[6:35] to the zoning board appeals for the town
of Webster for September 8th, 2026.
[6:41] Uh we have three tabled matters for
tonight and we have two three four five
[6:50] uh scheduled matters uh for tonight.
Here's a proof of publication for all
[6:55] items. Uh call for attendance.
>> Mr. Short
[6:59] » here.
>> Mrs. Vololo
[7:01] » here. Mr. Spanado
>> here.
[7:04] » Mr. Senola
>> here.
[7:07] » Mr. Porso
>> here.
[7:08] » Miss Mr. Artuso
>> here.
[7:13] » Miss Corsy
>> present.
[7:15] » Mr. Dearco
>> present.
[7:17] » If we could all stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
[7:22] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[7:27] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[7:33] justice for all.
[7:39] So, we do have uh quite a bit of items
on the uh on the agenda for tonight. Um
[7:44] if we need um we we the board has the
right to at 10:00 uh table any remaining
[7:52] items. I'm hoping we don't have to do
that. Um but if we do um we'll give fair
[7:59] warning.
Uh let's see.
[8:04] So I guess first first item
>> so just to let
[8:11] » audience know we are because the tabled
matters
[8:16] um are a longer discussion we're going
to start with the scheduled matters this
[8:21] evening and then we'll go back up to the
tabled matters. So we are changing the
[8:26] agenda around just a little bit. Um so
that [cough and clears throat] being
[8:31] said, um the first matter tonight is
1725 State Road.
[8:38] » So if uh Robert uh Bingham
and if you can make sure you speak into
[8:44] the mic.
>> So if you can uh kind of uh explain your
[8:51] project to us and um go through what
you're doing.
[8:56] » Sure. Uh, I'm Robert Bingham Jr. I live
at 1725 State Road. Uh, basically my
[9:04] project consists of I took down my old
dilapactated garage. Uh, was falling
[9:10] apart. Had a bunch of holes in the
foundation. Um, it would be more to
[9:15] repair to than it was to replace it. So,
uh, I'm coming here today to seek a
[9:21] variance to go, uh, 2 ft closer
or 3 ft closer to my property line, uh,
[9:28] making so that I can make my pull barn
attached to the house of 40x40, which is
[9:35] a more conventional size. Um, it was
easier to order that way. Uh, more room
[9:41] for the stuff that I have. And uh yeah,
it's basically what I'm here for today.
[9:48] Seeking that variance to go closer to my
property line.
[9:58] » Do you know what the distance will be
off the property line?
[10:01] » Uh 12 ft, sir.
>> It will be 12 ft off the property line.
[10:04] » Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[10:07] » Other questions from the board?
>> Is this one story or two stories? one
[10:12] story.
[10:16] » How tall will it be at the peak?
>> The ceiling height on the inside is 11
[10:22] ft and the rafters are
they're 412 pitch, I think. So,
[10:30] » okay.
[10:33] » Other questions from the board?
>> Any utilities inside the garage?
[10:37] » Yes, sir. Utilities will be all brought
in through the basement and then into
[10:41] the garage. So, just the electric. I'm
going to put a couple outlets out there.
[10:48] » And are you What's the pole barn going
to look like as far as an elevation? Is
[10:53] it just going to be the metal pole barn?
Are you going to side it similar to the
[10:57] house or? Uh, it's going to be like a
gray metal uh exterior and then my hope
[11:03] is to match the siding to it in the
coming years, next year or two. The
[11:09] siding in my house now is not the best.
So, I figured I'd get the barn where I
[11:14] wanted it and then attach the siding up
to that.
[11:19] » Thank you.
>> Yes, sir.
[11:23] » And this is all for personal use, the
size of it, not for any commercial use.
[11:27] Yes, ma'am. It out.
>> I have uh I have an old truck that I
[11:31] don't drive in the winter. Two trucks I
don't drive in the winter and a plow
[11:35] truck that I just like to keep inside.
So,
[11:38] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[11:39] » and four-wheelers and stuff like that.
So, run out of room at my old place.
[11:48] » Other questions?
No. I'd like to open it up to the public
[11:54] if anybody wants to speak for or against
this project. Please come on up.
[12:00] No. I'll bring it back to the board. Any
other questions for the board?
[12:06] » No. I'm going to ask the question one
more time. What's the distance off the
[12:09] property line? I didn't write it down.
>> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. It's uh 12 ft.
[12:13] It's going to be 12 ft off the property
line.
[12:15] » Thank you.
>> Okay.
[12:18] [clears throat]
Uh
[12:24] like to make a motion for a type two
action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR
[12:29] section 617.5 of the environmental code.
>> Second.
[12:32] » Second.
>> All those in favor?
[12:34] » I
>> I
[12:37] um
[12:41] see
findings
[12:46] Chris.
Sure.
[12:49] » [clears throat]
>> The uh
[12:52] proposed uh action, if approved, will
not result in a uh change in the
[12:58] essential character of the neighborhood.
Uh I don't think it will create a
[13:03] detriment to nearby properties. Uh they
you're replacing a existing garage in at
[13:10] best fair condition with a new pole
barn. and he has stated that he will try
[13:16] and match the siding uh with the house
when he resides the house. Uh
[13:23] the
based on the applicants uh propose
[13:30] these choosing the size based on
commercial availability and the need to
[13:34] store additional personal items. So
there's not any real addition alternates
[13:39] considered for this because there was a
available one and it needs to go where
[13:44] the garage is currently.
Uh the variance isn't uh substantial in
[13:52] in any way, shape or form. It's similar
to other garages in the general area as
[13:57] far as setback 12 ft off the side.
Uh there aren't any potential impacts on
[14:05] physical or environmental conditions
uh based on the
[14:11] provided material. And while the uh
the the
[14:19] project is self-created, there's no
really other place to put a pole bar the
[14:24] size he needs to to meet his
requirements
[14:28] uh any other way.
I'm just going to add that um it's not
[14:33] out of character for the neighborhood.
Uh
[14:36] the property is
um in a more agricultural area of the
[14:42] town of Webster.
>> I um I would also excuse me add that um
[14:48] it there was an existing garage there so
it's just replacing the existing
[14:53] attached garage to the house. It's just
larger.
[14:57] » Okay.
Anybody else want anything else? No.
[15:02] Okay. Uh, I'd like to make a motion for
an area variance to allow a side setback
[15:08] of 12 ft where 15 ft is required in
association with the construction of a
[15:12] new garage on a 0.68 acre parcel having
SPL 081.03-1-21 03-1-21
[15:20] located in a uh LL large lot single
family residential district under
[15:25] section 350-13 of the code of the town
of Webster.
[15:30] » Second
>> Mr. Short
[15:33] » I
>> Mrs. Volo
[15:34] » I
>> Mr. Stampinado
[15:36] » I
>> Mr. Senola
[15:39] » I
>> Mr. Of course, sir.
[15:40] » All right. You have your variance. Uh
you have one year uh to make meaningful
[15:45] progress on the project. Uh you still
need all your build building permits and
[15:48] everything else.
>> Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
[15:52] Have a good night.
>> Uh next up we have uh 539 Countryside
[15:58] Lane. If applicant uh Dominique Zakara
can come on up.
[16:07] » Good evening. My name is Dominic
Zakaryi. I own 539 Countryside Lane. I'm
[16:12] looking for an area variance of 49 ft 2
in where 60 ft is required. I'm on a
[16:19] corner lot, so I have two fronts for all
practical purposes. I'm trying to put a
[16:24] uh an addition on my existing garage of
30x 48. Um, it's going to blend in with
[16:33] the neighborhood and I'm going to use
the existing vinyl siding and match the
[16:39] metal roof that I already have on my on
my house.
[16:47] » Questions from the board?
[16:51] I'm going to ask the same question I
asked the other gentleman. Is what's the
[16:55] height of this building? It's one story
or two stories.
[16:58] » I'm sorry. He can't hear you. He's
hearing impaired. So, your question, I
[17:02] will go ask him or tell him. He wants to
know the height of the garage.
[17:07] » Uh, it's going to be a single story.
Total to the peak will be uh 21 ft, 16
[17:12] ft walls.
>> Will there be any screening on the uh
[17:17] Bay Road side of the building?
>> Um, this is on the corner side on the
[17:21] corner of Bay and Countryside. So, it'll
be facing well, the siding will be on
[17:25] base road. Uh there's a five- foot burm
with mature pine trees uh on the back
[17:32] corner and then other pine trees lining
up on bay road. So that's why I figured
[17:37] the best place to put it is it it will
be shielded pretty well. Um so it looks
[17:42] like it'll blend right in with the rest
of the house and the rest of the
[17:44] neighborhood. And having those those
mature pine trees, the neighbor behind
[17:48] me won't be able to see it. My other
neighbor uh on the opposite side won't
[17:53] be able to see it. So, it'll just be
well, the people across the street
[17:56] really won't be able to see it out there
cuz it's covered by pine. So, it'll only
[17:59] be coming from the lake down Bay Road
and on the countryside.
[18:06] » Thank you.
>> Other questions from the board?
[18:12] » This is just to be for your personal
use, not a commercial use.
[18:16] » Correct.
[18:22] » Any other questions?
[18:25] I'd like to open it up to the public. If
anybody wants to speak for or against
[18:28] this project, please come on up.
>> No. Bring it back to the board. Any
[18:33] other questions from the board?
>> No, sir.
[18:38] » I I want to uh thank you for uh getting
support from your neighbors. It's uh
[18:43] greatly appreciated having these letters
in here. So, thank you for that. Um
[18:49] there's no other questions from the
board. I'd like to make a motion for a
[18:53] type two action under seeker pursuant to
NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental
[18:59] code.
>> Second.
[19:02] » All those in favor?
>> I.
[19:08] » Jim, you want to do the findings?
Um
[19:12] the essential character
of the neighborhood um will actually um
[19:20] look good with that size of the building
going up um being hidden by Bay Road. Um
[19:30] there's not many alternatives where that
I would say building can go
[19:39] due to uh the location in the corner
lot.
[19:43] Um there's not much of a significant
setback from 60 ft. You're going down to
[19:50] 49. Correct.
>> Correct. 49.2.
[19:54] » Okay.
Um
[19:57] there's no uh potential impact uh for
any physical environmental conditions
[20:04] and although it is self-created um
it does uh improve
[20:12] his home and make sense what he need
needs it for for extra storage.
[20:21] » Anybody else want to add anything
further to it?
[20:24] I I would just add that if it were not a
quarter lot, a corner lot, um the
[20:30] variance would not be required. It's
only required because bay the side
[20:34] what's traditionally the side setback is
also considered a front setback because
[20:38] it's on Bay Road
and it meets the front and the rear
[20:42] setback. So that's the only impact.
>> Perfect. Anything else?
[20:49] No. Um, okay. Then I'd like to make a
motion for an area variance to allow a
[20:55] front setback of 49.2 ft where 60 ft is
required on a corner lot in association
[21:01] with the construction of a garage
edition on a 0.84 acre parcel having SPL
[21:07] 063.14-2-30
[cough]
[21:10] located in R2 single family residential
district under section 350-11
[21:16] of the code of the town of Webster.
>> Second.
[21:23] Mr. Shore.
>> Hi.
[21:24] » Mr. Senola.
>> Hi.
[21:26] » Mr. Corso.
>> Hi.
[21:28] » Mr. Spanado.
>> I
[21:30] » Mrs. Wa.
>> I.
[21:33] » You have your variance. Uh, you still
need to get all your other building
[21:36] permits uh required. You have uh one
year to uh have meaningful movement on
[21:41] the project.
>> Good luck.
[21:43] » Very good. Thank you.
>> Yep.
[21:47] Uh, next up, 522 uh, Hackberry Way. Uh,
uh, Mike Richie uh, could please come on
[21:54] up here.
[22:01] » Where is Tom Thomas?
>> Tom Thomas
[22:04] » audience.
>> Is anybody here representing 522
[22:09] Hackberry way?
>> I can speak.
[22:12] » Okay.
[clears throat]
[22:15] I was under the impression that the
builders or the engineers were going to
[22:19] be here to present. I am the the father
of the owner. He's on his way here from
[22:24] work. Should be here momentarily.
