizon and I'm sure their corporate, you know, group is looking back on this as maybe not the smartest decision to put this in such a scenic area where there's continual and will be continual public opposition. Uh, you know, another thing I just like to state is that I was uh in upstate New York and I've been now seeing cell towers where I was not really aware of them before. Um, and noticing where they're placed, you know, along the way, different places where they don't really obstruct the view or the scenery. Um, and I was in a town in upstate New York where it was a beautiful ecolic town in the Catskills and there was a cell tower right in the smack middle of it looming very large. And it really uh brought me to the awareness of more of what the the the board member was speaking of yesterday of just how it will continually be in our consciousness.

Julia, you're going to need to start wrapping it up. I'm wrapping it up here on my last note. I did take a little bit of extra time there. Uh, thanks to you. Um uh you know on the village board I made decisions that looking back uh were good and so I made mistakes on that honestly still I regret to this day. Um and you were in the seat uh and it is something that you will have to live with the rest of your lives as well. Uh and unfortunately for you if this cell tower goes up it will be a constant visual reminder of a bad decision. uh and you know one that will be a mistake uh for the entire community. So once again we off. Thanks

Rob Hawking um I assume that I'm still able to submit a written letter to Okay. So I don't want to bore everybody

even when the public hearing has been closed. Well, I'm still gonna speak, but uh I think the first gentleman that spoke really hit the nail on the head. Um this is a need that doesn't exist. Um there is a even in Verizon's own maps, there's a very limited space that is going to be affected and and a very limited geographical space and where benefit will be seen according to them. uh most of the households within that space have you know come out against it and spoken publicly about it. I will read the uh the beginning of my letter here. Um a tower at this location would cause sub uh substantial financial and emotional harm to many residents within the immediate vicinity of the proposed tower. The greater view, sorry, the greater viewshed will be significantly altered, but many of us will only need to look up to see the tower looming overhead. The quality of life and the property values of our neighbors in very close proximity to this site will be forever changed. This is not an insignificant portion of the town residents to consider. There's very little benefit to this project, and that benefit is not worth this damage. We did not ask for this tower. While I understand the importance of reliable service, this proposal conflict with the town zoning standards, there is no greater good here. Broadband, internet, landline, satellite, roaming, satellite and roaming 911 protocols exist. The height of this proposed, however, requires a zoning and use waiver waiver. It is incumbent upon the applicants prove that such a major code exception is warranted. They have not done so. Furthermore, approving this waiver sets a dangerous precedent. Perhaps AT&T or T-Mobile would like to own towers in the valley. The next threat could come from any number of industries besides telecommunications.

Approving this waiver sends a message to the entire commercial development sphere. No matter how much opposition exists, these exceptions are approved as a matter of course. The town of Rochester is open for business from the run out to the ridge. And I think that there's uh the property value question. there's a sliding scale there. Uh, you know, overall property values may be affected. Um, and you can say that, well, it's limited to this small area. Um, personally, I live at the intersection of Stony Kill and and Granite. So, I'm right I'm right there, but I'm not as worse off as some of the other people. All the people that live in that apartment complex, their quality of life is going to be affected. we have a whole lot of neighbors who will be detrimentally affected with be it quality of life or their property values. Uh and I don't think it's something that we should inflict upon our neighbors for a benefit that no one's really asking for. Um and I I'm not sure that Verizon has satisfied the requirements with regard to the property value studies. Um there is uh statute uh or the the code 14029 I2G requires an economic analysis of potential property value impacts for all adjacent parcels within 500 ft of the proposed site. Uh I haven't seen anything that addresses that those properties in particular. Maybe I missed it. Uh I there was some talk of of a comp study. I haven't seen anything that adequately reflects the socio socioeconomic, environmental and geographic areas in a in an adequate manner, you know, value for value of what we have where this tower is being proposed. Um, and I

think as Julia mentioned, there's, you know, the precedent issue. This is not really a nimi issue. All of the people that are supposedly benefiting from this are the ones opposing uh outside of one or two people that I've seen. So, I uh I thank you for your time and uh I ask that you oppose this waiver.

Okay. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Yes, Michelle. Well, hello everyone and thank you all. I am so um excited to know that in this room right now there are generations of our community here. There are really young people and then the next ones and the next ones and older folks like us and we're all speaking. But I really want the board to recognize the younger generation is speaking here. These are the people who are our town and they are the future of our town and they live right around there. Many, many of them live right around there. So they shouldn't have to see this tower in their lives. They've invested in all of their money and their houses. They live in those apartments because that's where they want to live. And one gentleman said he's worried that that tower will come right down on his apartment because he lives right next door. They do come down. So I I like the board to just recognize the younger people that are here and who have spoken and who I have so much respect for. So I hope that you all do, too. Thank you. Anybody else?

Um, I'm Toby Stober. I live your name.

Toby Stober and I live on Clo Valley Road. And I've spoken to you before. I didn't prepare anything. But in listening to what Larry said, um, I'm thinking, well, what's the point of this tower? They're telling us we need it, so what's the point of it? Why do we need this? And so does it mean that there's just going to be more and more and more cells put on it and more and more coming into our community and it's endless. We say yes to this to this tower, they're going to have their foot in the door and it will be endless. We don't need it. We don't want it and we know that you're doing a terrific job here. We really thank you because it is pretty much a thankless job. But there's no way that we're going to tolerate that. And we the board has to rule on the side of the people and not on the side of a a company that has no business here of any benefit that anybody see. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak tonight? Okay. So, I'm going to close the public hearing for tonight and um I'm not quite sure when the our next meeting is going to be. We had cancelled the meeting in November. The board uh knows that, but I may be asking the board to reinstitute the November meeting and just dedicated to Verizon and just for the board to speak, not to take any more public uh comment. And then December 8th, which is our next scheduled meeting, we would have the um public hearing again and likely to close it at that point in time and dive into the seeker process at that point in time. Um but I think we need to get um and we still need to get the most county uh planning board information. Um but I do think we're going to need another meeting this month, but let's see how

the rest of this meeting goes. We'll be here for a while talking about a lot of these issues. Sure. So yep, just to make the public aware that even if there's not a public uh comment period here, letters are always welcome on this written written thing. So we don't have to speak in public. That's acceptable. And even after we close the public hearing whenever the letters will be allowed to continue to come in. Um you want to make one com you want to make a comment? No, I just want to I asked one question. Go ahead. Um, assuming that you did let this go through, when would this construction begin? Oh, I have no idea. So, it's in the future. I I have no idea.

You're assuming that we're going to approve it? No.

Or not approve it. So, construction begins when it begins if it's approved. So, I don't I don't know. No, we do. Uh, okay. So, tonight the public hearing is um is over. We have one other project to speak of very quickly. going to take a short break. We have a lot of interesting things to talk about around Verizon if you want to stay. It gets quite exciting. I can assure you um in the we hours of 10:00, 9:30, whatever. So, we'll take a break for 5 or 10 minutes. We have a short project that we need to discuss probably for 15 minutes. So, sometime around 8:00, we're going to launch into a detailed discussion, continue discussion of Verizon. And Scott, we'll let you comment on what you heard here if you wish. All right. Um, so we'll take a second 10 minute break. Nobody tells And I emailed wherever she went. She said, "Come around here.

All of them. Sorry. Just a small virtue of your former. I actually

think you're absolutely right. He's got so many just look so funny. I don't know. It's starting to look like Yeah.

No, we didn't. Oh, there you go. Oh, you love it. Where was it? Up at the up on the firehouse.

Yeah, I'll be driving by there a lot to Three. It's not like So, you're going to do uh what next? dignified before get back to their seats, please. We'll get going. If the public could either take the conversation outside or if they could just find a seat if they want to listen. We want to get started. I can't get started with uh everybody talking. So, if you don't mind,

can you see we're claring the conversation outside? Very happy. All right. Those eggs are for you.

Fresh from our house. Do you eat them? You mean eggs? Yeah. Okay, let's get started. Um, let's talk. So, uh, dignified dwellings. Um, there was a map or two of dignified dwellings. If you don't remember, uh, the project, well, we remember. These are not new maps, right?

No, these are not the maps that you have were not new maps. So refresher, you probably don't need the map. You remember it, right? It was the one with four lots. Two were up in the hill on the east side of the property. They came in from Malboro,

wound around up and down 25% slopes, 20% slopes, and so on and so forth. Eventually wound in the back where there's wetlands that lead to the blind, etc., etc., etc. Anyway, um it's been before us for almost two years and at the last meeting we told them um and this is about two months ago. We told them that the um presentation was was better but it was still no good. And Dave and I put together a document which you have. It's dated September 24th with additions. There was some additions done today as a result of Zorian picking up on some of the code problems. So then numbering.

So then is is it dated? It's dated 9:24. Okay. The latest one we have is 111025. So it was posted there was there was Go ahead. Sorry. I just there is a comments there. Wetland text edited 11:10. Okay. Yeah. It's 11:10 but it's the document itself is dated at 9:24. Correct. But the last one was 1110. Yeah, there was there's a code citation clarified, right? Uh as of this morning, that's the only revision.

Okay. So, the document, we jointly did a pretty good job on the document. if you had a chance to read it in that we pointed out all the code uh provisions that allowed us to prevent them from building near the wetlands. We were willing we told the outlookers we were willing to increase the buffer by 50% if we had to to convince them that we were serious. um pointed out to them that the slope of the land was such that from the property lines, water would be coursing down through the wetland area through another wetland area and finally probably into the fly. No proof of that, but just look at the contours. It was pretty obvious. Um the driveway, the entire road system was over 2,000 ft. The driveway itself was about 1,000 ft. Uh the private road was,00 feet give or take. If you remember, this is the one also where there was a lot of I'll put it mildly, a lot of trees taking down. So anyway, the the two I think the two um uh clutch blades if you wish, where we told them that we were going to get um somebody from Hudson to take a look at the entire property, the environmental entire property. I don't think the wetlands was the only thing of importance there and that we would have no problem essentially pause decking this project in order to get at the environmental issues because we were so convinced that there were real problems with them. So they um they went away for about a month at five weeks and I got a call an email rather last week uh from the attorney indicating that they were uh willing to go from four houses to three houses. Put all the houses up on

the top of a hill. I'll call it a top of the hill east side of the uh project. Um they would eliminate excessive amounts of the driveway. there'd be no houses in the lands. The only thing they didn't confirm was whether they were still going to do the conservation subdivision, but I don't see how else you would do it. And hopefully they would agree to do it maybe with Ron out of the Sopus. I don't know. There's some pretty valuable lands back there. So, uh, they wanted to meet to go over it, go over a sketch plan with myself, Dave, Peter's going to be there. Who else? I'm gonna be Jennifer, you're gonna be off. You haven't seen the drawings.

We haven't seen any of that. You know what? Um I will make sure I tell them to get the draw drawings. They're just sketch plans. That's fine.

But I'll I'll remind them to get them out before the meeting so you can look at them. Um so I said, "Sure, we'll meet and Dave Gordon will be on the phone because their attorney is going to be there, too." So if if we essentially got what we had asked for and been pushing for it, I'm fine with it. So, I just wanted the board um to know that it's pretty important um that we got I I'll say this concession. It's not even a concession, it's a realization that the project was going to have a significant impact. Um so anyway, anybody have any comments before we go to the meeting? Just wanted to give you a heads up. When is the meeting? Wednesday. Oh, Thursday.

Wednesday or Thursday. There's another meeting Wednesday. There's a different meeting on Wednesday we have with the new project, but Thursday, what happens to the road? Well, you know, one of the things I'm going to ask them is what are you going to do with the road? Are you going to restore it? What are you going to do? I don't know. Ask them if we should consider it if we we can make that a requirement. Yeah, that could be a condition of approval. That would be I'm glad we have our attorney with us. kind of stops any better.

Don't ask actually, you know, if you finding out, you know, their predisposition to it can be helpful and you may want to take them in consideration, but at the end of the day, you know, it's it's actually a combination of what we do with site improvement also if the CEO wanted to do any take any action on. So, I don't know. Comment about that. That's a good question about the road. Um, our big issue with roads is storm water.