>> Um
[22:28] » if you want to state your name for the
record and then um
[22:32] » Yes. My name is Dean Sagio.
>> Hold on one second.
[22:38] » Do we want to table this until the
applicant arrives?
[22:41] » Yeah. I um being that you are not the
applicant or one of the representatives,
[22:47] we'll table it until he gets here.
>> Does Does someone need to be here?
[22:52] » They somebody needs to be here to
present. Yes.
[22:55] » Okay.
>> Um
[22:55] » I wasn't sure if just based on the
information you had, you could approve
[22:59] or not.
>> We're we're just putting it further down
[23:02] the schedule for tonight.
>> Oh, I understand.
[23:04] » Yeah. Um
>> so it's required for him to come here as
[23:07] opposed to going home to his three kids
right now.
[23:10] » Correct. Okay.
>> Yep. Unless unless one of his
[23:13] representatives would would be here,
which obviously they're not here right
[23:17] now.
>> I will I will make sure he gets here.
[23:19] » Okay.
>> All right.
[23:20] » Appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
[23:22] » Uh so with that, we're going to move on
to uh 1054 Clem Road. Um if applicants
[23:29] uh Angel and Sandy uh want to come on
up.
[23:43] Good evening.
>> Good evening.
[23:49] » Um, I'm Angel. This is Sandy. We're just
>> Can you please make sure you speak into
[23:52] the mic?
>> Sorry. I'm Angel. This is Sandy
[23:55] Margaras. Uh, we're just applying for a
uh permit to have some chickens.
[24:16] So, um you're asking for seven chickens.
>> Yes.
[24:21] » Um why
>> why [snorts]
[24:25] um
>> for eggs?
[24:26] » For for eggs to eat.
>> Why seven?
[24:29] » Oh, why seven?
>> Yes. Um we we had uh bought six and my
[24:37] mom gave me one. Okay.
>> So that's how I got seven.
[24:41] » So So you have the seven?
>> Yes. I
[24:44] » mean I've been to the property. I I'm
asking the questions so I can
[24:49] » bring it out to the public is what it
is. But yes, I Okay.
[24:53] » Um so the coupe is a pre-existing coupe.
It's it's there currently.
[24:57] » Yes. Okay.
Um,
[25:01] questions from the board.
[25:06] » How long have you had the chickens?
>> Um, to be honest, about 5 years.
[25:14] » Do we know of any complaints about the
chickens?
[25:17] » Erica, any complaints that we know of?
>> We did not receive any complaints for
[25:22] the chickens for this property.
>> Okay.
[25:26] Okay.
Other questions from the board?
[25:31] » You going to top it off at seven or do
you think you might want more?
[25:36] » I'm sorry.
>> You going to keep it at seven or do you
[25:38] think you might want more?
>> I think we we probably keep it at seven.
[25:43] » And it would just be chickens, no
roosters.
[25:45] » No roosters. No.
>> Okay.
[25:50] Other questions?
>> The um I know the coupe has been there
[25:55] for years. Um just I'm familiar with the
area and with one of the neighbors and
[26:02] there's um
like a tarp on the front of it or are
[26:07] you going to
>> redo that and clean it up so it looks
[26:11] more tidy?
>> I wanted to go through this to get the
[26:14] permit so I can put probably a metal
roof on top of that.
[26:17] » Okay. Okay.
>> And make it look cleaner
[26:18] » just cuz I know when I was at the
property um it is visible from the
[26:23] neighbor on either side of you. So, just
cleaning it up. Um,
[26:27] » okay.
>> And and they were they were making I'll
[26:31] say chicken noises when I was there, but
[clears throat] it was not
[26:34] » they laid an egg and they sung that
chicken song.
[26:36] » It was not loud whatsoever because I
know we've had neighbors of previous
[26:41] applicants mention
>> the the noise and it was I wasn't that
[26:46] far away. I don't think [clears throat]
I'd have heard it if I were in the
[26:48] driveway.
>> So, so the record is complete. Could you
[26:52] demonstrate the chicken noise?
[laughter]
[26:54] Why not?
[26:58] » Not a dare. [laughter]
[27:02] » Okay.
Uh, any other questions or comments from
[27:06] the board right now?
>> No, we're good.
[27:09] » Uh, I'd like to open it up to the public
if anybody wants to speak for or against
[27:12] this project.
>> Nope. Back to the board. Any other
[27:17] questions?
>> No.
[27:19] » No other questions. We did get one um
letter from the adjacent neighbor
[27:26] and I believe that they were in support
of the chickens.
[27:31] Um but I think there was one cleanup
item from the the barn. I think once
[27:37] your accessory building was complete,
you were going to eliminate the old
[27:40] building in the
>> back. I'm in the process of doing that.
[27:43] » Okay. All right.
So,
[27:47] I believe what is circled in red is the
building that's going to be eliminated
[27:52] and the chicken coop is in front of it.
Correct?
[27:55] » Okay.
>> Okay. Other questions, comments from the
[28:00] board?
>> Nope.
[28:03] » All right. I'd like to make a motion for
a type two seeker uh type two action
[28:07] under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section
617.5 of the environmental code.
[28:12] » Second.
>> Second. All those in favor
[28:14] » I
>> I
[28:17] » um
findings.
[28:23] » I need a special use permit. Findings
>> findings are on your screen.
[28:26] » Thank you.
>> Um
[28:30] the use will not prevent an orderly and
reasonable use of adjacent properties or
[28:35] the properties in adjacent use
districts. Um the chickens have been
[28:40] there for a long time. I'm I'm sure the
previous some previous owner had
[28:44] chickens because that coupe has been
there for at least 30 years. Um the
[28:49] public health safety and general welfare
and order of the town will not be
[28:53] adversely affected by the proposed use
or its proposed location. Um it's a over
[29:00] 2 acre parcel. All of the parcels on
that section of town are larger and
[29:04] deeper for the most part and it does
back up to a working farm at this point.
[29:10] So, um, it's certainly not going to
change the character of that. The use
[29:16] will be in general harmony with and
promote the general purposes and intent
[29:20] [clears throat] of the most recent
comprehensive plan. Um, the use will not
[29:24] interfere with the preservation of
general character of the neighborhood.
[29:27] Again, the neighborhood is larger lots,
um,
[29:32] large gardens, large farms.
uh physical characteristics and
[29:37] topography of the proposed site make it
suitable for the proposed use. I would
[29:41] say yes since it is existing as a
current use right now and the use
[29:45] provides appropriate landscaping and or
forms of buffering. There is actually a
[29:49] hedge row between the chicken coupe and
the neighbor that's immediately to the
[29:54] east and um it's p partially sh um
shielded by the accessory structure from
[30:02] the neighbor to the west who's in
support of this. So
[30:07] with that, I can make a motion to
grant a special use permit at 1054 Clem
[30:15] Road for the applicants Angel and Sandy
Lagaris to allow a 6x9 foot chicken
[30:22] coupe to exist and to have no more than
eight hens on a 2.2 2acre parcel having
[30:28] SPL number 06416-3
[30:32] I'm sorry-1-3
located in R2 single family residential
[30:37] district. Um I would note that the
applicant at no time will have any
[30:42] roosters. It will just be chickens on
the property and that the um the roof
[30:48] will be reconstructed and cleaned up so
that it just blends a little bit better.
[30:52] » And a maximum flock of seven.
>> Okay.
[30:55] a maximum of seven hens. I'll amend
that.
[30:58] » Second um
one year
[31:03] is what we'll do.
>> So we have historically we put a control
[31:07] on it. Not that we have to but we have
>> I would I would recommend that it's the
[31:14] permit would be good for one year
initially. The applicant will come back
[31:18] to this board after that one year and if
um if the use works with the neighbors
[31:25] and there are no complaints then the
board at that time you can apply to have
[31:29] it extended. The maximum the permit can
go for is 5 years before you would have
[31:34] to re reapply for it.
>> Okay.
[31:36] » So if this is approved tonight then a
year from now you have to come back.
[31:40] » Okay.
>> Second.
[31:44] » No there was a second. Um,
>> hello there. Okay.
[31:47] » Mrs. Vololo,
>> I
[31:48] » Mr. Senola,
>> hi.
[31:50] » Mr. Corso,
>> hi.
[31:54] » Mr. Short,
>> I
[31:56] » and Mr. Spanado.
>> I,
[31:58] » you have your permit. Um, it's a
one-year permit, so the town will reach
[32:04] out to you. You will have to come back
next year for a renewal. Um, again,
[32:09] without having any complaints in the
past. Um, if you don't have any
[32:13] complaints, uh, come back and go through
this process again and, uh, give you a
[32:19] renewal.
>> Okay. Thank you so much.
[32:21] » Have a great night.
>> Thank you.
[32:25] » Um, next up, 400 Lake Road if applicant
uh, Mark Loenth.
[32:37] » Hello, I'm Mark Lowenth. I live at 400
Lake Road. Um, and we are asking for a
[32:42] variance to put an addition on a
pre-existing non-conforming single
[32:47] family home which we constructed in
2011.
[32:58] The um we've taken uh considerable pains
to blend the addition into the the rest
[33:04] of the house. We've set done setbacks
that are further from the property line.
[33:10] There was non-conforming on the south
side as well as on the lakeside.
[33:14] And um the finishes with the designer
and the architect will match the roof
[33:19] line as well as the materials with
stuckco stone uh and wood. So it does
[33:25] not look like an addition. The lower
floor would be a screened in porch and a
[33:30] storage room. And the upper floor, which
is contiguous with the rest of the
[33:34] house, would be a laundry room, kind of
a flex room, and some closet space.
[33:58] Questions from the board?
There there'll be no access to the
[34:03] second floor one except as part of the
main bedroom suite. Then
[34:07] » uh this yes there would the only access
to second floor is the main bedroom
[34:12] suite.
[34:28] Have you had any any discussions with
your neighbors? Any issues?
[34:32] » Well, the closest neighbor is my my
brother um who was supposed to be here,
[34:37] but unfortunately he um had a fire in
his cabin last night which was destroyed
[34:42] which he just built and so he is not
here. Um the next neighbor is my other
[34:47] brother. Um and on the other side
there's a a home um which nobody has
[34:53] lived in in over 15 years.
assuming you get get along with your
[34:59] siblings. I don't know if my siblings
would approve.
[35:02] » Most of the time most of the time most
of the time the the home now um where
[35:08] the addition is going to be positioned
you can't see it would not be able to
[35:12] see it from the west side. You won't be
able to see it the south side. Really
[35:17] the only area you'll be able to see it
from is from the lake and my brother's
[35:21] home would be able to see a portion of
the roof when the leaves are off.
[35:24] » Okay.
>> Okay. Other questions from the board?
[35:29] [clears throat]
>> No, not at this time.
[35:32] » Okay. Uh, anybody want to speak for or
against this project?
[35:41] » Good evening. Philip Miglarati, 382 Lake
Road. I'm about um five houses to the
[35:48] west of the Loen Goose residence going
on Oklahoma Beach. Um, I've lived there
[35:53] about 10 years. Uh Lo and Gool Goose are
uh good neighbors. They have a lovely
[35:58] property. I have no concerns over what
they're doing. It's not going to affect
[36:02] anybody. Not going to affect anybody's
lake views, which everyone is always
[36:06] concerned with down there. And uh
lastly, if there is any um while the
[36:11] work is being done, construction work,
if there is they are on a we are on a
[36:15] common driveway there, if the truck has
to get in there and is going to be
[36:19] blocking for any more than a few
minutes, I'm more than happy to open the
[36:22] gate on my I have a private driveway
that goes out to Lake Road, I'm more
[36:25] than happy to open the gate so other
residents have access or for emergency
[36:30] access.
>> Thank you.
[36:31] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[36:33] » Anybody else wanted to speak for or
against?
[36:49] My name is, excuse [clears throat] me,
my name is Frank Shenko and I've
[36:54] submitted a letter. I don't know if you
had an opportunity to read it.
[37:03] » Can you pull that up, Erica, or
[37:08] I submitted a response online and I
dropped another item off this morning at
[37:15] the main desk.
[37:30] » Erica, is that in your file there? This
is what
[37:33] » it's not in the on the drive. It was
sent to all the board members this
[37:37] morning uh via email, but it's right
here on the screen.
[37:42] » I have it right here. I'll uh I'll read
what I have in front of me.
[37:45] » This is what he submitted online.
>> Okay.
[37:50] » So,
he can summarize it.
[37:54] » Do you want to summarize what you wrote,
sir?
[37:57] » I'm sorry. I I've got hearing aids. Do
>> Do you want to summarize what you wrote?
[38:01] I'm sorry.
>> Do you want to summarize what you wrote?
[38:07] » Kind of give a brief summary.
>> Yes. I have been arrested
[38:12] » in into
>> the mic. Sorry.
[38:22] [clears throat]
The property that I have at 390 Lake
[38:26] Road has been in the family about 100
years. I have owned it for 40 years. Uh
[38:33] over my time there, I worked a number of
years ago with Katherine Thomas to help
[38:40] in the sewer project. Uh the initial
request was not approved. So, I was part
[38:47] of a small group to go out in campus
homeowners in the Oklahoma Beach area in
[38:53] the uh Sandbar area to get additional
votes to get the sewers approved.
[39:00] I was involved in getting Senator
Schumer
[39:05] down to Oklahoma Beach because we are
suffering severe erosion problems.
[39:13] I started in 19
92 to try to work with the Department of
[39:19] Transportation
so the Oklahoma Beach property owners
[39:24] could acquire the abandoned railroad.
And when those options were made, that
[39:30] opportunity was made
by the Department of Transportation,
[39:36] four of us and the addresses from 390 to
390 whatever. Uh those offers were
[39:43] rescended because two property owners
refused to sign a release document.
[39:56] So we're we're in a situation and I hope
to I guess
[40:01] create a condition as
uh
[40:07] [clears throat]
as their grandfather wanted to do and
[40:11] that is to get access to the uh railroad
property because for me in the years
[40:18] that I've been there it's been a very
very difficult situation.
[40:22] If you read the letter or look at the
pictures, we got flooding in the yard.
[40:27] Uh [clears throat] when I
when I came here with a request to
[40:33] expand the property,
and I have a picture to show you. When I
[40:39] came here to with a request to uh expand
the property,
[40:44] the uh board suggested or they told me
that I couldn't get closer than 15 1/2
[40:52] ft to the access road because I would
block the view of my neighbor looking
[40:58] out her kitchen window.
So for me, it's been a very very
[41:04] difficult and long tenure.
at uh 390 Lake Road
[41:11] and I feel I deserve the same
opportunity that other people along the
[41:17] uh Sandbar and those at Oklahoma Beach
and that is to acquire the railroad
[41:22] property.
[41:29] » All right, Mr. She just what
>> can you get close to the mic
[41:34] » the relevance of your concerns tonight
as related to the applicant's request.
[41:41] Can you tie those together?
>> I'm sorry. My
[41:48] » Sure.
>> Given the comments that you've made
[41:52] tonight.
>> Yes. How do those relate to the
[41:56] applicant's
uh request for the variance this
[42:00] evening?
>> The two, one of the two applicants, both
[42:03] of them refused to sign a release
document so we could so we could acquire
[42:10] the railroad property.
>> Okay. And and
[42:13] » the railroad property offer was extended
from
[42:16] » Okay. Just so that I understand. So the
fact that the applicant refused to sign
[42:21] that are you asking us to deny the
application?
[42:24] » There were the two the two brothers
refused to sign a release document
[42:31] allowing four of us to acquire the
railroad company. That's correct.
[42:35] » Okay. And that's the basis upon which
you're asking the board to deny the
[42:40] applicants uh request this evening.
>> That is part of it. The other thing that
[42:44] I would like and that is at my age uh I
had no idea whether or not Sarah is
[42:51] going to remain in the property but I
would like to eliminate some of the
[42:56] issues that we've been dealing with. If
you take a look at the pictures we get
[43:01] our driveway and parking area flooded
2/3 coming up. So basically I don't have
[43:06] a good place to park in storms.
>> Okay. They acquired the railroad
[43:12] property would give me an option
to park on the south side of the road.
[43:18] » And and is that opportunity still exist?
>> Pardon?
[43:22] » Does that opportunity still exist?
>> I I don't know. I first of all, what I
[43:29] would have to get and that is a release
signature by the two brothers that said
[43:35] in fact we can acquire the railroad
property.
[43:40] Okay. Very well. Thank you.
[43:47] » Uh, does anybody else want to speak for
against this property?
[43:52] » Give the applicant opportunity
is
[43:55] » um I don't know if there's anything else
you want to add after uh both the both
[44:01] the uh residents made comments. Uh I'm
not really very familiar with much of
[44:09] what he said. Um
the whole railroad property has been
[44:13] very nebulous. I think um my grandfather
actually spearheaded much of that more
[44:19] than I believe he did. But I don't want
to argue about that. With regard to the
[44:24] the the neighborhood itself, I would say
that is certainly anything we're going
[44:28] to do is only going to enhance the
overall quality of the neighborhood. The
[44:36] landscaping will be as as appropriate as
the rest of the house is. You were there
[44:41] yourself. You know, it's it's a nice
home and we tend to keep it in and keep
[44:47] we intend to keep it consistent with the
the rest of the house.
[44:51] » Just out of curiosity, Mr. long ago. Did
you refuse to sign?
[44:54] » I don't know anything about it. What
he's talking about is
[44:57] » the first time you've heard of it?
>> No. No, I haven't. My
[45:00] » No, I I said, "Is this the first time
that you've heard of this situation?"
[45:04] » I've heard that of my brother not
wanting to sign it. Nobody really
[45:08] approached us about signing it.
>> Do you know what the basis was for that?
[45:11] » Pardon me.
>> Do you know what the basis was for that?
[45:13] » No. No, I don't.
>> He's 408. If if you look at he's up even
[45:20] further. Did you see the pictures of his
property flooding?
[45:23] » Pardon me.
>> Have you seen the pictures of his
[45:26] property flooding?
>> Our property flooded as well.
[45:29] » My my my question was did you see the
pictures of No. Okay.
[45:33] » But we all flooded.
>> I guess my question is do you know
[45:36] whether that's causally related to this
issue with the uh railroad?
[45:40] » No. I would say that it was flood the
flooding is caused by the high lake
[45:43] levels.
>> So the railroad has no impact on it.
[45:46] » No. In my opinion, no. And I would say
that the engineers would say so as well.
[45:51] » Very good.
>> All right. Clarify though. Um
[45:54] » the railroad property, the park to stay
out of the flooded areas is what I think
[45:58] he was looking for.
>> Yes. [clears throat] Everyone else along
[46:01] Lake Road has had the opportunity to
purchase the property that's across from
[46:07] the lane that goes to the houses along
Oklahoma Beach, which has allowed some
[46:11] of them to actually do a driveway
through to get them to Lake Road or
[46:16] extend this the building of their house
or give them additional spaces to park
[46:21] when the lake does come up because the
lake does come up and and that shoreline
[46:26] gets a little bit smaller every year.
So, um, my concern when I visited the
[46:31] property, um, when
the the construction is actually going
[46:37] to be on the side of your house that's
away from the access to the remaining 13
[46:42] addresses on Oklahoma Beach.
>> Um,
[46:47] is is there a means for the construction
crew to make sure that they don't block
[46:52] that bridge and that access?
>> Yeah. What? There is a twocar parking
[46:56] spot down next to the home. Yes. On the
garage. And then on the entrance road to
[47:02] the property, which is about 300 ft.
It's mowed on both sides. And when we
[47:08] constructed the home, when um Phil
constructed his home, when the there's
[47:13] been three other homes constructed there
in recent years, that's where people
[47:17] park.
>> Okay. you know, so it's if somebody we
[47:20] do have a good construction manager as
well as a good constru contractor who
[47:24] make sure if I mean they're very
attentive to people's needs. If a
[47:28] truck's going to be there more than 5
minutes, they'll move it. Uh Phil said
[47:32] if this there was an emergency, they
would um he he would open his driveway
[47:38] as well
>> because that was that was one of the
[47:41] concerns I had just from even just an
emergency response point of view was
[47:46] » the fire department comes down routinely
to make sure that they can get around
[47:50] that corner. And even when we had
construction that we had a dumpster
[47:55] there, they came down to make sure that
they could get underneath the underpass
[47:59] and around the corner. They're bringing
a small truck down there. They're not
[48:01] bringing [clears throat] one of the big
trucks.
[48:03] » No, but
>> who maint
[48:07] who maintains that?
>> It's
[48:09] » It just
>> the walls are the engineers told us to
[48:12] not take down the walls. They didn't
know what would happen to the bank and
[48:15] the top is blocked off. But but the top
I was a little concerned walking under
[48:22] it when I was around the property just
because it is is
[48:27] a little
it's old. It's old and it just there
[48:31] would look like there were pieces of it
that could fall.
[48:33] » There have been and
the um the ties could be removed but the
[48:38] risk with that is um you have to
maintain the metal the walls
[48:44] » could collapse.
[48:47] But no one maintains that. That's
>> No, no, it's it's posted not to walk
[48:51] across it. And
>> let me ask you this. If if it if the
[48:54] opportunity came up again where the
railroad property became
[49:00] um available,
would would you sign off on those
[49:08] properties being able to purchase that?
>> I I
[49:11] » Again, it's all hypothetical at this
point.
[49:13] » I don't know much about it. I would have
to look at it. I I mean I don't I don't
[49:17] frankly know why they couldn't before.
Um so I don't want to speak to something
[49:22] I don't know. I don't know really know
anything about that.
[49:25] » Okay.
>> As I said um when I talked to Josh, my
[49:29] grandfather acquired their property in
bits and pieces over the years. So it
[49:33] was one the original house was where our
home is and then he acquired and one
[49:40] piece and then another piece and then
another piece over the course of 50
[49:44] years.
Okay.
[49:49] Other questions from the board?
[49:53] No. Okay. Um, I'd like to make a motion
for a type two action under secret
[50:01] pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the
environmental code.
[50:06] » Second.
>> Second.
[50:07] » All those in favor?
>> I.
[50:13] » Karin, you want to do the
>> No.
[50:15] » No. Okay.
>> Someone else's turn.
[50:18] » Okay. Chris.
>> Sure. Uh
[50:22] the uh
addition uh will not impact the
[50:27] essential character of the neighborhood
or be a detriment to nearby properties.
[50:32] It uh mostly won't be visible to the
general public at all and will not block
[50:38] any lake views if if approved.
uh based on the uh the applicant's
[50:44] needs, there were no other real
alternates because it needed to go uh as
[50:49] an expansion of the master bedroom suite
and then using the space underneath it
[50:53] as a uh covered porch area. So there
really no were no other uh alternatives
[51:01] considered. Uh the request is not
substantial or contextually significant
[51:08] uh from from the zoning required.
Uh
[51:15] it uh will not increase uh any type of
adverse effect or impact the physical
[51:21] environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or the district and more
[51:24] importantly to the uh immediate
neighbors.
[51:28] And although the the difficulty is
self-created, it is the minimum relief
[51:34] necessary to allow the applicant to do
what he needs to do with his property.
[51:39] » And I'll just add um the views views of
the lake are not going to be affected uh
[51:45] with this uh variance being provided. Uh
the addition is not going to be uh
[51:50] visible from uh basically from from uh
any of the properties surrounding
[51:56] properties. I'll be at the property to
the I guess it be the souththeast. Uh
[52:02] we'll be able to see the roof of the uh
of the addition uh that the variance is
[52:09] being required for. Um
the location of the addition is limited
[52:15] to the location that it's at just due to
the uh unique shape of the property as
[52:20] well and how close uh it is to the to
the water's edge. um not not being able
[52:26] to provide get any closer to the water's
edge um as well. So, uh this is a
[52:31] non-conforming
building. Um
[52:36] so, yeah. Anybody want to add anything
else to it?
[52:39] » Um I just have a question. Do you have
[clears throat] approval from the DEEC
[52:43] for this or the Army Corps of Engineers
yet?
[52:46] » Um we contacted them and as long as
we're not going closer to the lake,
[52:50] that's why we deliberately set back six
feet.