And so I don't know how the existence or non-existence of the road could affect their storm water plans or what we're recommending, but if the road is on the final whatever is final that comes before us, they'll have to account for storm water. Oh yeah. And they'll have to have whatever is needed to manage storm water on that road. Yeah. I can't tell where they're ending the road for these three houses. Yeah. Are they head Are they ending it at the top of the ridge, which would mean Right. Right. We don't know until we see that would be the best of all possible worlds. But then you still have this road that they went down into the gully. What are they going to do to prevent the storm water from running into the

into the So, you're absolutely right, right? And when you see the contours on a contour map, it's obvious. Um, so Rick, yeah, I'll just note for the board, no matter what they do, even build one house, you have to put the road at a minimum through the wetland up at the top off of Rose Hill Road, right? Yes. You're in as soon as you step off the road, you're in the the towns of required wetland bumpers. So, you're going to have to consider what do you want to do about that? Um, so we talked about it's unavoidable in on this. Well, and it's the existing road. It exists. What?

Well, yeah. Well, part it was it was graded. It wasn't improved. It's I see. Okay. It's a cut. It's essentially a landscape cut. Also, part part of the discussion before is, you know, the road physically exists, you know, hugely, you know, but that may not be where we come out in terms of what we ultimately want. So that that we don't I mean I think the bigger issue Dave's raising is if we're going to approve it at all it's going to have to deal with this that concession anyhow

but from from an environmental impact to the wetlands the area in the back where the state wetland is where the BL brook is which is a class A stream etc though that is to me a much more sensitive and critical environment and there is an endangered planet that has been found in the back there. But the front I and since that is a federal wetland I mean I think that the it's not as egregious as putting the road through the wetlands in the back. I'm glad to hear the one of the things with our

glad you're the revis. One of the things with our code which we've Dave and I have been grappling with and this was the first this project in particular it says you can't put Dave correct me if I'm wrong paved paved driveway through a paved surfaces in a buffer zone. This was proposed not to be paved but to be hard path gravel gravel road. So, and unfortunately paved driveway, there are a lot of definitions that aren't in our code. So, are they allowed to put in a road? Yeah, they just can't make it paved. The normal definition of paved means concrete or asphalt, but even do gravel. Now, our engineer has indicated to us, you know, some gravel roads are as hard thin as paved real paved roads. But the point is we grappled with that definition of what you can put in in a buffer zone. You obviously can't put in a a house unless you get appro there are approvals you can get. But this thing with the driveway paved versus gravel is a little bit vexing and we're going to have to deal with that.

One last request also if there's a discussion about the conservation easement that be please involve Peter will take care of that. the the conservancy from the beginning. Yeah. Not likely that we come at the end and should delay the whole process. Yeah. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about in case comes up. Yeah. Yeah. I doubt they're going to want to run an HOA with three households. It just doesn't make any sense. That's why.

So, to your point, there's a real because the original conservation easement that they were proposing was just undevelopable land. So it sort of didn't even get at the whole p purpose of a conservation ement. But if they're moving things up towards Roseville Road, there's a real opportunity to actually conserve land that's adjacent to a wetland. Like there's a great opportunity on it's a big it's a big deal. And it's the fly the fly. It'd be great to have that there of land. So yeah, depending on how they how they choose to carve it up into size lots, you know, before they carve it up smaller lots that and they just had conservation area that was not um lined up with I don't think

one of the interesting things is the letter that they sent me um suggested um cluster houses which that's 5 acres zoning up there five or three I forget but they're going to need um smaller lots and you can only get smaller lots if you do a conservation subdivision. So I think the conservation subdivision is up for play. It's just who's going to maintain it. Yeah. If you do the conservation subdivision, they have to have a easement,

right? Your new code fortunately now aligns with calling a conservation easement defined consistent with state statute which means you I don't think you can do a homeowners and conform with the new statute the new town code. Okay. But that's up for discussion. Um uh but if they don't opt for doing the you know what's popularly called flustering um Peter's right. They could they could do a lot configuration in a variety of ways. I think they could get as a quick sketch, they could get two lots on that property without doing anything complicated, but they're shooting three.

If they shoot for three, we've had already had an internal debate about how to pull that off. Um I I think they would have to do a conservation subdivision at least. Um but that doesn't avoid the fact that they're going to have to go through that wetland buffer as defined by town code regardless uh whether they do one house on the property or not. Right.

Just to remind everybody that Roadville Road goes to the edge of that property. So it's an existing basically a dead end until they put the cut in there that they did onto the property. So and there was an old foundation there from a former house from I don't know what era, but so Yep. That's Yeah. So, we'll see. Yeah. We'll see what happens. Okay. We good? Yeah. Okay. Verizon. Scott, you you asked me whether or not we're going to let you talk. We always let you talk. It's just we don't want you. Uh when I heard we were going on at 10:00, I thought, no. Well, it's on YouTube. We don't want you to to

just watch it. We don't want you to be part of the board where you, you know, we're going back and forth necessarily. But I understand. I just there are times when I jump in if I if I know the answer to something the board's struggling to remember, I just thought it would yell. Right. Um, how about what we do is we'll ask you a question as opposed to jumping in. But what I'd like to do now is give you an opportunity to either respond to what some things you heard. I have lots of questions. We're not going to settle it here tonight. Sure.

About this national uh broadband map. lots of questions and Dave already started looking into it and Greg is looking into it also our engineer but if you have some general comments and then what we're going to do the board is going to uh discuss a lot of topics having to do with

I want to first thank the chair for being proactive when the first letter came in um and I haven't seen I don't know if the rest of the board is aware of it but um Mr. Chamberlain, in my opinion, was unprofessional, was rude, and quite frankly obnoxious and and attacking our engineer. And I think he owes the engineer a written apology. And so until I see a written apology, I will treat him with the same disrespect that he treats

our people. I'll be polite about it though, but I think it was really bad form. Let's listen. We're going to discuss a number of different memories that and so I'd rather you not discuss them in light of the fact that I I will take care of it, but I don't want I mean, you do what you you do what you professionally believe is the appropriate thing to do, but I don't want to see anything coming across to this board from anybody any longer that contains ad hominemum attacks on anyone. And if the truth be known, you know, they started a long time ago. I kind of let them go. They grew in intensity. Okay, I guess this is the way lawyers talk to each other.

But then when I saw the last one last Thursday, that was it. Um, and it wasn't for a lawyer, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been from a lawyer. So, I don't want you save the histrionics for the court if it goes to court and then the judge can slap you down. I'm just saying from anybody and that includes the public making comments to somebody else on the board or a member of the uh presenters or whatever. I'm just not standing for personal attack. So I understand. Let's leave those I'm not going to attack him personally. Okay. So let's leave those to the side.

I would like to though to start with his letter. I would and I think that you should do exactly what Mr. Freriedman requested you to do and look at some of the screenshots because this is why I question if he is qualified to do this because as Mr. Freriedman said, well, you know, example, look at figure six on page 12. We don't have to do that now. That shows that Verizon wires has service blanketed. No, it doesn't. It's in the key. It's only AT&T service. Why would they submit something that's only AT&T service and say it's Verizon service? You know, same thing with the other map, the map propagation above it. That is a accumulation of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile service. But the FCC just merges them all together. So there's no way to know whose service is what. So what I'm suggesting is if you look at all those maps, they do not support this conclusion.

Can I ask you a question on on the maps? Yes. I when I looked at it, the phrase that's used on the map is percentage of areas served. Okay.

It's u and I think that's actually what Larry was referring to. Um, and it's typically in these maps typically about 100% or something similar to that. But I want to ask whether that is functionally the same thing as what Verizon and other applicants are trying to prove or deal with when you talk about a gap. In other words, percentage various served I view as um on is plus or minus on or off. It's either served or not served. And so they're trying to show a house is served. Yeah. But I also understood or you can tell me when you look at gaps for example the type of thing that you're applying to us and saying you've got is it a 100 zero thing or is it a deficiency at certain times or under certain conditions and so is this is this a little bit not totally apples and oranges but just a slightly different dimension or or how accurate is this? In other words, to what extent does the representation here of percentage of area served dovetail or is it congruent with the type of issue that you're dealing with and when you talk about a deficiency? We did not have a pre pre-con conversation about this because exactly what I was going to get into is a great question and the answer to your question is what you see on the FCC broadband maps don't represent anything that we're trying to do and let me explain why and we will have a formal if we get to that point a formal response by the RF engineer um but we think it's appropriate to do that after the public hearing is closed but if you look at the broadband the FCC broadband maps Those are intended for an entirely different purpose. And I can't tell you what the FC's purpose is because I don't think anybody knows per se or I don't know. But we can tell you that the map, well, first of all, they use propagation maps obviously to show you what the coverage

is. But they're using a huge area. It's called a 350 meter bin. So just think of that as you know 350 by 350 area and the program is taking the signal testing the signal at at every 350 meters which you would never ever do for like determining need for a new site. So to to put it in perspective our analysis uses a 20 meter bin. So every 20 m our program is checking the signal because we want to make sure that we capture all the gaps and that's how you get a detailed picture. This FCC map is really useless when it comes to site development because it's such a huge area.

Do they do that themselves or you're reporting the data? Because if you're reporting the data then you're reporting the incorrect data that you just stated. Well, you'd have to see what the FCC requires and I'm not privy to that. I don't know the answer. No, but how do they do they have a guy with a hat on that says I'm from the FCC and every 350 clicks they're taking a a range of the a test of the signal or you're reporting it to them? I'm going to let the engineers and we might have to go to headquarters for that because that's a little way above my grade. Well, certainly my grade but this

we should find that out with the Rick. Rick, I just note that I know quick research on this question. Um apparently one of the accuracy challenges that's been well reported um and several states have even challenged these maps mostly for funding flow um is that the reporting the ser service providers give uses the census geography which census track and block which I challenge anybody in this room to go out there and figure out where your census track is. Um, and it gets reported that way. But what shows up on the FCC site are actual individual houses. Now, who's reporting? So, there's a translation process. Who's reporting the data?

The service providers. We are the carriers are. So, they're reporting 350.

And don't don't quote me on 350. That was the engineers quick. Hey, I'm doing the analysis. It could be a little less, could be a little more. The point is we use 20 meter bins. a meter of 20 areas because if you use 300 350 whatever the number is every any qualified RF engineer will tell you that you exclude terrain with a 350 uh meter bin and you exclude clutter from vegetation. So in other words, what you're seeing here is it's not necessarily a reality and I'm kind of shocked that maybe Mr. Chamberlain chose not to explain that to you um because it's pretty obvious do this.

Tell me something else. It does. I did see that it said mobile mobile uh Verizon mobile AT&T and I think one of them said I may be wrong but it was a third provider. It was a third provider. Why would you guys want to put up a tower with T-Mobile T-Mobile? Why would you want to um put a tower up to serve people that already have service from somebody else? We we wouldn't. We'd be out of business. That's the point.

So, this my my we have all the technical information in there that demonstrates why we need this. But for years, I just say the proof is in the fact that we weren't going to spend a half a million dollars to build a tower. It's not needed. Does that doesn't make any sense? I still know you need the technical data and we provided that, but we won't do that. We are not in the business of putting up building assets to serve no one that or serve people that have served already. We don't do that. It makes no sense.

For the board, I the further research apparently uh in more recent years, the FCC's created a a process by which you could challenge the maps. It might be useful for the board. For example, all my neighbors say I don't have service, but I go look at this map and it says I do. I can actually challenge that. It'd be useful to hear from Verizon if there are any challenges to the to the maps that they're aware of. Um because it does give the impression that there's coverage in much of the town.

Oh, I I know it does. And I that's why we have dig into the details because you could also look at Verizon's map on its website. It has an online map and it's going to show you a lot of coverage, but it's a marketing map and people have sued us on that and the courts have unanimously said you can't rely on it. It's marketing because we have a disclaimer and all that. So, okay, you know, that's So, what I this question we're going to need answers to. I have our RF guy and Greg, the RF guy is Doug Fishman, and Greg is taking a look at it at the whole um Chamberlain study. Um because there were two other items. I don't want you to comment on them right now. Yeah.

But one had to do with drop calls analysis and the other had to do with some other way of assessing I forget the name of it but they suggested there was a a different industry standard in assessing need and it mentions the gold standard drive test from 1990s. That was the gold standard back then. So not appropriate now.