[52:53] » Okay. from um the existing north
north wall of the existing house which
[53:00] was where the exact two inches inside of
where the existing
[53:05] » the original house were two inches
inside of that and now we're 6 feet back
[53:09] from that.
>> Okay. All right. So they don't need
[53:11] right any further permits for this
>> from the DEC.
[53:16] » You' still need building permits.
>> Anybody else want to add anything
[53:19] further?
>> Okay. Um only condition I'm I'm going to
[53:25] add to it is uh during construction
um the construction manager and the
[53:32] owner are responsible for maintaining uh
drive access through uh through the
[53:38] property.
Um let's see. So, I'd like to make a
[53:42] motion uh for an area variance to allow
uh the alteration,
[53:46] sorry, the extension of a pre-existing
non-conforming single family home in
[53:50] association with the construction of a
460 square ft addition on a 0.45 acre
[53:58] parcel having SPL063.06-1-19.1
06-1-19.1
[54:05] located in R1 single family district
under section 350-10
[54:10] and 350-
95 the code of the town of Webster.
[54:15] » Second
>> second
[54:17] » Mr. Short
>> I
[54:19] » Mr. Sola
>> I
[54:20] » Mr. Corso
>> I
[54:23] » Mr.
I
[54:24] » Mr. Bola
>> I
[54:27] » you have uh the area variance for the
addition you still have to get all uh
[54:33] all required building permits.
>> Okay.
[54:35] » Uh one year to to start uh meaningful um
action.
[54:40] » It'll be started soon. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you.
[54:45] Uh going back to 50 to Hackberry way.
[clears throat]
[54:56] How's it going?
>> Good. How are you?
[54:58] » Good.
>> Um, so if you could tell us a little uh
[55:04] name, address, tell us a little bit
about the uh the project that you have
[55:08] uh going forward.
>> Uh name is Austin Sagio. Just purchased
[55:12] the home. Uh builders had told us it'd
be no problem to put an addition onto
[55:17] the property. Obviously finding out that
there's a variance for everything.
[55:20] Thankfully, my dad knows a little bit
about this, but we got young kids just
[55:25] want more space in the house. It's more
important to us than having outside
[55:29] space cuz we don't get to use it all the
time. So,
[55:33] okay,
questions from the board.
[55:45] That's a brand new house already doing
addition, huh? That's what they sold us
[55:49] on. We knew it was too small and they're
like, "Hey, yeah, we can put this
[55:52] edition on. No problem." So, fun news.
>> And here you are.
[55:56] » Yep.
>> Got it.
[56:00] » With no builders to show up. I love
that.
[56:03] » Got to love salespeople, right?
>> Mhm.
[56:06] » Oh, that was tonight. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Right.
[56:10] Questions from the board. Um, Erica, is
this a cluster subdivision
[56:15] or is this
>> the lot seem to cluster?
[56:23] » Um, I would have to double check.
>> Looks like they're tied,
[56:27] » but I believe it is.
>> Okay.
[56:29] » 281.
>> Just cuz they seem
[56:31] condensed.
>> Yes, this is an LMR inside of a single
[56:37] family residential.
>> Okay. So
[56:40] spots are going to be
[57:05] uh threeseason. So covered porch. What
is is it three seasons screened in? What
[57:10] is the
>> We plan to screen it in eventually.
[57:12] They're just going to cover it though.
>> So just the roof.
[57:15] » Yes.
>> Got it. Okay.
[57:23] » I think on the on the plans.
>> So you mentioned you were just you were
[57:28] looking for more space
>> for the house
[57:32] » being outside.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on
[57:36] that since it's not
>> I mean the house is it's I I don't want
[57:40] to sound like that but it's 1500 square
feet. We moved from a house that was
[57:44] 1500 ft.
>> It's the same exact size. It's split
[57:47] differently.
>> But this is outdoor space. This is not
[57:49] indoor space, right?
>> Yeah. Exactly.
[57:52] » Okay.
[57:56] You said the intention eventually is to
potent is to screen it in. Again, that's
[58:00] not what you're doing now, but that's
>> Yes. Maybe finish it. I don't know.
[58:03] Whatever.
>> Okay.
[58:05] » Yeah.
[58:09] » Other questions from the board?
>> Yeah.
[58:13] » Yeah.
>> John.
[58:15] » No. Uh, anybody from the uh public want
to speak for or against this project?
[58:23] » No. Have you had any discussion with any
of your neighbors? Uh, I drove through
[58:27] the neighborhood. It um it's definitely
very visible
[58:31] » where it is. Mhm.
>> So, any any dialogue with any of your
[58:34] neighbors?
>> Haven't really. I mean, we just moved in
[58:37] and we have one neighbor to our side at
the moment. That seems nice, but
[58:41] » Okay, fair enough. Um Okay. Um
any other comments from the board?
[58:49] » I just say the the odd shape of the lot
really if he had a normal rectangular
[58:55] lot, I don't think he'd even be here.
>> Agreed.
[58:59] » Okay. Well, and that's a feature and
perhaps maybe the builder excluded it on
[59:04] this particular home, but um when we get
this type of subdivision, typically that
[59:10] little covered porch is part of the back
of the home on I'll say 80% of them. And
[59:19] I imagine this won't be the last one
that we see within this subdivision.
[59:22] Even if you look down Arowwood, there's
there's a couple of them already that
[59:26] they already exist. Um, but because it's
a corner lot, which makes the backyard
[59:31] smaller than normal, there's there's
nothing that this applicant could add
[59:36] here without without a variance.
>> Yeah. Which I had no idea about to be
[59:42] completely honest with you. That's
that's all dad. That's he knows what
[59:45] he's doing.
>> About that.
[59:49] » Other comments?
>> No. I'd like to make a motion for a type
[59:53] two action under secret pursuant to NYCR
section 617.5 of the environmental code.
[59:58] » Second.
>> All those in favor? I
[1:00:02] » uh
>> I'll run through the findings if you
[1:00:04] like.
>> Okay.
[1:00:06] » I was going to ask John if you want to
do them.
[1:00:08] » Oh, I No, John can do it.
>> No, be my guest. [laughter]
[1:00:11] » I was going to scare you.
>> Well, since you told I told you no
[1:00:13] before because I just didn't have my
papers ready. Um, I'll I'm going to say
[1:00:17] the request is not out of character in
the neighborhood and that some of the
[1:00:21] homes already on Arowwood have that
feature built in, an external covered
[1:00:25] porch. Um, the det there will not be a
detriment created to nearby properties.
[1:00:30] Right now, that side of the street is
fairly unbuilt. It looks like they're
[1:00:34] working on developing it, but um it's
it's it's not going to impact anybody.
[1:00:40] It's certainly not going to hurt
anybody's line of sight. Um, it's not
[1:00:44] too close to anybody's house.
achievable by any other method? No, not
[1:00:49] in this instance. In that the um the
back of the house is the logical
[1:00:54] location and it's a very short backyard.
Um
[1:00:59] no adverse physical or environmental
impacts to the site or to the
[1:01:02] neighborhood. That's as stated. Um the
difficulty
[1:01:08] is or is not self-created. I'm going to
say it's really not self-created in that
[1:01:13] it's the size of the lot. Um and and the
builder obviously didn't include it
[1:01:19] because he didn't want to come here and
get a variance before he built the
[1:01:22] house. So um certainly not an
undesirable change. We get such a short
[1:01:27] season that you want to be able to have
a covered area to be able to enjoy a
[1:01:31] little bit more of the non- snow weather
without rain or excessive not that we
[1:01:35] get excessive sun but um
>> sometimes
[1:01:38] » it it it it does make sense. So, um,
anything else anyone would like to add
[1:01:44] to that? [cough and clears throat]
[1:01:47] » No.
>> All right. I will make a motion to grant
[1:01:52] an area variance at 522 Hackberry Way.
And um it is to allow a covered porch
[1:02:02] area that has a rear setback of 43 feet
where 50 ft is required and it's on a.34
[1:02:10] acre parcel with SPL number 065.02-5-10.
[1:02:15] And this is in a an LMR district in the
town of Webster.
[1:02:21] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:02:24] » Okay. I heard everybody.
>> Mrs. Volo.
[1:02:30] » I
>> Mr. Short.
[1:02:32] » Hi,
>> Mr. Spanado.
[1:02:34] » I
>> Mr. Sola.
[1:02:36] » Hi.
>> Mr. Corso.
[1:02:37] » Hi.
>> You have your uh variance. You still
[1:02:40] have to go uh through and get your
building permits before you can start
[1:02:44] any work. Uh you have one year for
meaningful um progress.
[1:02:49] » Awesome. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:02:55] » All right. Uh next up, uh Waterview
Apartments phase three. If uh the
[1:03:02] applicant from Legacy Development can
come on up.
[1:03:16] Good evening. I'm Chris Nadler, general
counsel for MarkV Enterprises. I'm here
[1:03:21] tonight with Ed Martin from Paso, our
design engineer team. Uh our goal
[1:03:27] tonight is a renewal of the two
variances that were granted by this
[1:03:32] zoning board uh in November of 2024. An
18.7 front setback where 75 ft is
[1:03:40] required and a 38.5
district buffer where 100 ft is
[1:03:45] required.
Um as as you know this project has gone
[1:03:51] through a lot of uh change a lot of
reduction. Uh in early 2024
[1:03:58] uh late 23 24 early 24 mark started
meeting with the town and presented
[1:04:05] applications uh originally for two
threestory buildings with 90 units.
[1:04:12] Um after uh four or five meetings with
this board and five or six meetings with
[1:04:19] the planning board, the project was
reduced in scale uh and now features uh
[1:04:24] twotory townhouse buildings with 56
units, a single driveway to Mchuan and
[1:04:31] uh significant landscape buffers. Um
this board actually required um the
[1:04:37] landscape buffers at its meeting. I just
was looking at the findings um to
[1:04:43] increase total vegetation and buffer
zone and work with the town to provide
[1:04:47] buffering in Mchuan Road right ofway.
And Ed will tell you a little bit about
[1:04:52] the the difference or the uh the
distances involved and I mentioned them
[1:04:57] when I was here last. Um but the
district buffer
[1:05:02] uh of 38.5 ft doesn't really reflect the
actual distances involved. the the
[1:05:10] building to the border between the
districts is 38.5 ft. But then there's
[1:05:15] another 25 22 ft between the district
buffer and the edge of Mchuan, making
[1:05:22] the total distance to Mchuan 58.5 ft and
the total distance to the closest house
[1:05:31] 152 ft.
Uh the currently the town houses that we
[1:05:36] have uh in existence in phase two are as
close as 66 ft to the houses on Mchuan.
[1:05:44] Um so this is again the same just a
renewal of variances that were granted
[1:05:51] by the board in December 2024.
No conditions have changed. This board
[1:05:58] has received significant
correspondence from our neighbors along
[1:06:02] Mchuan Road. I don't think that changes
any of the conditions that were in place
[1:06:08] or uh the situation that was in place
when this board considered uh the
[1:06:13] variance factors and granted this these
variances in December 2024. So, what
[1:06:19] we're asking for tonight is that this
board confirm that no conditions have
[1:06:23] changed
uh and renew our two variances.
[1:06:28] Uh I'm going to turn it over to Ed to
explain one why uh some of this time has
[1:06:34] passed and two some of the uh reductions
that were made in conjunction with this
[1:06:39] board and with the planning board.
[cough]
[1:06:42] [clears throat]
[1:06:44] » Thank you, Chris. For the record, my
name is Ed Martin. I'm a licensed
[1:06:48] engineer with Passerro Associates. Um,
as Chris mentioned, there's quite a
[1:06:52] history to this project and most
recently, uh, dating back to 2024.
[1:06:57] The the buildings were changed, reduced
in size to go from the two 45 unit
[1:07:02] buildings to these generally 10 unit, we
have one six unit off to the west, but
[1:07:07] to be more consistent with the units
that you see to the east and to the
[1:07:10] south. And our initial layout included
individual driveways for the the
[1:07:16] building accessing uh MUN, but uh the
feedback from the town was they wanted
[1:07:21] it to be more single family in nature.
And so we reduced it to that single
[1:07:25] access point um and pushed the building
further to the south to to increase that
[1:07:30] that space and added significant
plantings. Uh there it's north of 80
[1:07:35] plantings along that that rightway to
create a nice buffer. Um, there's
[1:07:39] another critical part to this whole
story that I think this board needs to
[1:07:44] realize. In in January of 2025, the DEEC
initiated some changes in the storm
[1:07:51] water uh or I'm sorry, the wetland regs
and they were challenged by developers
[1:07:56] across the state. Uh, the DEC
subsequently
[1:08:02] filed an appeal and they were going to
fight that to keep them in place. They
[1:08:06] they have since revoked the they revoked
their appeal and so we are literally
[1:08:12] operating under preJanuary 2025
regulations for wetlands. Why is that
[1:08:18] important? Because if that had never
been in place in the first place, they
[1:08:22] would have they would have uh pursued
construction. We would have avoided this
[1:08:26] whole situation. So literally nothing
has changed. There was this delay caused
[1:08:30] by the DEEC. We complied with the town
and said we'll wait for their
[1:08:35] jurisdiction to come back. And by the
way, it was for a pocket wetland offsite
[1:08:39] to the west. Was not impacted
whatsoever. But because of this lawsuit
[1:08:43] that got filed, an appeal that was filed
by the DEEC and subsequently revoked, we
[1:08:49] are under pre January 2025 DEC wetland
rags. And so, as Chris said, the
[1:08:56] conditions truly have not changed
whatsoever. So, we're just simply asking
[1:09:00] you to to more or less reinstate the
variances that have already been
[1:09:03] granted. And so, I guess at this point,
we'd be happy to answer questions that
[1:09:07] you might have.
>> So, uh,
[1:09:12] does staff know is the board that's
voting tonight, is it the same board?
[1:09:17] » It is not.
>> It is not.
[1:09:20] » Okay.
And who's who is not?
[1:09:25] » I wasn't here. I think John Jim I don't
know if you were an alternate at that
[1:09:30] point but I don't
>> an alternate back then.
[1:09:33] » Yeah.
>> It's s safe to say that the two two
[1:09:37] board members who were not here did not
by any chance review the original
[1:09:42] application. No. No. Okay.
[1:09:48] All right. So
the board and I and I don't frankly
[1:09:55] remember how
comprehensive the first presentation was
[1:10:01] of course was versus tonight which
appears to be more
[1:10:06] summary in in content. That's my my
sense.
[1:10:11] I'm open to be challenged on that. But
the board should be treating this as a
[1:10:14] new application.
[1:10:17] But it is
uh generally bound
[1:10:23] by its administrative precedent
uh which granted these
[1:10:30] uh variances. However, if
the board was to find some change of
[1:10:37] circumstance,
[1:10:40] you know, we arguably it would need to
be substantial
[1:10:44] so that it wasn't your decision if you
changed it wasn't or is not arbitrary or
[1:10:49] capriccious. The change could be in the
zoning law, could be in neighborhood
[1:10:53] density, it could be environmental, it
could be traffic. Uh those are all
[1:10:59] options. Or
if the board found that they had to
[1:11:05] correct an error
that had previously made in terms of an
[1:11:11] abuse of discretion or they or the board
thinks it misinterpreted the law. So, I
[1:11:16] just set that out there to give you
some general guidelines in in terms of
[1:11:21] how to treat this in so much as it was
previously approved and the applicant
[1:11:25] just
ex uh
[1:11:29] approval expired and essentially
it's the same application.
[1:11:35] So,
and I I I'll I'll um defer to council. I
[1:11:43] just want what I want to be certain is
that
[1:11:46] u
I I don't remember the specifics of the
[1:11:51] last application and I could be
conflating it [clears throat] to some
[1:11:56] degree with your last visit here but my
sense is it was in greater detail. Maybe
[1:12:02] staff says we have the same materials
but the presentation was more brief.
[1:12:07] » You know I think that could be true. I
I'm certain that's true as of today. uh
[1:12:12] we appeared in front of this board at
least for I think five times on the
[1:12:18] original
um so I've presented on a 90 unit uh
[1:12:23] project I've presented on an 88 unit
project um and then several meetings
[1:12:28] where it was this design but wiggling
stuff around and and coming to uh you
[1:12:33] know agreements on what would be uh
appropriate and what would pass uh the
[1:12:39] variance tests and what this board was
comfortable able with that would that
[1:12:43] would uh satisfy those tests. Uh our
application materials that Pasro
[1:12:48] submitted I know probably about 3 months
ago are uh identical. Um this board has
[1:12:55] uh those in front of them. I am happy to
uh uh go further into depth. Uh Ed and I
[1:13:03] are happy to go further into depth. Um I
think you have pretty much what I would
[1:13:08] present.
>> Yeah. So let's let's be clear on that.
[1:13:10] So, in terms of what the board has
tonight
[1:13:16] or has been directed to access wise, is
that the
[1:13:21] is it the entirety of the application?
Because I I'm not saying council that
[1:13:26] you need to do a full-blown
presentation. I
[1:13:28] » I can go about an hour and a half if you
want.
[1:13:30] » Well, I Right. Uh, but I just want to
make sure that since
[1:13:35] there was some brevity tonight that
particularly those two board members
[1:13:41] that were not here for that that they
were provided
[1:13:46] uh the information
that was within the prior application.
[1:13:51] Not not not the application that was
changed but the one that was approved.
[1:13:57] Look at you.
>> That's
[1:14:01] » one of the pieces of information that
was missing with this particular
[1:14:04] application. Um, and I think it was one
of the questions that we had last time,
[1:14:10] this was before this board two months
ago was um in trying to determine how
[1:14:16] these buildings fit within the character
of the existing neighborhood. And we
[1:14:20] didn't have any front elevations of the
buildings. So, can we pull the Thank
[1:14:25] you, Erica. Um because that that was one
of the big questions especially for the
[1:14:29] two members that were not present for
this was
[1:14:34] the footprint is quite different than
what the neighbors across the street
[1:14:38] have to look at every day.
>> Understood. And here this is what it's
[1:14:42] going to look like. This is uh
>> this would be the building across from
[1:14:46] Muan. That would be exactly uh the
building across from Mchuan where
[1:14:50] » well not exactly
>> except that except that there will be uh
[1:14:55] significant landscape buffering and
uh not individual driveways so or not
[1:15:03] individual driveways to Mchuan.
>> You'd have an internal road with a
[1:15:08] single drive out onto Mu.
>> Exactly.
[1:15:15] So 10 trees is substantial in your
opinion.
[1:15:18] » Uh I believe it's 88
>> across Mchuan
[1:15:23] » in front of the the the 10 units across
that face [clears throat] Mchuan. There
[1:15:27] are 10 trees.
I'm not talking about sitewise. I'm just
[1:15:31] talking about in front of Mchuan.
>> Erica, can you go back to the uh the
[1:15:36] graphic plan again? So
you mentioned 80 plantings. I'm assuming
[1:15:42] you're talking about the entire site. I
guess the question
[1:15:45] » No, the 80 is just along the the
frontage of the road there
[1:15:49] » of just Mchuan. So this graphic is not
representative of the plantings, I
[1:15:53] guess, is is the question
>> or comment.
[1:15:57] » Well, you can look on the screen and
count.
[1:15:59] » No, that's that's a a rendering. Our the
site plan that was submitted with the
[1:16:04] variance application shows is a separate
landscape
[1:16:09] plan. Yes.
This is
[1:16:14] » Chris.
[1:16:20] » So just the applicant right there. Let's
just Can you identify the map that
[1:16:26] you're referencing with the 80 plans?
>> Sure. It's sheet C106 drawing set
[1:16:32] » dated uh May of 2026.
>> Yeah. and and this board uh when it
[1:16:39] granted the variances
directed as a as a condition
[1:16:44] uh
[1:16:47] that uh to increase total vegetation in
buffer zone to work I think that means
[1:16:52] and work with town to provide buffering
in Mchuan Road right away and so that
[1:16:58] increase was made up to the 80 plantings
um and as we get closer to building
[1:17:04] permits we'll work with the town
uh add plantings in the in the Mchu and
[1:17:08] right ofway.
>> So I just want to chime in. Um so we did
[1:17:14] share that with the various departments
at our project review committee meeting
[1:17:19] and the sewer department particularly
expressed some concerns with planting of
[1:17:25] vegetation in the town's rightway
especially in close proximity to
[1:17:30] underground utilities such as sewer
pipes. So it's while it was an initial
[1:17:36] condition of this board to encourage
more buffering, the town really doesn't
[1:17:40] want to encourage vegetation in the
highway right ofway.
[1:17:48] So I just want to state that for the
board's consideration.
[1:17:52] » And [clears throat] we've we've worked
in a lot of towns where that there's the
[1:17:55] exact same concern. There's things we
can do. We're happy to sit down with the
[1:17:59] sewer department and say, you know, we
can map the the exact location of things
[1:18:04] and exact location of where they're
going to put their equipment if they
[1:18:07] have to dig something up and there's
plants that can be uh planted. We're
[1:18:12] happy to still have that condition um to
work with them and figure something out.
[1:18:21] So, um,
if you can just
[1:18:27] for this board, the unit in the middle,
what is the offset from the property
[1:18:36] line, not from the road, but from the
property line? And then if you can also
[1:18:39] give it to me from the uh from the road
edge
[1:18:42] » as well as the property to the uh to the
uh west as well. Ed, ask which unit
[1:18:48] because you said the unit in the middle.
>> Yeah. So, I'm talking the middle one and
[1:18:53] this one and this one, right? Because
the these two are the closest and then
[1:18:57] this one's a little further away. So,
why don't you give me all three of them?
[1:19:10] So, working from west to east
to Mchuan, uh, it's 38.5 ft.
[1:19:18] » That's to the road or to the property
line.
[1:19:20] » Uh, to that's to the rightway, I'm
sorry. Which is the property line?
[1:19:25] » This is the rightway right here.
[1:19:32] » Then it is 44.8 for the middle one.
[1:19:39] and 54.7 for the eastern one. And those
are all to the right away.
[1:19:45] » And do you know what it is to the road
edge?
[1:19:48] » It is another
[1:19:53] » 22.
>> That's what I got. That's what I read on
[1:20:04] » about 21 ft to the pavement edge.
>> Okay. That That's the same for all of
[1:20:08] them.
>> I'm sorry.
[1:20:09] » That's the same for all of them.
>> Yep.
[1:20:13] This is
I'm getting confused by what you're
[1:20:17] saying on the setbacks are because last
time we were here
[1:20:21] two months ago, whatever it was, it
seemed to me that the uh setback you
[1:20:26] were request or the easement you were
requesting was a lot more significant
[1:20:31] than that.
>> Well, uh the setback for this because
[1:20:34] it's on a residential is 100 ft. Um so
it they're asking for 50
[1:20:42] you know, at the at the most uh where is
it? 50
[1:20:49] 60 5 ft.
>> So, they have a 35 ft
[1:20:54] set back as opposed to 100 ft.
>> Correct.
[1:21:05] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:21:07] Other questions from the board?
[1:21:16] Is there I'm trying to think a a road or
another I know there were stop signs
[1:21:22] right in this area that we requested.
Correct.
[1:21:27] » Yeah.
>> Now, wasn't there
[1:21:30] » right?
>> Yeah.
[1:21:31] » And then another like
an area to get out other than use
[1:21:37] Mchuan. it.
Yeah, you could go Willow or Willow
[1:21:42] Point.
>> But now for the middle building.
[1:21:47] » Oh yeah, that's true.
[1:21:57] » Is the middle building able to
have an exit to the east? No, I believe
[1:22:03] that was considered and uh the site
>> the grade is
[1:22:08] » the grade is significant there. I mean,
we can push
[1:22:11] » Sure.
>> Uh there's not wetlands on that 22 acres
[1:22:14] that we own going down to the lake. We
can just expand the footprint, but I
[1:22:19] don't think anybody wants that that you
know eats up a a steep slope.
[1:22:25] We have room, but this is the better
design that this board
[1:22:29] » wanted.
Yep.
[1:22:36] Other questions from the board?
Not. I'll open it up to the public for
[1:22:41] now and bring it back.