We'll await getting the information from from our engineers. You know, I would like to say one thing though on that because it's your code and if you So the courts are pretty clear. You cannot as a municipality request specific data to prove need unless it's set forth in your code. Um and that's where the drop call drive test data arguments have come up. It's clear. The federal courts are clear on that. Your code is our code. What's that? It is in our code.

But but your but doesn't specify the what data has to be done. It doesn't say drop false. It doesn't say drive test. In fact, what it says is under radial plots, it says the primary way to determine need is through these RF propagation plots. So your code actually says that's what we're what we provided is what we're supposed to provide.

Let me I want to unpack that just a I'm looking right here at the what I believe is the actual clause that we're concerned about. It says the written report demonstrating the need for such services which shall illustrate gaps in current services and show how the proposal will remedy these gaps is one of the requirements. Now you were saying that there that this that this I think it's the only statement that we have of it and you're saying now that there's there's some decision making some authority that has boiled that down to something the propagation maps and so well I'm sorry what I was saying what I just said was if you look at the definition of radio plot in your code

radio plot I I don't know what 2 se 29 the definition sections and it's has several sentences there but one of the sentences basically says The primary means by which need is determined is through radio frequency plots the same as what we did. So that was the only other section in your code that I saw that deal. You said that's in the definition. It's in the definition of radial blot. Okay. We have the quadral or I'm sorry. Do we have the those quads? Absolutely. In fact, we supplement them a few times but

it's here. It's on page 195 in our code radio plots. So the body of the code 149 14029 that Dave read says that we we must ask them or we have the ability to ask for proof of the need by using radio plots. Yes. And there's a definition for radio plots. And I'm not an I'm not a telecom communication expert. So,

but Dave, I think your question was what have the courts said? And so, there have been some lawsuits where and Verizon's been involved with them at times where they sue and they say, "Oh, that that information you provided is not good enough to demonstrate need. You have to provide dropped call data. You provide this." And the federal courts that have dealt with this in New York have said, "No, no, you don't have to. Actually you the municipality cannot ask for something that is not set forth in the code in terms of a need in our code or the FCC in your code.

Our code says radio plots but it doesn't talk about whether it's 350 clicks or 50 click doesn't say anything about that. The industry standard is for a new macro tower is anywhere between 10 and 30 bins, meter bins, sorry, meter bins because and it depends if it's rural and or suburban. Um, so for this municipality, the engineer determined it is somewhat rural, a little suburban. So they basically made 20 meter bins the standard.

Scott, can I have a suggestion? Yes. this issue uh because it's the comments that you know we've been received from from the citizens um uh uh consultants. This issue is emerging at a very critical issue for the project. I think we're seeing that

um I the things that you're saying now I would appreciate seeing in a memo. I know we've got a lot to do and we've done a lot. I would also just editorialize a little bit that I know you started by saying you were going to be perhaps commenting on the further commenting on the credentials of some of the other folks or perhaps the style of writing. I would advise everybody from my perspective and and I and I think it's going to be important for a number of reasons to focus on I'm concerned that we're starting to go on limb after limb after limb and getting out to a place that nobody wants to be for both stylistic reasons and because frankly some of it's a waste of time and I I'm spending weekends now trying to get through it. if you could get the um the issue of need boiled down to the specifics that you're saying that they are so we could take a look at it and I would prioritize that over the things that you were discussing before as to whether we're going to be looking into things like the academic histories or people and things. Um,

but yeah, no, I'm sorry. I'm not going to look at his academic history because what I hear you saying your point is substantive. Well, let's be let's be essential issue before we get to the I think what Dave is saying in an lawyerly way. Don't send any letters that you send to us with any more gobbleygook in it. Well, I'm not even if it was done in a dignified way. Um, this is a really central issue and let's get let's let's take care of the central issues and and the same the same advice would go to the anybody that's commenting. Um, uh, I think it's going to be helpful and it may cut down on a lot of the stresses and it may cut down on a lot of the other stuff. I'd love to see more about this and and less about, you know, whether somebody said something wrong. So,

so um, just a few. Scott, do you have anything else? No, unless other issues, but I provided some case law in those where he's suggesting certain things and saying you have to do this, you have to do that, and my response is sorry, but the federal cases say actually you don't have to do any of that. Yeah, show that. Okay, good. Um I I I also have a clarifying question. And I asked you originally whether it was sort of apples and oranges in terms of the the thing that the um the broadband maps were showing and what where you were coming from in terms of need whether in other words it was a redundancy thing or percentage as opposed to just yes or no we're covering it.

Yeah. you you started talking about um plat 350 meters and instead of 20 me is that was that the answer as opposed to what I was go what I was conjecturing which was yes or no as opposed to if there's too many too much traffic we're going to lose a certain percentage that sort of thing. I think the answer is we would never use something like what's in the FCC to determine need for a new site because it's completely it's just not accurate enough for us and you're not going to waste all that money on because what this does it just it's like I said it doesn't include terrain it doesn't include vegetation

your answer goes down to the 350 that that is your answer on that is that more it's more it's got our analysis is without question be significantly by the order of hundreds and almost thousand times much more accurate than what the FCC has on its website. All right, so we're going to get something from your engineer wrapping this all in a Yep. easy to understand technical brief. Yes,

if there is such a thing. I want to address a few other things um as well and then I want to go through some new documents that we've gotten in so everybody's up to speed and then we can launch into some of the work that uh Dave, myself, Peter and Helina did on Sunday going through the town code. So, but give me a few minutes. We spoke already about the my letter to a bunch of people about the uh personal attacks and I don't think anything else needs to be said about that. Just won't accept it. There was also an issue that was raised by uh Scott um about some missspoken material that Mr. Bur, attorney Burick submitted to the board that inserted at least one word into a court case that would lead you to believe the court case said something that it didn't say and put quotes around it. Um so Scott wrote us a letter. He also wrote a letter to um Robert Berg, the attorney. And we received, I think it was last night or Saturday night, uh Attorney Berg sent a letter out um apologizing for the error and he explained uh how the error occurred. I don't know if you had a chance to read it. I did. Um listen, he he apologized. He explained how it happened. Um, one of the ways that it happens is there's so much information coming to us. I I can't believe it hasn't happened a couple of times with his mis quotes, but this one's pretty particular in terms of supporting a case around what does preeemption uh deal with? Does it deal with humans? Does it deal with all uh matters of mammals, amphibians, avenu, birds, etc., etc., etc. So, um, be that as it may, um,

I don't want to see that again. And what I'm what I am doing or trying to do is I'm going back over every document from the gentleman that has a quote holding a a court case and I'm going back um, and just seeing if there's anything else like this. It's not that I don't trust the gentleman, it's just well, you did it once. what else is out there that we need to know about. But having said that, I I personally uh accept the apology and the explanation. Um and I'll I'll leave my comments at that and um if the board wants to comment, you've you've all read it, I'm sure, with wrapped attention starting with last Thursday night. If anybody else has comments, the I did ask for full full disclosure. I did meet with Larry Freriedman um Mr. Freriedman um since he's the person who hired Mr. Berg. And I suggested very strongly that Mr. Berg is not doing anybody any favors by um working on this case. And that's when Mr. Freriedman told me that he's extremely distraught. Mr. Freriedman himself is extremely distraught that this happened on his watch uh so to speak and on his dime equally so to speak. Um and um I did suggest that he he dumped Mr. Berg um for lack of a better term. Um but Mr. Burke has um apologized. She's given an explanation and I'm going to leave it at that. Um, if the board wants to make any comments, fine. If the board feels we should follow up on it. Uh, there's nothing else for us to do. We can't fire Mr. Burick. Um,

don't look at me like that. Council books. You're good.

He's given me one of those books. Shut up while you're ahead. So, I'm going to shut up while I'm ahead. Anybody have any other comments? I mean, I went to law school and and in the first year we had a lesson about ethics and I remember there's one one sentence our professor said to us is how you destroy your credibility and in your professional standing and he said I remember this to to this day is an attorney who misquity of both the argument and the profession and that's a serious professional violation what and I think whatever we get from this point forward from anybody, okay? And there's surely a lot of stuff we're getting from a lot of different people. Um, if you choose not to read it, that's fine. If you choose to read it, um, read it with, uh, you know, uh, be a doubt Phil Thomas. Um, and what what more can I say? It was I was disappointed to see that. Um but it happened and there's an apology on the table. Um that's it.

I just want to make one point on this and it's along the lines of what I was saying before. Um, for me the bigger disappoint I mean people make mistakes and we could we could try to figure out whether it was mistake that was on purpose or a mistake that was a mistake but to me the bigger problem here is um and I you know I read his explanation and it's plausible that usually you give somebody the benefit of the doubt to me the bigger problem is if you number one the mistake that was made if if he had put brackets around those words it would have been probably okay and it was really where the court was and and the bigger problem was we were diving deeply into a court case on what's ultimately there were four or five of them. This is ultimately a kind of a longshot issue. He was trying to make what I described the last um session here as a a rhetorical argument and that's and the point is we're just spending a lot of time and effort on things that are not ultimately where this is going to turn out. And that to me is a bigger issue actually because um in terms of credibility, in terms of confusion, in terms of our own effort, I I've spent I was traveling most of yesterday through airports. I was spending a lot of time trying to because you know how many letters for example have been sent starting with the the original claim letter. I spent another hour in the office today just trying to find the original letter. And um it's just like I said I if there's an issue with respect to um need I want to know what it is and etc. But at some point we're just we're just spinning our wheels a lot. And so um you know this was an error. Obviously it was a misquote. Um it does happen. In fact I think Mr. Olsen in commenting on it also missed a particular word that that that that was accurately done. And so the more the more you get into extraneous or of far field and extra work the more especially under pressure time constraints etc things like this are

going to happen. The bigger problem I would ask everybody to focus on the main issues and and try to limit the extent of the arguments because every time you go out there we the letters go back and forth and we end up looking at five other court cases and it's it it's going to slow things down, make it more expensive, make it more difficult and make it less accurate. And that's the bigger concern to me and even with respect to the misquote to me the bigger the broader the bigger credibility issue is are people focusing on on the facts are people focusing on what the issues are going to be and if they're not and I don't mean a particular word I mean documents and submittals and further letters that gets the credibility in in my book and um that's I was going to write the board a memo on that maybe I'll just cut that short but I and I understand everybody being upset said about a potential misquote particularly where there's an argument that it's um tactical right um but overall I think it we need to focus on the issues the the amount of the amount of verbiage that has been submitted to this board on this application is is frank is astonishing um I'm putting together files and it's just there are dozens of documents at this point and and and I'll tell you I'll put one other marker around the In New York state courts on most things that are submitted um the submitter gets make his point the there's a response and there's a typically there's a reply and that's it. I mean you you may think but but your honor I got one more point to make. I mean you got to know this. The answer is no. You you can apply to the court for leave to do that but you know the court is willing to shut it off even at the risk of the person the next person who doesn't get to speak might miss some collateral point. ideas. If you didn't say it in the first two document or two documents, we we can't do it anymore. There's not enough time for that. And so, um, we may want to import some of that discipline into what we're doing because people the idea that

we're going to continue and I will give the board, you know, written written breakdown of why of my thoughts here. But um I I think the bigger issue in terms of credibility, in terms of focus is um is you know focusing on the on the issues and going there and at some point we take what's been submitted and and I just want to make the point you made people have a right to their own council. People have a right to people right to say anything they want to us really. um uh you can you can obviously advise them but the bigger issue is once you submit something what's it worth and doesn't need to go back and forth on it.