All right. Um like to hear if anybody
[1:22:48] wants to speak for against the project.
Please come on up.
[1:22:56] » How you folks doing? I'm uh Charlie
Johnson. I'm at 440 Muan Drive. Um, I
[1:23:01] sent you guys a letter. I just wanted to
clarify or at least summarize a couple
[1:23:04] of things. Um,
when the applicant claims that this new
[1:23:11] uh
a different decision would be arbitrary
[1:23:14] and capriccious. Uh, New York State law
is clear. If the material facts have
[1:23:20] changed, this board is obviously legal
is uh legally
[1:23:24] able to make a new decision. um they
haven't much uh we had a formal request
[1:23:30] a response back on August 28th about a
positive jurisdictional determination
[1:23:34] for the wetlands for this area. Um they
came back and said this was a class one
[1:23:42] wetland which is the highest protective
classification we have in New York
[1:23:46] State. Um,
looking at the hang on, let me go to my
[1:23:53] notes I have here.
We just look at the five st the five
[1:23:58] statutory standards that we have when
you guys grant variances. Uh, the first
[1:24:04] one is the undesirable change to the
neighborhood. Uh, squeezing these
[1:24:07] buildings into such a small area. uh
specifically cutting down or the single
[1:24:16] 61% directly robs neighboring homeowners
of their privacy uh quiet enjoyment and
[1:24:22] property values.
Uh the second part is number two
[1:24:27] feasible alternatives. A developer uh
desires to build 56 units is a financial
[1:24:32] goal. It's not necessarily a physical
necessity. Uh the obvious solution is to
[1:24:38] scale back the project.
Uh number three, the request is
[1:24:44] obviously substantial. You're talking
about a 75% reduction
[1:24:49] uh for the buffer and a 61%
reduction for the other section there.
[1:24:55] Um
and about the adverse environmental
[1:24:59] impacts the project has. Uh the DEEC's
positive jurisdictional determination
[1:25:06] proves that the regulated wetlands and
state protected 100 ft adjacent areas
[1:25:11] exist on this site. Okay. Uh which I
believe requires that automatically trig
[1:25:17] I believe triggers a special use permit.
uh I'm asking you to dig more or at
[1:25:23] least get more information from the
developers on the status of their
[1:25:28] current wetland determination and or if
they have a special use permit
[1:25:32] application in process. Um and then
lastly, I'll just say that uh
[1:25:39] the application pretty much fails all
five of the balloting criteria that you
[1:25:44] guys use to make area variances uh
decisions. Uh, one, it dramatically
[1:25:49] alters the neighborhood character. Two,
uh, the requests are massively uh,
[1:25:53] substantial.
Uh, the environmental risk is validated
[1:25:58] by a positive DEC determination
and there's obviously feasible uh,
[1:26:03] alternatives that exist
and that is all that I have.
[1:26:09] » Mr. Justin, you you mentioned the
environmental risk and then the
[1:26:12] applicant said there was a a pocket
wetland that was nowhere near the
[1:26:18] project. Do you recall that?
>> They they they did, but because they're
[1:26:22] using the entire property to obviously
meet the density requirements, they have
[1:26:27] to consider the wetland that's down by
the bay there. Um that is the again the
[1:26:34] the I don't know if you guys have a
copy. I have a copy of this I can
[1:26:37] provide to you. Um
the the date on the notice is incorrect.
[1:26:43] Um they had they said this determination
shall remain valid for five years from
[1:26:48] the date of this letter which is through
222 2031.
[1:26:53] Um so I I think what they're talking
about is the area closer to the bay
[1:27:00] there.
[1:27:08] Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:27:10] » Thank you very much.
>> No problem.
[1:27:12] » Any anybody else from the public want to
speak for against the project?
[1:27:17] » No additional comments.
Okay. Back to the board. Other questions
[1:27:24] from the board.
[1:27:28] I was not on the board in 26 or 24. I
mean,
[1:27:34] um,
had I been on the board in 24, I don't
[1:27:38] think I would have approved it at that
time. And I'm I understand what Mr.
[1:27:42] DeMarco was saying about it being we
might be under some obligation, but as
[1:27:47] someone that wasn't here, is that whole
for me also?
[1:27:54] » Oh, I'm sorry. There was a question. um
under our general law and
[1:27:59] juristprudence.
I guess the analogy would be, you know,
[1:28:04] someone sitting on the Supreme Court
that says or a lower court that says, I
[1:28:08] don't, you know, I wasn't on the bench
when this higher court made this
[1:28:12] president. Do I need to follow it?
And short answer is yes. You don't have
[1:28:18] to.
What I said at the beginning was we
[1:28:22] recognize the administrative precedence
of the board. So that if there's going
[1:28:28] to be a change of this board's
determination,
[1:28:35] if the applicant was to challenge it,
right, let's not mince words. If this
[1:28:39] board was to deny the application
tonight
[1:28:42] and the applicant was to challenge it,
they would challenge the uh
[1:28:49] administrative precedence and say,
"Look, you previously ruled on this. Now
[1:28:54] you're the board, not individuals, but
the board is now changing its ruling."
[1:28:59] So the question then becomes is there
change of circumstances present in the
[1:29:06] site in the application
that this board can hang their hat on
[1:29:11] and say we have now new facts new
circumstances and based upon those the
[1:29:18] board can give specific reasons of our
criteria that we always look at and hang
[1:29:22] its hat on those factual changes.
So
[1:29:29] that's what we're faced with. If we want
to change, if the board changes its
[1:29:36] position, I'm not saying it can't it
can. I'm not saying it shouldn't. But if
[1:29:39] it chooses to, it needs to articulate
the change in circumstances
[1:29:46] at the site.
How is it today changed from how it was
[1:29:51] immediately prior to your last approval?
>> Does that make sense? I understand what
[1:29:56] you're saying. I'm just I guess I'm
wondering what obligation I'm under. I
[1:30:01] mean, if the board as a whole approves
it, can it still have a negative vote in
[1:30:06] there?
>> Of course.
[1:30:09] » Thank you.
>> Of course.
[1:30:14] » That's a good question.
Other questions from the board?
[1:30:21] I find myself in a difficult situation
because when we first when I first saw
[1:30:26] it, it uh let me commend the applicant
for changing it to our request
[1:30:33] originally and because it I think it
does look much better and I apologize
[1:30:38] for questioning number trees. I was
going simply by the presentation drawing
[1:30:42] which was different from the application
drawing and that's my fault. I apologize
[1:30:47] for that. But and like I said, I think
it's much better than it was before you
[1:30:53] made those revisions. But having a lot
more time to look at it again,
[1:30:59] I try to look at it fresh again and
thinking like, well, it's better, but
[1:31:04] it's not something that I still feel
comfortable with. But, uh, if I I feel
[1:31:09] that, uh, I just want to make make it
known that it'll be yes, but it's a
[1:31:14] reluctant yes, but I guess it doesn't
matter whether it's reluctant or not.
[1:31:18] since I did vote it originally because
it was an improvement and I still think
[1:31:22] it is an improvement over what was
originally presented to this board. But
[1:31:27] the more I look at it, the more I start
thinking maybe I didn't vote properly
[1:31:33] last time and that's my error, not
yours.
[1:31:37] And we certainly I don't want to put the
board in any predicament by me having
[1:31:44] more time to look at it and potentially
changing my mind.
[1:31:47] that that's more of a statement than a
question to you.
[1:31:50] » That's understood. I have a response uh
a two-part response. One
[1:31:55] uh and it ties into something that uh
John said earlier. This board had a lot
[1:32:01] more time to look at this application
and and took a lot of time. You looked
[1:32:04] at it a ton. You looked at every single
page of the application. you look you
[1:32:10] poured over this before and made made
that decision after five four or five
[1:32:15] different meetings and I mean and I
wasn't up here I've been up here for 15
[1:32:19] minutes I was up here for an hour and a
half every time um with you drilling me
[1:32:25] with questions and everybody so you know
maybe your your first instinct was
[1:32:29] correct because you it did have you did
uh go deeper second um and this is
[1:32:35] something Mark Fort does with all our
projects But, uh, we're going to prove
[1:32:40] you wrong. If you're hesitant about it,
we will prove you wrong. This is going
[1:32:44] to be a great project. It's going to be
buffered adequately. The neighbors on
[1:32:48] Mchuan, I get it. They don't like it.
They They're not even going to notice it
[1:32:52] three years from now. That's what
happens with every single one of our
[1:32:56] projects. Um, I talked to board, we go
back into towns, you know, this is not
[1:33:00] our only uh development in the town of
Webster. I'm going to see you in three
[1:33:04] years. And you're going to say, "Oh,
yeah. Yes, that's a great a great
[1:33:07] project. We will prove you wrong on
that.
[1:33:10] » I look forward to that.
>> Can can you help me understand how?
[1:33:15] Right. So, I heard Josh just say
uh the town does not want the um
[1:33:22] vegetation in the right away. Um I like
hearing it, but I've I've had salesmen
[1:33:30] sell me on things before and it doesn't
come true, right? second slam on sale.
[1:33:35] [laughter]
>> So, so help me understand how help me
[1:33:40] understand and help help the residents
of Mchuan understand how they're not
[1:33:44] going to notice this. And and you're
right. I mean, we poured over this and
[1:33:48] and I I remember us talking about can we
pull the pull that road in even more so
[1:33:53] we can get more vegetation, right? So
there there was a lot of discussion
[1:33:58] because
asking for the the setback of 35 ft 55
[1:34:05] ft from 100 ft it it's not insignificant
right I mean it's you know so how do we
[1:34:14] how do you how do we get an asurances in
a comfort level um because [cough]
[1:34:22] I think the board that was here
previously there reluctances, but we
[1:34:26] felt comfortable enough after the last
time. Uh, hearing that the town does not
[1:34:33] want the vegetation in there leaves me a
little concerned. Um, because at the end
[1:34:38] of the day, the town does have to
maintain, you know, any of those
[1:34:41] utilities in there and everything else.
So, I I would hate to leave here with
[1:34:46] those conditions. The town doesn't want
it. And now all of a sudden I have three
[1:34:52] buildings on Mchuan that are are visible
and whatnot. So
[1:34:57] help me understand how we're going to
get over that. Um so Josh uh is is I
[1:35:04] believe correct. You know that sewer
department from an initial standpoint
[1:35:08] and they always all sewer departments
say we don't want it anywhere near our
[1:35:12] easement.
>> Sure.
[1:35:13] » Um you know some easements they're very
familiar with. this one down closer to
[1:35:18] the lake, they, you know, they can map
it out, you know, off the top of their
[1:35:22] head. They're so familiar with it. This
one, you know, it's a standard side of
[1:35:25] the road easement. They don't know
exactly where the pipe is. They'd have
[1:35:28] to go in the file and look for it. Um,
we can work with them, our engineers,
[1:35:32] our design team will work with the town
um and find places where, you know,
[1:35:38] shallow rooted plants can can thrive.
um the the the answer to and I I want to
[1:35:45] be clear, we're not going to hide this,
but the neighbors on MUN won't notice it
[1:35:49] as, you know, uh the threat to their way
of life that they think it's going to be
[1:35:53] right now. Um it's not going to be
hidden. It's going to blend. It's going
[1:35:58] to become a part of this neighborhood.
And uh the real answer to it is we rent
[1:36:04] these things. We have to sell them. And
it sounds like a salesman, but you can't
[1:36:08] sell junk. You can't sell stuff that
doesn't have uh you can't sell stuff on
[1:36:13] Mchuan Road that looks like an apartment
complex. We're gonna make it look like
[1:36:19] Mchuan Road. That's the way to rent it
and rent it for the you know quite
[1:36:23] frankly the prices that uh a great
neighborhood like this deserves.
[1:36:29] » And these are you said two things in in
your last statement. Rent and sell. So
[1:36:35] » no I'm being a the salesman.
>> Salesman. Okay. Lease leasemen. I guess
[1:36:39] we have to sell them to tenants. None of
these will ever be sold. This will
[1:36:43] operate as one functional property
>> as an apartment complex. Yep. Okay.
[1:36:48] » Um
the the resident had talked about uh in
[1:36:55] in his letter storm water soil erosion.
Um can you talk about the storm water
[1:37:02] for the uh for this complex? Is all
storm water going to be handled on site?
[1:37:10] » It it will be and this is subject to the
DEEC storm water permit GP0-25-00001
[1:37:16] that is not impacted by the regulation
changes that I referred to earlier. Uh
[1:37:21] prior to the start of construction,
perimeter erosion control will be put in
[1:37:24] place. A stabilized construction
entrance will be put in. storm water
[1:37:28] management facilities installed,
including sedimentation basins, so that
[1:37:32] that when storm water leaves the site,
it does it never occurs at a rate higher
[1:37:36] than it occurs today for various storms
up to and including the 100red-year
[1:37:40] event, which is significant. That's
flooding. Um, and sediment will be
[1:37:44] contained on site. So, downstream
receiving waters, offsite properties
[1:37:48] will not be be impacted by that. And
that it's subject to a weekly uh
[1:37:53] inspection
>> during construction.
[1:37:56] » Correct.
Um when you say sediment is going to be
[1:37:59] maintained on site again during
construction
[1:38:03] » both during construction and in in in
the uh in the completed state also
[1:38:08] » um who is maintaining
uh the storm system after it's complete?
[1:38:15] I mean I hate to say it it's you know
>> patients can get filled up and no longer
[1:38:21] function.
>> We operate we own and operate our own
[1:38:24] properties. That's us. We we will
operate it in perpetuity. Um this this
[1:38:28] is an interesting one. I forget there's
big giant storm chambers on this one. Um
[1:38:33] it's new for us. So we'll get a tech,
you know, the the you know the techni
[1:38:38] technicians out and they'll train our
on-site maintenance personnel. We have
[1:38:42] on-site maintenance p personnel on site
at all of our properties. They'll learn
[1:38:45] how to do what they have to do. And then
I'm assuming it has an annual or bianual
[1:38:51] bigger maintenance that we have to hire
somebody to do. Okay.
[1:38:55] » So once construction's completed, this
is subject to an annual inspection that
[1:39:00] gets provided to the town and so any
kind of of repairs are noted in that and
[1:39:04] so they would make them.
>> Okay. Um can you talk to soil erosion
[1:39:11] both during construction and post
construction as well?
[1:39:15] » Yeah. So we're going to employ pretty
standard measures between uh what's
[1:39:19] called silt fence. You've seen this at
any construction site. Uh and that gets
[1:39:23] again inspected weekly. Um
>> and again this is we're talking during
[1:39:27] construction right now.
>> Correct. And those that that fencing has
[1:39:30] to be removed before the permit can be
closed out the construction portion of
[1:39:34] it. And that can only come out once all
the surfaces have stabilized either
[1:39:39] through a minimum of 80% uh density
growth or by a construction service put
[1:39:44] down like a asphalt or concrete
sidewalk.
[1:39:49] Okay.
[1:39:52] Uh each one of those driveways,
if you will, is a single family
[1:40:00] resident. If you I guess best way for me
to put it right. Is that
[1:40:04] » exactly?
>> Okay.
[1:40:06] So on Mchuan, I'm looking at one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight
[1:40:12] uh apartment apartments. If I'm counting
that correctly,
[1:40:16] » up to 10.
>> Is that up to 10?
[1:40:18] » The ends are doubles.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Erica.
[1:40:24] Okay. Other questions from the board
[1:40:32] comment? Um
I
[1:40:36] I understand we came from years ago an
eight-story building and then two
[1:40:42] three-story buildings that were
ridiculously long to the town houses
[1:40:47] which are probably the least impactful
other than just building single family
[1:40:52] homes that we can come to. Um,
and I also know it's really not the
[1:40:58] privy of this board, but I don't like
all the extra traffic that this is
[1:41:03] potentially dumping onto Mchuan. Um,
putting the traffic in inboard onto
[1:41:10] Willow Point makes it I won't say
at least less impactful to Mchuan. It's
[1:41:17] not ever going to be unimpactful to
them. Um,
[1:41:21] I understand we have only the one
driveway coming out of the building
[1:41:24] that's closest to Mchuan. Um, but it
seems like this whole end of the complex
[1:41:30] is going to dart out there and and be a
lot of extra traffic on a street that
[1:41:35] right now has five houses on it, so
maybe 10 cars.
[1:41:40] » So, so the site plan included a seeker
review for potential impacts like that.
[1:41:45] It was deemed to be to not have a
significant impact whatsoever.
[1:41:49] » 90 addition or I'm sorry.
>> So that
[1:41:52] » 56 additional
>> is negligible. Yes. So it was considered
[1:41:56] at the planning board level.
>> I I understand that but I question it.
[1:42:01] So, and I I'm going from memory here,
but I believe that the traffic study
[1:42:06] that this board and uh the planning
board and staff and the town's engineers
[1:42:10] reviewed and agreed with, I believe it
said that this project will dump one car
[1:42:17] every either 8 minutes or 12 minutes.
And I don't remember which it is, and I
[1:42:21] apologize for that, but it's not one car
every minute, every two minutes. It's
[1:42:25] one or one car every like 8 to 10
minutes.
[1:42:28] » Oh, I understand that. But I have and
it's not going to be one every 8 to 10
[1:42:32] minutes because there's going to be a
dump between say seven and eight o'clock
[1:42:36] and then a dump coming in between four
and six o'clock. But but right now I've
[1:42:41] got five houses, six houses on Mchuan
with maybe two houses and grandma and
[1:42:48] grandpa coming over on the weekends or
two cars per house. So it is going to be
[1:42:52] an impact regardless of what the traffic
study says. that's not going to be, you
[1:42:56] know, high volume traffic, but it's
additional traffic. And I just
[1:43:01] » I'm struggling of how do we
how do we make it attractive for people
[1:43:06] to want to go out the Willowpoint
entrance and not out the Mchuan? That's
[1:43:11] that's what I struggle with. And I know
I voted for this project the last time
[1:43:15] just because it's so much better than
where we started. But but it is a
[1:43:21] significant impact to the people that
live there now and don't see the other
[1:43:26] 56 residences worth of cars or even half
of them. Say half of them go in half
[1:43:31] them. So, what [clears throat] I just be
cognizant of that when you're doing
[1:43:37] this, if you get the approval to
to make it
[1:43:44] least impactful traffic-wise for the the
kids that right now probably play in the
[1:43:49] street and
>> well and and absolutely and understood.
[1:43:55] Um, one of the nice things, uh, that
I've seen happen, um, sometimes through
[1:44:00] planning board meetings, um, but we have
on-site property management. We also
[1:44:05] have our tenants have children playing
in the streets. If somebody can wants to
[1:44:10] lodge a complaint with our property
on-site property manager, and say it's a
[1:44:14] red car, she'll figure out which one it
is, and we'll we'll we'll violate them.
[1:44:18] We'll we'll we'll tell them they got to
knock it off or they can find somewhere
[1:44:21] else to live. Um, so if there's a
traffic problem, uh, you know, if people
[1:44:25] are driving their through, uh, too fast
through through Mchuan, uh, we hope our
[1:44:30] neighbors contact us and and let us
know. You know, they're going to know if
[1:44:34] it's turning into our, uh, complex or,
you know, onto Maritime Drive. And we
[1:44:39] hope they they reach out and tell us.
[1:44:53] other questions.
[1:45:00] No
[1:45:05] Erica, Chris, Jim. So you guys all
thinking
[1:45:09] » I No other questions.
>> No.
[1:45:11] » And uh Webster's was sanitation or what
was it? the
[1:45:18] » the highway and sewer department.
>> They've worked with other
[1:45:22] builders prior to this.
>> I'm not aware of an specific example
[1:45:28] where a project has spilled out into the
right away, if you will.
[1:45:41] Erica, do you have the um the
engineering plans, not the rendering?
[1:45:48] » Because I believe the rendering shows
the roadway a little closer to the
[1:45:52] » rendering isn't the most accurate set of
plans.
[1:45:55] » So, here we go. The issue
>> that I had. Sorry.
[1:45:59] » Yep.
[1:46:03] The um the rightway is the the rightway
is those two lighter triple dash or
[1:46:11] quadruple dash lines. Is that correct?
>> The rightway is the darker one in the
[1:46:14] middle of those two.
>> Okay.
[1:46:16] » The other the other two lighter ones are
easements.
[1:46:18] » Easements. Okay.
Um,
[1:46:23] so we do have they do have space
for vegetation on the property before
[1:46:30] the easement based on this plan.
Am I reading that correctly?
[1:46:36] » Yes.
>> Okay. Uh, do we have an understanding of
[1:46:40] how much space that is?
Looks like
[1:46:46] 16 ft.
>> Yeah. Well,
[1:46:49] it gets worse as you get closer in Eric
or
[1:46:52] » it's probably around 154.
>> 15.4. Okay. Uh and then take off five or
[1:46:59] six feet for the for the easement. Um
because if I remember correctly, we
[1:47:04] asked to shorten those driveways so that
they could have more space inside the on
[1:47:09] the property instead and stay outside
the the easement if I remember
[1:47:14] correctly. Uh back to 2024. So there is
space on the property proper to do that.
[1:47:27] Uh
[1:47:31] is this a 12 in sanitary sewer main that
would run through that 22 ft? The other
[1:47:37] thing is this is a 12 or 18 in sewer man
running through a 22 foot rightway.
[1:47:43] » There's room. There's room. And if they
really don't want it, we'll put the
[1:47:47] we'll find some other way to to buffer
um that's suit that's acceptable to the
[1:47:51] town. Um but you know, we can do uh
planting boxes. We've seen um that don't
[1:47:58] you know, dig down that don't you don't
plant in the
[1:48:01] » uh soil. You put a a box and then uh uh
plant the tree in that.
[1:48:08] » What are the driveway lengths right now?
>> We can do that.
[1:48:11] » What are the driveway links right now?
So to the interior drive, it's 20 ft
[1:48:16] » from the from the
>> front of the garage to the close edge of
[1:48:20] the interior road.
>> It's 22 feet.
[1:48:22] » 20 ft. Really a bare minim.
>> Yeah. Anybody with a pickup truck is
[1:48:28] that that's basically it.
>> Y
[1:48:30] » gotcha. Okay.
Okay.
[1:48:38] » Other questions from the board?
[1:48:43] No.
[1:48:47] Uh, one last question I have for you.
Uh, special use wetlands permits, uh,
[1:48:53] not required, I think is what you were
saying,
[1:48:55] » correct? Um you are looking at the
entire parcel uh for so the uh the
[1:49:03] resident was talking about um the
density factor of this uh using one
[1:49:10] portion versus the wetlands portion
as I was trying to listen to it. Can you
[1:49:17] speak to any of that by any chance?
Honestly, I don't know if we use that
[1:49:21] area to to determine density, but it's a
small isolated pocket wetland that is
[1:49:27] outside that we're not touching
whatsoever. So, I'm not sure
[1:49:33] cuz cuz passive space is often used for
density. I'm not sure what the concern
[1:49:37] is.
>> We took out We knew that was a wetland.
[1:49:40] We knew that was a wetland when we did
the D or Pasro knew when they did the
[1:49:44] density calculation. So, I'm sure that
wasn't included.
[1:49:47] » Okay.
All right. If there's more comments from
[1:49:51] uh from the board, I'm going to make a
motion for type two. Is there any any
[1:49:56] further comments?
>> Um I just I want to make sure I
[1:49:59] understand this is the last development
that's planned for the Willow Point
[1:50:03] complex, right?
>> Yes, absolutely.
[1:50:06] » Okay.
I'm going to make a motion for a type
[1:50:09] two action under seeker pursuant to
NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental
[1:50:14] code.
>> Second.
[1:50:17] » Second. All those in favor
>> I
[1:50:19] » I
[1:50:26] All right. Um
area variance uh request is not out of
[1:50:32] character uh in the neighborhood. So, uh
over the course of several years, the uh
[1:50:40] the applicant uh has looked to reduce
the um the
[1:50:47] imposition of the uh highdensity housing
on this uh property to a more um
[1:50:55] scalable residential um feel so that
would fit within the neighborhood
[1:51:01] itself. uh eliminating uh maintaining
the character of the neighborhood. Uh
[1:51:08] albeit the property itself is a uh
wooded lot with housing on the uh north
[1:51:15] side of it. So, the neighborhood itself
will change, but the applicant has
[1:51:21] modified um over the course of years to
come up with a a design that will mimic
[1:51:28] uh a a single family residential uh type
look um not not imposing um a difference
[1:51:37] in character for the neighborhood.