So all right enough said Larry thank you for uh meeting with me the other uh and for getting the apology from Mr. Berg and I think it's safe to say the board is willing to is willing to accept it with all the caveats around credibility but u thank you for working on it. Can I say something? Go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you, Rick, for that. I think Bob is humbled uh by what happened. Uh I litigated for 40 years. I dare say I'm not This is not the only occasion on which a lawyer um mistakenly misqued something. I've done it and I felt terrible. But uh I don't think this is a basis on which to say that things in the future that come from Mr. heard uh don't deserve credibility. He screwed up. We all screwed up. We're all human and we make mistakes. But uh I don't think uh uh the service that he can provide here um should be jettisoned uh because he made a mistake. He apologized. I appreciate that you think the apology and the explanation are reasonable. Uh but I have to also say that again in 40 years of litigation experience I agree wholeheartedly with what David Gordon said that the the successive rounds of reply and sir replied and sir sir replied is really out of hand and uh I for one uh will contribute to resolving that but I have to say that both sides have to abide by that because it's really quite control. But at some point if you know the the flip side at some point it's just a person that may want to say something again or so and and so reply or so so reply it doesn't happen and yes there's no rule here but um it's it's up to you know you have you have a right to to comment and so um ultimately it's that self-discipline of of focusing focusing uh I'll give you another example you said you said just before very helpfully that uh if we looked at page 9 to 11 of uh uh Mr. Chamberlain's submitt and first thing I I wasn't even aware of that. I looked again running through the airports, I'd looked at it briefly, but

it's like why is that on page 9 to11? If you know as a you've litigated uh if you have what you might consider to be the killer app, the killer argument, you're probably not going to put it unless there's a long, you know, introductory section or something like that. You're not you got to make sure we see it, right? So, same idea. If there's something important and the way to make sure we see it is to put it keep going. I may make some other comments that

I do, Mr. Chair, I do hope that when the board receives his further submissions uh for Mr. Berg that they they don't view him as not entitled to respect and not entitled to belief because he made this mistake for which he's apologized and I think his explanation as you said Mr. Chair is reasonable. So, I'm going to let everybody make their own determination. Absolutely.

I have a lot of respect for anybody who can put together the number of documents that he put together. Um, that's for sure. Um, and I have read them all and I've learned a lot. Um, and I'll continue to learn a lot. But does that mean I'm going to believe everything or use it in my decision? I don't know. um we each have our own way of collapsing and synthesizing information and coming together on a decision and um so and God knows my my middle name is not Solomon so I'm not claiming any kind of extra uh ability to divine different things that are put in writing um all right so enough said before I say something else

remember your voice is

oh my voice That's my voice. Okay. So, let's go through uh I I want to mention a couple of documents that uh we've received that you want to remind people of. I'm going to give some conclusions because we need to as a board to begin to make some conclusions and start working towards a decision. Now, um and I hope we come to a decision tonight as to how we're going to get there. um not the final decision, but when we're going to um cut off the public hearing and still have comments from the public. I'm not cutting off comments, but at some point we need to get to work. We need to get to the seeker um uh determination, determination of significance. We also need to work on our town code, which I want to get to tonight. We went through the town code step by step or or section by section to determine if it's been satisfied or if it hasn't been satisfied and if there's more work to be necessary that's necessary. So I'm going to read a few documents that I've gotten and mentioned to the board that I think certain issues have been settled at least in my mind. It may not be in your mind and so that could form some of the discussion for tonight. If you remember a while ago we received something from Mr. Leard, Joshua Leard of PIPC, and it indicated that he thought there was significant impact, visual impact, uh based upon some of the photos he had received. We subsequently got a um a letter from uh Joshua L um sent to us by Mr. Shook um who's I guess his operating manager. It was dated 116 and he indicated that they misused five of the the five photos that caused the conclusion that there was visual impact in accordance with the DEC's criteria and um they simply said that they my words they misspoke and that they did

not see from Minowaska from three different sites from Stonyill Falls the ADA path and from the parking lot They did not see any need for concern around visual impact from their perspective. That's from Joshua Glad. So we said it's a Mayor Koopa and here's what we really believe. The five photos were not they were all cropped and or telephotoed and so they couldn't possibly be um accurate uh in the kind of accuracy that we wanted. He did ask uh that we reconsider looking at a monopene poll, which is what I call the Frankenstein poll. So I've asked Matt Allen to do that to redo his work from uh the two viewpoints on 4455 uh doing a monopene pole uh but also doing it at a different height 120 ft and also to do the same from uh 209. So man Allen's going to going to do the do those. So from my perspective the issue of what we've been calling inventoried resources which means those resources in um middleask along 4455 those that have been inventoried by various historical groups by shipo whatever from my perspective we're just about there in terms of that criteria used to do that evaluation which is the DEEC criteria which is not the same as our town board, our town code criteria. Um that there is no impact. And you saw a letter from uh Matt Allen dated October 31st where he went through each of the inventoried resources and he gave his professional opinion. um and he did it

much more eloquently than I just did, but it's there for for the reading. Remember, you don't you all don't have to agree with even his determination, right? It's subjective. This is his professional and he makes it clear that a rational person and we're all rational could come to a different conclusion because they have a different set of how to evaluate the criteria that that is used. So, it's not math that two and two is supposed to add up to four. uh you can come to a different conclusion. So I just want to mention that. But I've concluded at least um with the inventoried resources that that's that's the case that there is no um no impact, no visual impact. Um it says nothing to the local resources and Matt Allen judiciously said he's not weighing in on the evaluation of the local resources. I can't imagine why. Um and we have to use the town codes criteria which is very strict. Um so he was not going to weigh in on that as it may. Um so that's one set of letters. Um and then we have the issue of excuse me we have the issue of the preeemption. um the whole issue of radio frequency and how radio frequency waves affect um the environment. Um and Dave, I'm leaving that to you to give us a final legal opinion about um all the court cases that have been floating around

on which is which issue on the preeemption issue on with respect to nonhuman impacts on human nonhuman. Right. I'll get you something. So we need that. Okay. That seems to be to to in my to my way of thinking one of the other major issues that we need to deal with and I'll call it pre RF I'll call it preeemption whatever but u the scope of the preeemption is only human health or does it extend to the natural

okay um the issue so those are two issues one seems well there's three the inventory resources is settled but you can have a different opinion the town code we've got to get to the preeemption. Dave's going to get us a letter around this whole issue of the needs assessment concerns me uh that we were talking about tonight. The letter from Mr. um Chamberlain. Thank you, Chamberlain. Um well, Scott said he was going to give us some

He's going to get us a professional uh engineer to comment on it. I sent it to Greg Bolner and I sent it to Doug Fishman uh to also comment on. Um so we should have that. We won't have the letter from Deb Fisherman until November 17th. He's on vacation, but it'll have to us by the 17th. And Greg indicated he'd have something this week, so we'll see if that happens. Um, we're still waiting for planning board as well, right? Sorry. Still waiting for the planning board as well. Most are going.

Yep. Good point. We um we submitted it to them. They sat and reviewed it last Wednesday. And I don't expect uh I'm not asking any favors to hurry up. Let them take whatever amount of time it takes. I expect Dave maybe you have some insights. I know you don't short of pestering them. It's going to take a couple weeks at least. And county the county on its own devices will get you the review memo in two weeks or more. So why don't we pester them to get it to us within two weeks? Uh sure.

Whenever you can in two weeks after their meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Uh you do have the two other we we referred I filed on behalf of the town a submission to New York State DEC heritage program.

Um their preamble says that they're not going to critique the project. They're just going to tell you if there's any resources, natural resources of concern in the vicinity. It's just going to be factual information. Um, and then the layered memo or was it Shook's email cover sharp to that? Um, suggests that there may be a a new memo coming from New York State Parks that came from SH. Yeah. Uh so Shipo commented the IPC has commented.

It's confusing for sure. Shipo is a unit of state parks. We have that memo from quite a while ago. I and that's been reaffirmed, I think. And yes, um Palisades Interstate Park Commission is also the regional office of New York State Parks. We now have multiple memos from them. Um, and there is the main office of New York State Parks, which um, Matt Shook's uh, email to Rick suggests we are getting an a memo from as well. So, we'll see what that says. Okay, we haven't received anything though, right, Rick?

It may be to clarify the confusion over uh, the shipo. Um there was a early on the applicant uh coordinated under NEPA and this and the National Historic Preservation Act um which got deferred to Shipo who replied promptly. However, House Park suggested we apply to Shipo. So and when we told them that that had happened already, uh it may be the memo from state parks is going to clarify what that all means. Um,

do you want to comment at all on your impression of what else the county planning board is? No, I'm not going to go again.

They they did while Rick was sequestered working the working the polls um in a place with no reception, right, Rick? it uh or at least by firsthand experience it uh uh county planning inquired to Rick and I if there was any new information that they should be aware of because their meeting was uh next night and I said well Rick's away Rick's sequestered uh and no reception but the only way to keep track on this project is to stay on Municap almost hourly it seems like I and yes indeed things came in so I forward reported some essential stuff. At that point it was we had just gotten the Matt Allen memo right on visual impact. Um he in turn suggested they may make some recommendations on further analysis of environment of visual impact but to be determined.

All righty. Um so let's get into the town um code items. um or do we want to talk about waiverss?

Yeah, there's a little confusion about it. Let me let me just explain my idea and this is entirely up where the board wants to go but for two reasons I I suggested and the board originally adopted this but you can you know you can change your mind if you want. Um I suggested basically backloading the issue of the waiver and Mr. Stern raised a question which actually relates to that. But let here's what I'm thinking and you know you guys you guys could decide. To me the the waiver question I mean it could stand alone and I think that's what many people would have instinctively thought that it would stand alone and also that it would come first. I think actually Scott mentioned that that was his expectation a while back and that wouldn't even do it. That's one of the reason they went to the ZBA. To me, for the board, the waiver question is almost inextricably bound up with the ultimate question of site plan approval. Um, the the applicant iso has proposed 145 ft tower. The the code is roughly at 95 ft. This project doesn't exist without a waiver, right? I mean, now there's going to be all kinds of questions as to what the waiver might be and what the rationale is for it. And I list a whole bunch of criteria by combining basically the criteria of everything that was that was not voted. But for the board to grant a waiver under whatever let's say to frontload it to do a waiver at the back end when you then decide on site plan approval. It seems to me you've you will have already gone pretty far and therefore it seemed also seemed to me that the waiver and legally you can make this argument as well that the waiver itself would basically be subject to seeker that the same seeker analys you know seeker is where you're we're putting in all the environmental considerations. Um it's a that's a requirement for us to

do before we give site plan approval. And so does it make any sense to do the waiver which is fundamentally going to be a big chunk of your yes or no on this thing a separate from site plan approval and b in front of your seeker analysis. I I could I jump in?

Yeah. So we we did talk about this two months ago. I think time flies when you're having fun. But the way I put it was um many of the some or many of the items that Dave had listed to help us come up with the waiver at a whole claw right at the start were essentially items that we would be covering in and see things like the visual impact the needs analysis the impact if if we're allowed to and the site plan approval

and site plan approval. So what I suggested to the board is look rather than debating uh the waiver yes or no and whether 50 ft which is a little bit more than half of 95 um whether 50 ft is appropriate or 15 1/2 ft is appropriate or 10 ft is appropriate or I put it in terms of rather than debate how many angels dance on a tip of a pen uh with no information why don't we get through seeker and all the components of Seeker to determine if this project even flies whether it's at 95 ft you know things like community character that may not matter at any foot at any height so I thought it would be more appropriate to um go through all of the seeker stuff and a lot of the answers that we get from seeker would be appropriately fit into some of the criteria if not all the criteria that Dave gave gave us in order to make our waiver decision. It kind of was went together. So it's like putting putting rather than putting the horse before the cart or the c before the horse rather, let's let's do it in the appropriate also requires a reasonable worst case scenario which would be presumably 145. So looking at the analysis for 145 would be appropriate under seeker. And then to your point about deciding about the waiter waiver later, we would have an analysis that evaluates 145. So we would be able to make a informed decision at that point versus 90 all an analysis at 95 ft because then we would have known what the impacts are at 145.

So that's how I looked at it. The board seemed to um like that. Um the applicant didn't and that's one of the reasons why they went to the Zimba um which is fine. and they're allowed to do that. Um, and I I still stand by it by that doing it that way. Um, so if we're okay with that, we'll just proceed beyond the wave the question of the waiver. We'll consider it as part of seeker.

Does anybody have a different point of view? Rick and I basically said offshoots are the same thing. So does anybody have a contrary point of view? I have a I'm confused uh with that statement because if you look at that uh 140 29 wireless communic telecommunication facilities it's talking about tower being 50 ft above the tree line a maximum 150 right so why are we talking about uh having waver for for for another paragraph in the Oh, that's what I I follow. You following me? No.

Because there's another subsection that grants the board the authority to give a waiver. I No, I understand. Why why they need a waiver if the court says maximum 150 or 50 ft above the tree line? Because the 50 ft above the tree line is 95. They're proposing 145. the the CEO at the outset apparently our building inspector said assessed that the tree line was 45. Okay.

Now I get and so 50 ft over that is the 95. That's why Zor may not you may not have followed but that's why the waiver is functionally going to be the decision on site plan approval. They don't get a waiver then then the answer is no. If they do get suppose you give them a waiver up to 130 ft then that's going to kind of govern your site approval and even more so the other concern about frontloading it if you were to frontload it let's say get it out in front of seeker you're essentially making a decision on waiver without a lot of the information and analysis you're going to generate generate on the seeker and many people would have thought that that would be the way to go because you kind of do things like that in terms of you get the zoning cleared away I think the applicant thought that but the truth is you'd be making that decision without without generating the information and that decision is going to largely govern what you you know the ultimate decision. So that was that was my way of think that was my way of evaluating it and putting in that order but I'd want to hear if there was different you know different perspective

but no but my question is why would we need consider maximum 150 that was on the waiver right

no it's the definition of what the says groundmounted wireless telecommunication towers shall not exceed the height of the nearest tree line plus 50 ft no tower shall exceed 150 ft in height districts. There's requirement A and requirement B and B they comply with but A they're they're way off so they need a w they both requirements apply you know tree line plus 50 and 150 those your two height requirements one they have and one they don't and so they need a waiver from the one they don't that's the short answer just to close this Rick on the

um I accept that the CEO may have determined the 45 feet is the tree line I couldn't find that anywhere Um, and I would advise the board that we need to set what the tree line height is that using the standard in your code. I somebody's got to con you've got to confirm what it is. It's been this assumption all along that it's 45 ft, but I don't know where that's documented. What's the delta? I mean, you could it's being a trained field geologist, there's means why you can go out there and measure tree height. I guess that but how much? But but if I don't go up, do you know? No, but I don't think is it

it's going to be about is it going to be about 65? It seems to be important in this case. Yeah, but they're going to need a mass they're going to need a big waiver anyway. Well, 65 versus 30 is a big difference. Okay. I I would just suggest since it's the foundational measurement from which any waiver or height is what would be the process to to nail that down? Well, there's three or four different field methods. The most the most common one is uh you use right angle trigonometry. No, I mean who like who's going to do it? Somebody's got to go out there with a field skill and and make a genuine could be me, could be Greg

and make a J. Why don't you and Great have a field trip with all of your abacuses and and astro labs and and triangle and let me know so I can learn a new uh technology triangulation. I know how to do triangulation unless you can evidence that this has been documented is what the tree line is. Shame shame on shame on me. Um that's what came from the uh the CEO's orbit. But you can't, that's what we're all led to believe, but you can't find it anywhere

so far. But confessionally, there's what are we at, Stacy, now? Over 200 documents. Well over 200. I don't even want to look. Maybe at least the the documentation may have been from Tectonic in the plans when they were at on the site. That's my recollection. But for 45. Yeah, but I'd have to look. So I' have to look at the plans and see if it says it there. I think we I think we should the board should just set it. I think so. Yeah. Yes. Seems like if you and Greg can do it, let's All right. 230. 230. 235. All right. So Dave, you and Greg. All right. We'll get you a measurement.

I have a question. Does Tectonic Would Tectonic have that data in the drone flight taken at the site? Oh. because they landed, you know, they and then they went up and and they were using that data to confirm the height of the balloon along with the tape attached to the man lift. So, I think the data is they could get the elevation from a drone. Well, yeah, they already did. I'll ask them. It just depends on how close. Obviously, they want to keep drones away from trees.

Well, yeah, they straight up and they were filming the entire time. See what they can do. Yeah, I think the data is probably in there. That data should be there because we use drones for precisely information like that. Exactly. After the shock of hearing after the shock of hearing that we can't find where that was actually said, it would be logical that it would be said by your engineers because you came to the to the CEO. So before we send Dave and Greg out on the field trip, why don't you see what you can find? I will. And Mickey should have that. I think we have all the drone footage. Yeah, he was the flight operator. But even before that, they do stuff when they're out there. Okay. Well, before the plan and everything.

All right. Let's get into the U. Thanks, Scott. Let's get into the uh the process that we went over. Dave, myself, Peter, and Molina. We took 140-29 and or Dave took it and he broke down each one of the sections and um we sat there and we um made a determination u whether or not these items were covered or not. Um and we thought it was appropriate at this point in time to review it with the board but also if we need to make changes and additions because you can see we didn't fill the whole thing out. So Dave, you want to explain um unless you feel into the good enough j one by one?

Yep, let's do that.

So uh in seeking to try to get you uh some structure to focus on um the ultimate decision which whatever way it goes. Um I worked with as Rick said Rick and Helina and Peter to itemize the portions. This is just this section of the code 14029. Um arguably there are standards uh in the code for what a proper site plan is, what a proper special use application is. Um which we'll also have to cover ultimately. Some of them overlap into what's into the 14029 which is specific to telecommunication facilities. Um and uh our effort was to itemize those where there's a decision there. There's a lot of other sections that the purpose and intent section of the of that part of the code as other items, but it's they're just statements that aren't really measurable. So, um if we miss something, we'll need to hear about that. But um starting with the purpose section, um it states you're supposed to ensure the least possible adverse effect. That's the first one. I we created this to just have you as a worksheet uh a column with do you believe that completed or not?

Uh if not, do you need more information or you just haven't gotten to it? And then provide some notes. Um uh it's filled in in spots where at least there was a consensus of the four of us uh uh uh what is answerable but the rest of them are debatable. So this is really helpful. Can we get this electronically? Yeah, sure. I think it's on. Oh, it is. Yeah. It's a posting from this I don't know states today. Okay. That's um

so they're purpose statements. Maybe I'll look through these and slow me slow me down because there's some more substantive aspects of the code. Um, the purpose statement also says you have to minimize negative impact on surroundings and protect the town. And I'm paraphrasing that these statements are longer in the actual code. Um, now that we've note decided to know the area, we're waiting for this New York State Parks possible memo and the and the Olster County Planning Board review. Uh, which we expect both of which may address these issues. Um, it's uh to adequately serve needs. Um, actually, if you read that, that's a that's actually a pro telecommunications facility statement in the purpose statement. Um, they want the population to have adequate service. uh is what your code says. So we've highlighted that that ultimately is your RF expert should weigh in which is subject to the uh additional information you got from Chamberlain and others. Um

D. Yep. Can I just uh in this need on 140-29A item five um I don't think we talked about it but it it states minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts to protect the natural features and aesthetic character of the town special attention to the historic preservation overlay district Shang Ridge Mohawk preserve and Pat preserve correct yeah do I don't know I don't think we talk about that do we feel Well, it's not. So, there's four specific resource areas identified, right? Yep. It's not in three of them. Okay. It's not in the Catskill Park

or Okay. It's right. It's not in the historic preservation overlay, but it's clearly, you know, on the lower flank of the ridge. So, that's the it's a big question uh still to be resolved.

Okay. Um uh the code says you to provide range of options and coverage for new facilities. Again, that's a statement about uh it's a pro statement about having adequate service. Um you should encourage creative approaches including sharing. So the code says rather than what be sure that instead of a new tower could they share somewhere um or some other approach. Uh but these are general statements and establish a fair and efficient process. So we left those unanswered. Um you any discussion on the purpose statements? No.

Okay. Um ultimately I the only statement I have is these are things that keep in the back of a back of our mind um when we're we're getting to making the decision. These are u these are important um statements of purpose. Um as much as what you just read Alina Anthony statement in the code that talks about how to assess the visual impact was a whole paragraph there that Dave uh gave us about two meetings ago how to assess the visual impact right I remember that

the DEC criteria but then you had the town code criteria and it's totally different far more stringent so that'll come up in here as well

yes and I should note too the lefth hand column numbers are just for reference purposes. They're not out not of the code. Um so number eight uh uh your code requires a seeker full environmental assessment form. Um as you recall this has been filed revised uh two three times. I it's on file. Um uh next one. It's got to be uh consistent with the town comprehensive plan which you've had some public comment about. Um, we've uh a pro we've got a process I need to help start um where we're going to itemize uh the town plans that have been formally adopted and with uh three volunteers here. We're going to share the job of going through those looking for key references and key phrases to see um for cons to make a measurement of consistency to report back to the board and they talk about this. I heard some some of those quotes today from one of the U commentators,

right? So Stacy will have it in the minutes. You can use those comments.

The challenge, which I can defer to the attorney, is the way it works is a comprehensive plan in relationship to land use regulations. Land use regulations in New York State must be consistent with a comprehensive plan. Um so there's a presumption um that the code for telecommunications towers um has already addressed the consistency with your plan. The tricky part is you've adopted plan elements since the adoption of the telecommunication uh code as I understand it. I worked on one um the natural heritage plan um the community preservation plan etc etc. So, we're going to have to go through these and make sure there's some consistency. Um, uh, let's see here. Next one is, uh, uh, 140 29 B6 is there shall be no basis on environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.

No decision made.

No decision made. So, your code versus the federal code makes that statement. The code, as I recall, the code has a number of provisions that mirror the telecommunications act provisions of which this is one. And my my strong suggestion would be that because there is, you know, reasonable amount of case law and you know FCC decisions and research under the federal under the telecommunications act and very very little under ours. We accept the federal decisions basically to govern the same language of our code. We could theoretically go in a different direction, but there seems to be no reason to do so since the code was, in my view, drafted to just sort of import the federal TCA rules into code. That make sense?

Yep. Thoughts, comments, anything? Keep going. Yeah.

Uh 140 29 ED prohibits uh towers in the flood plane overlay, which is not an issue here. Um, uh, E, uh, 29E little E prohibits them in wetlands. Um, so, uh, I think for the applicant, we're going to need, uh, at least in our work session, we we need to make sure we've got the 100 foot bumper. The town code requires a 100 foot bumper on any wetland, regardless of which jurisdictions determine it's a wetland. And I couldn't recall on the site plan if the buffer shown. I think it is because we did a delineation.

Yeah. Did we ever get that? But we Yeah, I probably believe so on the updated plans. I don't remember. But there's I remember seeing requests from Dan Weinheimer to to get the delineation, but I looked for it today. I couldn't find. Yeah, there was correct. I'll confirm. I was having problems finding it. I'll confirm. I thought that the that took the information from the delineation and put it on the device by China. There was one wetlands map that I remember Helen and I looked at on the first day of the right that was it. But when we were at this when we finally saw that we said oh we didn't know there were wetlands here. I never saw anything from the DEC on that.

Yeah. But then we'll need to whatever that determination is ultimately there needs to be 100 foot drawn around that as per county where they stay and I don't it to be determined if the buff what the impact would be of the buffer I have to see what the buffer is

140 29E says the no tower can be higher than the Shanghai um we're not Uh uh well, how do I get copied? Flip over here. Uh 141 140 29ga GA support structure needs to be the least vis visibly intrusive. Um so this gets to the board's ultimate uh if you get to that that point of uh looking at alternative tower heights and locations and design uh monopole versus guideline mono bind those kinds of things. It's uh your code standard says as to the structure shall be the least visibly visually obtrusive to be determined.

Well that's that's what secret analysis is going to help us with right? Yes. Correct.

Anything comments also keep going. Uh, next subsection B I height not exceed nearest tree line plus 50 ft. We talked about earlier. Um, uh, uh, next item B, uh, little double I, there's a height waiver authorization to the board with that's made on written request and with justification that's been requested by the applicant. So um you've been asked to consider a waiver. Next subsection minimum setback uh of the structure shall be 110% of the height as measured from the compound fence line

which is a 5550 square. I was wondering about this one. Yeah. and and uh at at their request uh I and this color coding and for the public this is on MUN collab um uh the blue is recommended that the town engineer review this with the applicant um and the green is the RF Doug Fishman uh uh review this which we get to down below. Um uh and the red is these are first priority uh decisions you need to consider uh which includes setting this height. Um

so this one I we've got uh is a part of a bundle that we need the town engineer Greg Bolner to confirm. Yep.

So the comment is with that setback requirement. How does that pertain to the definition of the fall zone? Does the fall zone they the definition is the adjacent area in which a wireless support structure may be expected to fall in the event of a structural failure is measured by professional engineering standards. Um is the 110% um setback is that part and parcel of the fall zone. I'm just assuming from experience in other jurisdictions it's the under 10% is the unlikelihood that a thing tower fails and tips over okay intact okay

which as I understand the monopols are not designed to do they're supposed to they're designed to collapse internally well in a perfect world yeah your code also has a definition I think for a break point I'm not an engineer but they've used it all the time where They they overdesign the bottom part of the tower up to a point and then they the top of the tower is designed to 100% structural capability. So this is what I call I hate to use the word the weak point but it's because it's overd design on the bottom. If there's that it should fall it fall off. Okay. according to the engineering just because we had the comments from the uh one of the residents and we can

at the in the apartment complex and I'm not sure I mean anecdot anecdotally I think uh we have back some years the we we all thought these kinds of facilities would if they were to collapse unfortunately would do so in a certain way and then there was the Quebec ice storm uh which showed these things can substantially fail under certain weather conditions and they're literally tip over. I so I think that's why codes have started to put in these these enhanced setbacks. Okay. Well, we should just make sure that they meet those structure

a radius a full radius be put on the site plan. I think it has to it has but it's what I'm looking at it right here on page 37 of the 675. It's got 169 plus or minus proposed tower rear yard setback, but it's from the tower, not from the perimeter. Not from the perimeter, which is a 50 by 50 foot structure. So, that probably needs to be revised uh because it's from the center of the tower. Okay. Does it need does it comply? Um it's it doesn't reach the building, but it'll be close when it's at

Okay. If it's 169 to the building from the tower and the thing is 50 by 50 that's 119. No it's it's it's 169 does not reach the building does not reach but it's from the center of the tower not from the perimeter of the 50 by 50. Yeah, just sorry to interrupt. That's to a building, not the property line. It's not indicated here, but it it is the uh the setback is 110%. But the property line is the the building is in the property, isn't it? Yes, it's the same property. So, the property line doesn't come into play here. Gotcha.

That was that makes sense. But the back um back part of the property should also be checked. We need the perimeter. We should just drill down on them. Yeah, you could they could submit a drawing that shows both the fall zone that we're talking about and the 110%. So you can see how it overlays with all Yeah. Right.

Right. uh you're keeping on this same section another subsection on color. Um the your town code anticipates that the structure will be a single color designed to blend in with the surroundings. Um it does give you an exception that if you can grant an an exception to that to minimize visual impact but anyway it's uh which is proposed it's single right.

Yes. Uh same subsection uh no tower lights unless FAA required uh any lights on the on the enclosure or other purposes has to be full cut offs in essence uh uh you know night sky lighting standards consistent with your code. Um so we'll have to get the specs if there any side lighting of them.

It only down in the closure. Yeah, it's going to be on the H frame, eight feet tall, whatever. And it's basically a switch on and automatic timer off so that for some reason if they were there at night and they left and didn't turn the switch off, it will automatically go off. Uh yeah, and these are items that uh the town engineer needs to review for on your behalf. Site security, it's anticipated there be fencing, which is proposed. Um, uh, the code prefers underground utilities getting the service. I I don't know if that's the Yep. There you

Okay. And the road access standards, the access road to the facility is supposed to meet the town private road standards which are articulated in the code. Um, we Okay, keep going. Keep going. Mhm. Um then there's next subsection 29H is itemizes the site plan requirements. Uh required documentation of owner authorization. Uh documentation of a deed andor proposed lease if you're the applicants proposing just lease the land. Um uh an agreement with a licensed carrier. You know we are the carrier.

Yeah. Exactly. um FCC document documentation uh uh on compliance um NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act compliance which I understand is in progress right coming to a close is that fair to say yes so that's still to be received um uh we need uh doc technical documentation on the appended transmission power which is explained in the code and you you have this sheet Scott.

Um you're not with I saw munic. Okay. Um uh we need the NR Ner levels certification. Um, we need a certification in writing of there will be no interference with other telecom telecommunication devices is what the code calls it. I believe those both need to be a memo from the applicant. Uh, the near we actually have it's by a licensed PE that does it and confirms that it's 100 times less than that which we can legally emit. So no issues. I think we got the non-inference from the variety

and this tool to remind you is when you think there's the question of whether you've got received the documentation then there'll be the question for the board on whether you find it adequate um and then fold that into your secret determination on some of these matters. Um there's the FAA certification which I don't know the is there anything to be received if this is not an

No. So it's not if it's not if you don't have to do a disturbance of airspace you know you don't file them. Uh continuing in that section on the under site plan um the town code expects uh details on the equipment and power specifications including capacity for co-location. So they the code details there needs to be some specifics which the town engineer is going to have to review. Um, there has to be a certification of site stability with geotechnical evaluation from a licensed professional engineer.

I don't know that we have it. Do we? No, we typically will seek to do that after if there's an approval because it's an expensive item and it's never an item that prevents a tower from going up. We've never Well, then we're going to have to talk, John. uh gentleman to my left on it's a requirement of the code on for the site plan. Does it say how do you do it afterwards? Does it say when it has to be delivered? It's it's a provision in the to complete the site plan review. We can't prove it specifically. a specific item of documentation for

what's the site the certification of site stability site plan review requirement criteria and standards right what is it the certification of site stability read it for you I'm just want to know what you're referring to basically whether it's stable enough to put it on

certification to the town that the site is adequate to assure the stability of the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities as designed and that a geotechnical surface soils investigation evaluate evaluation report and foundation recommendation for a proposed or existing tower site has been conducted by a licensed engineer. Yeah. I mean you don't need this basically information on the on the physical site, right? you you don't need a proposed or an engineered, you know, tower to do that. Correct. Um there's no there's no reason it has to be backloaded,

you know. I mean, you know, I guess if we No, and it's not going to serve me well to say this would be the first town that probably required that because every town has that in their code. They're not. And we've always just the towns have always said, "Hey, we're playing board. We're not really structural engineers, so we always do it before the BP basically. But, you know, it's up to you guys. Can I ask you a question? So, um, typically do you take soil before before you conduct your um analysis, do you take soil soil borings to determine the loadbearingity of the soil? I'm assuming that's part of the geotech where they bring a rig in,

right? So, if you're going to do that, you can do that, get that data, and then you'll have that data. Um, and then depending on the size or whatever, you can work from that. Yeah. No, I to we we do it on every tower. We will not build a tower without doing that. What I'm saying is just typically it's a timing of it that so far. We've always done it right prior to the BP application.

So, it sounds like this is like a design build type scenario. Um, and what I'm curious about if you're not doing any borings ahead of time, what if the site is not conducive? What if it what if the borings show that you do not have appropriate are if we are to approve this project, you would not we couldn't build it. But all the towers we built never have an issue. Never. Or another way to go is provide comment utilizing the county soils maps, which are pretty good. Sure.

Um well, and then maybe if we are to approve etc. we'll have as a condition of approval that submission. Does that make sense? Does that make sense to me? And I hear what you're saying. I've never built I've never I've worked on a lot of infrastructure projects and I've never sought all my permits and spent money on permits for something that we didn't know that we couldn't do. Right. I understand where you're coming from. I've never met a construction project that has not had soil poring data to support it before it even goes to the architects. Let's just do it. Let's just get it. It's expensive. And if you guys are going to deny the application, that's all I'm saying.

I mean, this and there's never it's never an issue. No matter what the soil shows, you're going to go to foundation. The code requires it. So, well, it says a certification from a licensed engineer. So, so look at the soils. Maps tell us if it's on bedrock wet, especially because there's so many wetlands up there, right? If there's muck soils, I mean, I don't know. I don't think they're in that specific location, but if they're muck soils, then you might have to do some engineering deals. I'll look at the maps and we'll provide a I'll get a survey of, you know, if it says it's sitting on wetland or a sandy bloom or something, you know. Yeah.

Men versus bedrock. Bedrock your home. Yeah. No. Well, I think it can be addressed and then maybe if we are going to approve that could be a condition of approval that you submit it the certification. The next one's a similar certification study from a license P um on the structure itself. Yeah. and and that's what I think we talking about which is elaborated in the code.

I just don't know how to do an structural analysis on a structure that doesn't exist. What we certify we did provide a letter a certification from an engineer license saying that this will be designed you know pursuant to all the codes requirements etc to accommodate colloators. Um, and I've seen we've seen this provision for 20 30 years. And again, I don't know how you do it. You can't do a structural analysis on a structure that doesn't exist, right? Or does anybody disagree with what he just said? Okay, so let's keep going.

Just just have Greg Bolner review what the and see if it meets the standard. Right. Great did look at it as I recall and indicated how could he do it before it's built. There's specs that say that it's it's it's going to stand up and then during the construction it's continually yeah inspected. So that seems reasonable and I think we the letter is a certification that says we will be in full compliance. So that Greg can determine if it's reasonable or not. Uh next I don't see the problem. Let's keep going. Okay. Of course, we're assuming that the thing is going to be filled, but we're going to approve it. So, that's

your code requires a list of pending permits and copies of all existing or approved permits. Uh, so there is a list in the seeker FBA of uh necessary permits. I there they also need any permits you have. This board this board ZBA technically building permit's not required but we typically as a courtesy will apply for a building permit. Um and we g we've given you the FCC licenses so I'm not aware of anything else. Okay. All right. Keep going. A site plan submission has uh four listed items. I believe they've met those already. They have all those.

Um there's a location map required that's provided. uh elevation drawings for all buildings and the tower. I don't know that we have those. I don't know that they have the elevations for the buildings. How are you deal? Right. Yeah. Does it mean buildings as the surrounding buildings or buildings? It's the little build the little utility building. Oh, so we don't have Oh, we don't have uh Well, I'm sorry. I didn't know if you meant the

I'm assuming this means the tower, which would have the we have the You have that shelter. The buildings would mean if there's any utility buildings at this, but there just we do have I think an elevation in one of the detail plans. It's uh the H frame. Yeah, it's a it's in here on page 45 of 675. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Um descriptive summary's been filed. Uh then there's the uh uh 14029I, the special use item specific to telecommunication towers. Um a report on need for services with an inventory of all existing towers in vicinity. Again, I'm paraphrasing. Well, that brings up Jennifer had asked for that some time ago and it also asked for surface information at different heights.

Looks like a sensitivity analysis because we're being asked my my logic behind that is that we're being asked for a waiver for the height. And I understand we're going to look at the tree line, right, to verify that. But let's say for the sake of argument that everything we've received so far is like the way it's going to be. If we're being asked to grant this waiver, I think it would be beneficial to understand and for them to justify why they need the waiver. So the sensitivity analysis is intended to provide us with with appropriate information so that we can see at the different heights to justify them requesting the height variance

looking at in terms of looking at different heights and the sensitivity of the height versus the coverage the need the need it's getting at the need so if they have 145 and you see a map with whatever it shows and then you go down to 95 feet and it's one pixel smaller. I think that's useful information for us to have. Or maybe you go from 145, you go down to 95 and it's the same as it is right now. That's also helpful information for us to have. More importantly, this board may it would be a risk of getting out in front. You may be looking at well maybe 130 looks like it may or I don't want to I don't want to presume that.

I would just like sensitivity analysis so we can understand. And didn't our consultant already said that uh 120 or something sufficient the RF engineer in the first right that's why in the first study he said you get the same result at 120 that you get at one I think 45 or 150 um below below 120 or below 100 um forget about it don't even bother doing it so then maybe that's suitable they did something like our guy did something like that but it was based upon his analysis is of the information that Verizon or Tectonic provided us with is

but yours goes further to say give me the sensitivity in terms of of actual number of customers served I asked for but I don't know if our code I don't know that's what we talked about I last meeting I was confused that thirst and was talked about it last meeting you wanted instead of a geographic like what we provided you wanted customers and um I put that request in but they don't know how to they don't meet that data. They're not they're not doing it for that purpose is because the FCC license requirements are just geographic in nature.

That's why so they believe it or not they don't track like we have these customers here then. So but you know we did do a minimum height justification but that shows differences in geographic areas. Okay. Yeah. This is uh the code starts to elaborate on could you colllocate instead of putting a new tower. Could you put the antenna on an existing structure as opposed to a new tower? It's that kind of evaluation in this the in this section.

Well, I want to just throw this out there. You guys may agree or disagree because one of the criteria that I suggested for the waiver come which comes from um variance an area variance is um Z when the ZBA grants an area variance and they would do that if you know a Verizon goes to them and maybe before us as well is the minimum variance necessary to to accomplish the task which in this case is providing coverage this is getting very I think this is getting very close to your point is what is the minimum variance necessary let's start with 95 just this a story out there. Is it going to be a 35 ft variance which gets them to um 130 or is it going to be a 25 foot? I mean you're supposed to now you guys may decide you don't want to use that criterion but I would suggest that that's a fairly natural criterion to to throw in right from area variances the seeker is going to require you know minimizing impacts and you know that that concept is all through everything. So we may have to get to that level of understanding, you know, where's that sweet spot that we that we can drive it down as much as possible but still accomplish what they need.

But didn't our engineer already answer that question? He did our area of consultant already answered that question. He may have we have to look at that more carefully. But ultimately it was the first one that he did back in February. Zoe, if he did, then it would be our job to to look at what he said and understand that it better complies with the criteria that we're going to set up. Did we receive any response to comments on that from the applicant? Did we receive a response to that analysis from the applicant? The engineer?

No, because I think the way my recollection was I agree with you. He said, you know, if you're looking at 120 and 140, those are I think those are the antenna. He said, you know, they're kind of similar, but then in the next sentence or so, he said, however, your code requires collocation, and so the 120 is not going to work for collocations. But so he said that so you know, we I don't know if we spoke about it, but um I think our engineer is looking to see if 120 would be okay for him. Well, the code doesn't require collocation. suggest a location. He was saying in order to avoid additional towers coming,

right? He was saying basically that 140 whatever the number over 120 doesn't gain much. So it was he didn't see technical necessity to go higher than 120. That's a technical advantage, right?

Sorian nailed it. He said 120 was sufficient. He and he does make the point about collocation. It's like yeah so you got a balance between well do we want it at one first of all do we want it at all? Okay, if we want it at all, is 120 sufficient? He's saying yes. Just realize somebody could come in. They can't colllocate. They could come in and say, "Well, I want another tower." Well, we have one over here. Yeah, but you put it at 120. I can't colleate. I have a right to apply and go through the same process all over again. We can say yes or no. So, so is that kind of is that this is go back and look at my notes, but I'm recalling also that

we're asking Verizon to wave the right to increase by 20 ft. And so 120 also plus 20 you sort of pen back at 145 140. Yeah. Yeah, if we say it's at 120, Verizon Verizon says within I'm not going to, you know, we we agreed I think we did a lease agreement actually and it's being signed by Verizon with the owner and the agreement is the owner says it's no going above 145. Okay.

So, um, so that way we were getting around the tax relief act, the Spectrum Act. So, what one of the things, this may be contrary to something I've said before, but that's okay. No, one of the things that I I don't want us to do is to skip over the whole issue of does this meet the community character, and it's been mentioned at every public hearing in one way or another. Um and when you drill down into section um the section on page 205 and 206 of our code u 1429 it talks about how to evaluate the visual impact in one of these paragraphs. So, I think the first issue is do we do we want it and where they're proposing it? Um, yes or no because of whatever the impact is on the on that community's character or on the impact on the surrounding homes. Um, and once we answer that question, then we can we can delve into, okay, if we agree that that's a good location in the middle of a residential section, um, what's the proper height as opposed to, well, how far how far down can we get the tower? Um, and sort of shoehorn ourselves into, oh, I guess we just approved of that height or we indicated we wanted that height in that in that location. I think we have to deal with a residential location and whether or not it's appropriate to have a tower in that residential location. Um given um the explanation or the the terminology used in the code, it's section 149 140-29 I B3 and B1 2 and three. Um, also to to

further your point on page 189 uh there's a whole section which um Dave has it's item number 45, but it does say uh shall include a demonstration that the facility was cited so as to be the least visually intrusive and thereby have a minimal adverse visual effect on the environment and the nature and character of the community, existing vegetation and on the residences in the area of the wireless telecommunications facility. The applicant shall demonstrate and provide in writing and or by drawings how it shall effectively screen from view the base station tower base and all related facilities and structures of the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities. And with that tower being cited right off Granite Road, I don't think we've that's been met. And I think that also dovtales into the section that you're referring to.

Yeah, that's fourth item 45 on the list. Yeah. Two down from where we were and we haven't gotten to and that's the issue Matt Allen said deferred to the board. Right. And then he was What was that? What page was that section that you were talking about? He's he's citing page numbers from the uh colorcoded edited version of the code which we've been still using to highlight the code changes. Oh, so your page number is certainly okay. So it's 140 29 I B and there's a series of

well it's H B triple I triple I okay so we're talk Okay, that's what um the other thing and I know you're getting to it and it did come up tonight and it's come up before and we've asked about it is the real estate. we've asked for at local real estate, but our code when we get to the town code, right, it goes even further and talks about economic impact analysis. Right. Right. That's a little bit more than a real estate analysis. You threw me with the page number. I'm sorry. That's okay. Uh, keep going.

Okay. Uh, 44. Uh, the zone of visibility maps is described in the code been filed. Um, I call it under review at this point. I um any com comments, questions about Okay, we just talked about 45 um uh to summarize the uh Matt Allen led the analysis meeting the New York State DEC guidance for seeker purposes, but your code has this more fine grained uh impact of analysis needed for the uh what I'll call neighborhood character. um uh which includes Scott demonstrate and provide in writing or by drawing how how the base will be effectively screened uh from the neighborhood. Um okay. Uh 46 is a justification of the total height requested has to be documented just request of justifications. Legend for the patient. You mean it's not a statement from the applicant?

Statement from the applicant. It's in their original submission in the RF notes. Yeah. Uh we code says we need a grading and a vegetation clearing plan.

Yep. Code says we need a storm water plan. Small s storm water. It's not presumed that there's a state swift required. It's just not. uh just basically licensed engineer needs to talk about document somehow and what flow or erosion might occur and what measures are being taken to take care of that in the very modest disturbance zone. Uh the next one's what Rick was talking about for everybody that last page. Um code code says I'll read it. An economic analysis study of the property value impacts of the construction and operation of a telecommunications facility may have on all contiguous and adjacent properties located within 500 ft of the parcel boundaries on which the facilities located. So I know you're back team's back working on an analysis that's more local than the other one came out of the capital district I think or something.

Well no the other one included five different towns. Uh trying to think what they were now. Athens but anyway five towns and then he also had a bunch of other ones. We kind of have just put him on hold also. We didn't we submitted his request or his proposal, but we wanted to see how this meeting turns out. Um I mean because we do have the shot clock issue. So we talked about that. So

So this is pretty specific. It says within 500 ft of um fossil batteries. I I mean having done some of this economic analysis before uh um you're going to have to rely on the only way to effectively do it is to rely on some comparable setting. Uh be that new or uh what else has been built around here? News was in our one of our your Bullville one is in pro progress right the town of Crawford. Bull is Crawford but yeah I know my kids go to Pine Bush schools. Okay so I mean Crawford Wednesday again for another site. Yeah but that one you can't do you have any analysis from there?

No because we typically don't I mean we typically don't do analyses unless it's we're asked to do it but so is a new tower up on the fire department. Um I don't think I got to check. So sounds like we might have I don't I know you mentioned that before. Did you construct a new town gardener? Were you gardener gardener? Yeah. Uh I don't know that we constructed I think it was Homeland Towers that constructed. That's right. Because there was a year or two. The point is we're going to need something at the airport outside of Kingston. Is that Verizon? No, nothing familiar with. But

so the point is you're going to have to do something much more local. If it can be done, it might not be able to be done. That's the problem. But well, we need an answer one way or the other. Okay. We're going to have they're going to have to have some documentation on to answer this qu that item. You know, if this stuff Well, I don't know. I read the other towers that were approved. That code made I don't know if this code was in place when those towers were constructed. Code.

Yeah, I think I think it was, but let's try. Yours is due. All right. We just want to make sure we're being treated like everybody else. That's all. It's I mean I guess I guess Rick I could reach out to county planning and see if there's something they've seen that well you could do that but uh I I see another letter coming. Yeah I I confess this one's not an easy thing to do methodologically. I I don't know how you do this. I as a professional I just don't agree the way it's described I'm not sure how you would do it. I but Okay. So when we're doing it as you're doing what you can do you can do a lot of hand ringing but if we need more than what we have

yeah because it's something that's come up in the public comment repeatedly it's something all the more correct yeah but with the public comment they haven't submitted any evidence they can say all they want that property values are going to decrease I know but that's it's the obligation of the applicant to yeah I understand and we have provided some information but if we have to provide some additional but understand there's no evidence to suggest that this will decrease the in property value. There's more reason that you need to delay the fears of what people are I'm not concerned about fears with no evidence. I'm sorry. I'm not That's what I'm saying is that you need to provide that evidence too. If if there's no impact to um property values, it should be pretty straightforward to demonstrate that work.

Well, it's but even your consultant saying it's not though. It's almost for a professional to do that. I'm using your words. You said it's very easy and clear that there was no impact. So, no, it's if you're certain there's no impact. what I just said now. No, I said the public didn't submit anything to demonstrate there's an impact. So there's no evidence from them. Do you believe there's an impact on these property? The code says no. Hang on. But I'm not but I'm not an appraisal. The code says you need to give us say no. We'll we'll try to do something. I we were under the impression you were updating this anyway. Well, we are, but like I said, we want to see how this meeting turned out because I think we're just pointing out there's a specific code standard for what it's supposed to be. I hear you.

Um, so if you're updating it, we just the board needs to make sure it meets that standard. Yep. Um, uh, the balloon test is described. That's checked. That's happened. Um, uh, there's a code section collocation including evidence to offer to emergency services. The code expects that the there needs to be some documentation to the town that the providers made an offer to the community to the emergency services agencies. So although I don't colllocate although we don't think that's lawful we have a policy that we provide free space on the tower rent free to all local emergency services. Okay. That's an open offer. Can you put that in already?

Yep. If we have it already. Then there's a performance security if you get that far. And I just know for the bottom three, we're still waiting for the county planning board review memo. Uh they having met last Wednesday. Um you have to still do the secret determination which is uh going to be hefty. Um and you'll have to still close the public hearing. Right. We'll close the public hearing and then do secret. Dave, this is super helpful. Yeah. So these are just this is just a worksheet for you all. I know it's keep track of what you no structure for for going forward. So is the items

is the board at the point. So this was meant to be illustrative as well as educational but more importantly as each are making your own decision um to bring back to this board as you're thinking through it. I think this helps a lot and it also would help to re reread one section 140-29. You can skip the definitions except for the definition about radio radio bins or something

um plots. Um, so I'd like to move us to um making some decisions in ter or getting a sense of the board where the board is at. Um, I'll call it at 100,000 ft meaning uh does this fit the community character as a starting point. Um, and not spend a lot of time initially talking about 120 versus 145. Um, and I think in order to do that, we need to spend a whole night just diving into it. Um, and so I'm going to propose that we do meet November. We had cancelled the meeting of November 25th and I don't know if any of you made plans as a result November 24th 4th,

November 24th. So I'd like to put that back on the agenda. Um, I like some feedback that nah, wait till December 8th, we'll do it then. Uh, I I just think in terms of timing, uh, we're definitely not going to meet at the end of the year. And I I think we should we owe it to ourselves and to the community to really start getting at this. It assumes that we have and I'm assuming we would have uh Olster County's uh planning board's input. I would hope Dave that we have your input on the I keep calling it preeemption the issue of preeemption

on the um environment versus you the the non-human impacts as opposed to the we would need that. So what does the board think about uh spending the 24th just on Verizon? I'm not 100% positive I can make it. There will work to be determined at this point, but I certainly do that I can. But I think that um I'm hoping that I can, but I uh I think without the county planning board um

feedback, we're not going to have any there's no point in doing it. I think that's I think that's an important essential thing. There's a whole bunch of information I want, you know, we still need to get um, you know, and ideally we would have, you know, a better idea of some of the critical issues that are, um, coming that, you know, the the economic analysis of some form. Um, the the flag board as I mentioned, but then also the there's just a lot of stuff that really became apparent through this worksheet that just need to have we don't have them. Yep. Okay, that's my perspective.

Believe me, I'm not looking for another meeting that that particular time of the year. Anybody else? We get wait till December 8th as per um Pete's comments. As long as we have the review from Olter County, the Olster County Planning Board, then I think we should. It would be a good time to meet and hash things out and go through and have a workshop. But Dave, can you press them? We were kidding before. I can call tomorrow and find out when it's when we're going to get it. Sure.

Okay. So why don't we we won't announce anything yet u to the public in terms of notice or anything but let's see if we can get a date when we're going to get this. So the feeling is if we have the Olster County planning board material we will meet. I think so I think it's also did you have a sense you mentioned something the the modifying simulation? Ah that's I'll check with Van Allen. Okay.

He said it was simple. I took that to mean a week's worth of a couple of days. And the other piece that we're missing, but that was going to get here by the 17th, is the response from Doug Fishman and to uh Chamberlain's letter and also your tech your technical um response to that Chamberlain letter and emphasis on technical. Oh, yeah. No, I don't. I don't know if I can make Well, I could probably come maybe late. Is that the Monday before Thanksgiving? Yeah, it is. I don't know if I could be here at 6:30, but I can probably come.

Okay. It sounded like um we may have a couple of people missing. Could you potentially for a second meeting in December? I mean, it's it's going to be bad.

That's bad. All right, let's leave it the way it is then. December 8th, let's just leave it. The the lack of assurance that we're going to have all the counties information and time to digest it. The need for a technical brief from Scott's person. Um, and just Peter's right, there's a lot of little knits and nats which came out with this exercise at Luent. So, let's leave it for December 8th. And I will try to keep that agenda very small. We have people breaking down the doors though wanting to be on the agenda. Oh, okay. Anything else? I admire your fortitude. Everybody's fortitude here. Scott, you have anything else you want to add?

No, I don't. Okay. Um could you refresh my memory on the amount of work you guys did in looking at a different locations? Uh we have a site selection analysis in the application. Basically it involves going so the engineer their RF engineer creates what they call search area. Generally it's a circle type of area. that could doesn't have to be a circle but it's the area in which basically the tower needs to be located to provide the service uh that that's expected and the capacity issues. So they then the site act people then go out and look at the properties visit owners who may be interested. They talk to any interested owners about leasing property and uh in this case I don't know off hand how many there were. Uh I think there were only a handful based just upon the search area. Um but that's what they end up doing.

And how did you wind up getting uh this owner to be so agreeable to to doing it? I uh you know I didn't talk to the owner specifically. All I do is draft the leases. My guess is it's a company that invests in property and they looked at it as an opportunity to to make, you know, a little extra money. Which despite what you may hear is not a bad thing. Um it's the American way. Okay. Sorry. Get all punchy when I get tired.

All right. Any uh any other comments from the board? I have a question. So, can you provide uh support why there is a need for your signal? Because we h people we have this this discussion already going for several months, right? And we hear literally three four people that they saying they need to signal.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Uh so anecdotal evidence under New York law is completely irrelevant. So I know you hear some comments from the public saying, "Well, no one's showing up to support this." Well, no one ever shows up to support it. They just people don't do that. Um, and I was a little surprised that Chamberlain made that comment also like, well, this is important. Well, it's like under New York law. No, it's not important if everyone in the town says we need it or don't need it. What's important is the technical reason because we have a license under the FCC and we have to basically build out the system. So whether people say they need it or don't need it, I know they're not going to want to hear it. Completely irrelevant for the world.

But having a license is not a technical reason. technical reason is is absence of the signal. We have that we absolutely show that in our RF analysis and your consultant like you said reviewed it and confirmed it said that we have done a very good job showing the need. Um I'm not making that up. That's your consultant. Uh where are we going to get some clear explanation that latest letter from that uh uh person who used to teach in uh university chamber

chamber yeah because he basically in my mind I reading him it's basically discredited completely discredits completely what uh yeah you're right chamberlins letter discredits completely the needs analysis done by Verizon. So, are we looking for another opinion? Do you contradict it?

Well, what I'm looking for in from variety of resources as we chatted tonight is clarification of what um of the technology of doing of doing a needs analysis. Right? He said X. All right. You'll probably say why? What is the why and what is the what are the details the technical details of how you actually did the analysis and what's required by law what's not allowed by law. Okay. Because you you were telling us there are some things uh drop calls for example are not required by law to do.

Correct. Um so and we're also asking our analysts Fishman and um Greg to come back and interpret all this stuff. 25 30% of what guy was talking what Mr. Chamberlain was talking about, better known as the guy was talking about is um is foreign to me with the exception of this business with the um broadband the broadband um the FCC broadband map. Okay, that was pretty

understandable. Was also understandable that it was three different broadband providers. So it's like, okay, so between the three of them, there's there's coverage. That's why I asked the question, well, why would you why would you want to have coverage where there's already any coverage? If AT&T is providing coverage or T-Mobile, what makes you think that you're going to be able to grab those customers? Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question at the time. Well, you did, but I didn't pursue it. So, no, because um well, first of all, you know, you want to have competition, and we have customers in that area. We're not trying to grab customers. We're trying to actually service our customers. So I I misunderstood your question. I thought you were saying

well what Okay, I understand that. But if a customer doesn't have good service, you know, one of the great things about uh our economy um is competition, right? Right. And one could argue that it's getting smaller and smaller and smaller with bigger and bigger companies, but competition keeps the price low and it gives people options. So, why would somebody who has Chrommy service from you guys not go to AT&T or T-Mobile? Um,

well, you just made the point. I mean, if if the the answer to that question is if that was the structure, then T-Mobile could charge whatever they wanted and um if the law expects that we're going to encourage competition, then the fact that T-Mobile has service staff, if these guys want it, then yes, that's the right. That's that's the whether we like it, we may not agree with that. let them be what you want to do. Yeah, you're right. That's kind of the structure we get.

And we don't we don't look at our competitors in terms of what we need. That's completely irrelevant. We don't think twice about it. We just look at what does our network need and then they have budgeting processes because they only spend so much money a year, but they don't care if T-Mobile's there or not. So is there to answer answer your question that whole um uh paper by Chamberlain needs to be right further elucidated.

Can I can I ask um when we have Greg and etc and we have a kind of a what an an ongoing relationship with him where I could bring him in and ask him questions. Um Doug Fishman, you know, there's a lot going on here, right? we did the the whole Chamberlain letter, some of the things that Scott said tonight, we may what what Jen was talking about with um the sensitivity analysis, we may want to ask him like questions in real time and say, "Look at this, look at that." You know, what what's this all about? Can we have a more active relationship with them? I think that would cut through a lot of this because otherwise we're relying on Verizon. I mean, say Scott send us stuff, which would be great, but

we got to have our guy. We should have our guy. We should have your guy look at what whatever we submit. No, I think what Dave is saying is what what's been troubling me too that he we should have him here that we can p him with questions like we did Matt Allen or just virtually even just we know we pick up the phone on a daily basis and say we got this we got and if he's not available then we need to get somebody else or and or or that may be just for reason. We need to have somebody who's good at this, who's got credentials who can break this down in real time and followup questions. And if it's not Fisherman, then we may need to get somebody else. Right. Right. Right. Even at this stage because I mean there's a lot. Right. But there's a lot in that letter from Chamberlain.

Yeah. And also I'm also very sensitive to to Jen's point. We you know we may have to come down on we may ultimately made a decision. There's going to be a number involved in it. And a it's got to be pretty. We need it to be the right thing for the community and and for us. And we have to also justify it, right? 120. We have one comment from We have one comment from Doug Fishman. We may have to ask follow-up questions on just to justify it. Where'd we get it from? What's the sensitivity? Right.

Yeah. There was something in chamber that I I wanted to ask you about which was um about the the use of wireless communications for um internet streaming services as a motivation for building towers. Not that I'm aware of but I saw that also. Yeah. I mean, I I thought that was interesting if it's, you know, the because he's he, you know, sort of follows with his line of thinking about whether it's a necessary coverage or not. And um and that was I was wondering myself whether it's not necessarily coverage. Why why are you putting money into it?

Well, because you said you did you said earlier this evening that you don't put money wireless doesn't Verizon doesn't put money into infrastructure you don't need. Right. And uh

Right. So to answer your question though, again it's a difference of opinion. We completely disagree with Mr. Chamberlain. Um we wouldn't be here if we didn't need it. And so and the need is very simple. Does you know does this area that we're trying to cover have adequate coverage? And our engineer is saying absolutely not. So we wouldn't you know we don't build sites for $500,000. Obviously this site's going to cost a lot more. It's taking a lot more. um but we don't do that. So it's just a matter of here are license frequencies. Do they provide the coverage in the area that we need? And in this case also it's a capacity issue. Um you know it's it's because you have a lack of because you have a lack of coverage in this general area. There is some bleed of the signal and they're trying to they suck the signal away a little bit so that but a site can only basically serve so many people. there's only x number of channels that are available. So we need that we need capacities. There's too many people using the system in this area.

Right. I guess I I guess what I'm wondering about is the fact that this whole thing has been kind of framed in the perspective of do we need wireless coverage here for cell phone use and this is asking a different which is for home internet market. And that's a different thing in my mind to me. Maybe it isn't. Yeah. You know, I I hear what you're saying and and our attitude is we gave some statistics at the public hearing about how many minutes of calls I mean a year trillions. So the point is that yes, people use their phones for a whole bunch of different reasons, but they still do use it to talk unless you're you know a millennial.

But is it I mean isn't that all it's built in? I mean people rightly whether it's good bad or otherwise um you know pe internet use download streaming has morphed uh over the years from this to a phone right and and that's just what people have argument it's messaging right so messaging is is is very critical today that it's just there it's is that is that what's driving some of this is that people are just using cell service for watching movies and stuff

I'm not privy to any like the that specific information I'm you know so I'm not sure I think it's more of just in the area you just don't have a site close enough in the old days analog service you'd put a site on a mountain it would be 300 feet tall and it would go 20 miles each way but the FCC in 2007 went digital and digital is like or is it 210 of a watt compared to three watts you know analog of three watts really far, you know, two tents of where you pull out your phone, it's tight. So that phone actually has to be able to reach back to the tower. So that's why part of the reason is if you don't have a site close enough and generally right now sites are being built every two miles more or less day dependent on the area. That's what it is. We have a site you know what they're prohan sites 2.4 miles away. It can't serve this area.

I have a quick question. They probably already said it before. Uh would Minaska league have a signal with this or not? I think you said no. Oh, I the old Minowaska trail. That's all I was on the description today when I was going over, but I don't know. I'd have to look on a map to see if the coverage plots extend that far. So, I mean, we can I can certainly look to see that. The reason I'm asking about it because I know there is a summer swimming club there. Okay. On another end of the lake. And there is no signals there. No, there is not. How far away is it? From where? From like our site generally.

Well, it's it's three miles to Stonyill Falls. You're talking about the distance swimming at which? Yeah. The Yes. So, it would be the distance to the visitors center plus half a mile. Yeah. About half a mile. And it's going up over a mountain. It's in a hole. It's in a hole. Is it? Yeah. It's going to be tough. It's in a hole. Okay. We can look and everything. Minas a lot of people. Well, okay. I I swim there.

Okay. All right. So, we're not going to be meeting at the end of November, but the next meeting with December 8th, public hearing will still be um we'll open the public hearing. uh might possibly close the public hearing on the ETH and um I think we need to plan we'll talk more we need to plan to begin to work on the uh uh seeking determination. Yeah. The other thing we need to do is is do the the comprehensive plan thing, right? I'll itemize those plans for you and the choose your favorite. Okay. Anybody else?

Motion to adjourn. I was looking at you. Motion to second. Second, Hans. All in favor? All right. Once you first