[clears throat]
[1:51:41] um detriment to created by uh to nearby
properties. Um this this project does uh
[1:51:51] include additional uh drive and vehicle
access uh to nearby properties. Uh
[1:51:59] again, the the roadways themselves um
able to handle it based on traffic
[1:52:06] reports that uh were provided by the
applicant previously.
[1:52:11] Uh so limiting uh limiting uh any uh
detriment to nearby properties
[1:52:19] um
achievable by other other means. The
[1:52:25] property is uniquely
uh
[1:52:29] uniquely uh graded. So relocating moving
some of the facilities elsewhere is
[1:52:38] difficult.
um the applicant would have the
[1:52:42] opportunity to eliminate uh some of the
structures to
[1:52:49] um to achieve said goals. Um
[1:52:56] but due to
uh again due to grading property um and
[1:53:03] uh it ends up being difficult uh to to
achieve the the goals of the project any
[1:53:09] other way.
Um
[1:53:14] there are no adverse physical or
environmental impacts uh to the site um
[1:53:19] or the neighborhood
um based on
[1:53:24] uh wetland um current wetland codes um
[clears throat] and all the uh SWIP
[1:53:33] storm water uh practices that are being
put into place for this site. Uh there
[1:53:40] are no environmental impacts to the
site.
[1:53:44] Uh
[1:53:50] the request um not being substantial.
Um, if you look at our code, any of you
[1:53:58] are looking at a
um single uh single family
[1:54:04] uh home on the same property as well as
um looking at uh duplexes, multi
[1:54:11] multifamily dwellings on the same
property. offsets would be uh 35 feet
[1:54:18] versus um the current required
um 50 feet or 100 ft next to a
[1:54:26] residential area. Um so
again, the the applicant is is making
[1:54:33] these units look and feel like a um
single family type unit. Um, so the the
[1:54:44] desire the request is is not
substantial.
[1:54:48] Uh, I think I covered
all of them. Anybody else want to add
[1:54:54] anything?
[1:54:58] Nope.
Okay.
[1:55:07] I'd like to make a motion for an area
variance to allow a front setback of
[1:55:14] 18.7 ft where 75 ft is required and to
allow a single family district buffer of
[1:55:21] 38.5 ft where 100 ft is oh sorry uh
conditions. The applicant is going to
[1:55:29] work with the town uh highway and sewer
department to maintain the requested uh
[1:55:37] vegetation that was previously
identified in the 2024 application
[1:55:45] um
and provide a a significant buffer to
[1:55:50] the residents on Mchuan Drive. Is there
any other um
[1:55:56] conditions from this board
>> that this will be the end of
[1:56:00] construction for this
>> and no further construction on on this
[1:56:05] uh on this this parcel or the adjoining
I guess adjoining parcels of of this
[1:56:09] property right is that
>> further development
[1:56:12] » no further development
>> okay
[1:56:16] all right now area variance is to allow
a front step back of 18.7 uh 7 ft where
[1:56:21] 75 ft is required ired and to allow a
single family district buffer of 38.5 ft
[1:56:26] where 100 ft is required in association
with the construction of six buildings
[1:56:30] plus a community center total of 56
units each two stories in height on a
[1:56:36] proposed 13.15 acre parcel having
SPL093.06-3-64.11
[1:56:41] 06-3-64.11
[1:56:44] located in an MHR medium high
residential district under section
[1:56:48] 350-14
the code of the town of Webster.
[1:57:03] » No second
>> second.
[1:57:06] » Okay,
Mr. Short. Uh I
[1:57:12] » Mr. Spania
>> I
[1:57:14] » Miss Volo
>> I
[1:57:17] » Mr. Senola
>> I
[1:57:22] » Mr. before so
>> nay.
[1:57:24] » Okay,
>> that is a 4-1 vote. Uh you have your
[1:57:28] area variance. Um obviously you have to
get all your meaningful uh permits uh
[1:57:34] etc. uh to commence. You have one year
for meaningful um movement forward.
[1:57:44] » I'd like to thank all of you for your
thoughtful consideration. And I know
[1:57:47] this wasn't easy. Um, but I appreciate
you're doing the right thing. And like I
[1:57:51] said, we we will do our best to prove
you wrong or prove your reservations
[1:57:56] wrong. Uh, we look to do a really good
project here and uh keep our neighbors
[1:58:01] as happy as we can. Thank you again.
>> And for the residents that uh did speak
[1:58:06] uh about the project, as you heard him
say, any issues,
[1:58:10] » call call the uh the property
management.
[1:58:14] » So, thank you. Thank you.
>> Uh next up, Verizon Cell Tower. Uh we're
[1:58:22] going to start with uh Lake Road. Um for
for this, we are going to have um
[1:58:28] Verizon speak. Um give us uh your
thoughts uh describe um I'm going to
[1:58:36] have honestly both projects. Uh and then
I believe we have um the town consultant
[1:58:43] here. Uh and then we'll hear from the
town consultant uh before we go any
[1:58:48] further.
>> Okay.
[1:58:49] » Excellent. Thank you.
>> Hello. My name is Laura Smith. I'm with
[1:58:54] Nixon Peabody and I'm here representing
this application, both the Lake Road
[1:58:58] application as well as the Webster
North. As uh we discussed, I'll start
[1:59:03] with the Lake Road application. Uh there
are similarities between this and
[1:59:07] Webster North, but I'll focus on an
overview of the applications in in their
[1:59:12] entirety and then go into some specifics
about the Lake Road application.
[1:59:17] I first want to note we have been before
the planning board several times with
[1:59:21] this application, but I believe it's our
first uh meeting with the zoning board
[1:59:26] of appeals on this matter. I'll note
that wireless telecommunications are
[1:59:32] treated as public utilities for land use
and zoning purposes in New York State,
[1:59:36] which entitles them to a diminished
standard of review rather than the
[1:59:40] standard criteria applicable to area
variances. Under this public necessity
[1:59:45] standard, a wireless carrier must
demonstrate these only these three
[1:59:49] elements. First, that there is a gap in
wireless service. Second, that the
[1:59:54] location in the proposed facility will
remedy those gaps. and that the facility
[1:59:58] pre presents a minimal intrusion on the
community and is more feasible than
[2:00:03] other options. I'll also note that
wireless facilities are highly regulated
[2:00:09] by the FCC and the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, which sets out a separate
[2:00:14] standard for the concept of uh effective
prohibition and not permitting a
[2:00:19] wireless communication services to fill
a coverage gap.
[2:00:25] I'll note for this Lake Road
application, there is a significant gap
[2:00:29] in coverage. We have a pretty sizable
application, but in demonstrated in
[2:00:34] exhibits F and Q, and as demonstrated by
Professor Johnson, the town's
[2:00:40] independent RF consultant, there is a
significant gap in wireless coverage in
[2:00:44] this lake road south. This area is
currently served by three distinct
[2:00:49] overburden sites. The first is four mile
creek. Second is East Webster and the
[2:00:54] third is Gana.
All three of these sites are terrain and
[2:00:59] foliage challenge which results in a
significant gap in both lowband and
[2:01:03] mid-band coverage. Moreover, actual
utilization data for the past year shows
[2:01:09] that several key performance indicators
for these three sites have already
[2:01:13] exceeded 100% utilization. It is the
goal of RF and it is the goal of a
[2:01:19] network to ensure that we're providing
coverage in looking for land use
[2:01:23] approvals before those KPIs are met.
Here for those three sites, we are
[2:01:28] already showing overage and capacity
exceeding 100% utilization at these
[2:01:33] three sites. That means the existing
network cannot meet current demand. Uh
[2:01:38] this is on Josh. I I know we're going to
go quickly, but seven and eight of
[2:01:42] exhibit off. I'm sorry, 7 through nine
on exhibit F.
[2:01:46] The goals of this project is to increase
network capacity, provide reliable
[2:01:51] coverage to the Lake Road service area
in northeastern Webster, and offload
[2:01:56] traffic from those overloaded sites. And
here the mid-band coverage is
[2:02:00] particularly significant. We'll see in
the other site it's it's more of the low
[2:02:04] band, but here the mid-band coverage is
very weak in the lake cell. What's shown
[2:02:09] in your application is that the existing
mid-band coverage shows that there is no
[2:02:14] reliable mid-band coverage in this area
instead and it also shows the low band
[2:02:21] coverage is akin to a rural or suburban
and incar applications. However, because
[2:02:26] that mid-band coverage has no coverage,
it those users then have to switch to
[2:02:31] low band showing and that results in a
very low capacity in our low band
[2:02:37] coverage. So it is although there is low
band coverage here the lack of mid-band
[2:02:43] coverage in this area is what's over
taxing and putting these sites at over
[2:02:48] capacity for that low band coverage.
You'll hear from your independent
[2:02:53] consultants since we had the pleasure of
uh also meeting at the planning board
[2:02:56] last Tuesday that here there is a
capacity in it a capacity issue more so
[2:03:02] than necessarily a coverage issue. But
from both the FCC's standpoint and from
[2:03:08] case law, those two items are treated
the same when looking at is there a
[2:03:13] significant gap in coverage.
Next, I'll note that the proposed height
[2:03:18] is the minimum necessary to provide
effective coverage. That's the item
[2:03:22] that's before the ZBA with this
application. It is an area variance to
[2:03:26] seek going from the 100 foot height
that's permitted under the code to go to
[2:03:32] 125 ft for this location.
This is shown in exhibit R and V in our
[2:03:38] application and again confirmed by the
town's RF consultant that supplemental
[2:03:43] propagation plots compare coverage at
the proposed 120 ft center line against
[2:03:49] a reduced height of 95 ft. I'm going to
pause and explain that concept a little
[2:03:54] bit. So the height of the tower will be
at 125 ft. That's at the very top. And
[2:03:59] then there'll be a lightning rod
attached that's 4t high. However, when
[2:04:03] we're looking at cell phone coverage,
the measurement that is used is the the
[2:04:08] ant the antenna center line, the ACL.
So, when we're talking about how high up
[2:04:13] the antennas need to be, the concept is
an ACL line rather than necessarily the
[2:04:18] height of the towers.
So, our 120ft tower would have a I'm
[2:04:24] sorry, our 125 ft tower would then have
a 120 foot antenna setter line. then
[2:04:31] comparing in order to have an 100 ft
tower that center line that ACL would
[2:04:36] then be at 95 ft. So that's the
reasoning between those comparisons of
[2:04:40] why although seeking 125 ft tower we
compare the 120 ACL
[2:04:47] and then as confirmed in those exhibits
and as also confirmed by the town's
[2:04:52] consultant the 90 foot ACL tower is too
low to overcome the terrain and foliage
[2:04:58] and does not allow for the necessary
coverage improvements capacity overload
[2:05:02] and network densification. Again, that's
[clears throat] shown in exhibits R and
[2:05:07] B of the Lake Road application.
I'll also note that we've conducted an
[2:05:12] exhaustive alternative site analysis and
no viable alternatives exist. This is an
[2:05:18] item that we have worked extensively
with the planning board to review
[2:05:21] potential viable alternative sites that
could still offer that improved uh
[2:05:26] coverage that we need to fill the
coverage gap and then also have the
[2:05:30] ability to provide that an an improved
visual impact.
[2:05:36] First, Verizon undertook a comprehensive
site analysis evaluating a total of
[2:05:41] seven candidate parcels within and
immediately outside the search area.
[2:05:46] That's shown on page nine of exhibit G.
And I'll note the search area is
[2:05:50] primarily comprised of one owner. It's a
farm owned by Windmill Farms.
[2:05:56] As documented in our March 31st, 2026
supplemental application, Verizon
[2:06:01] engaged in extensive negotiations with
the landlord for permission to be on any
[2:06:06] other location on the landlord's
property, including two sites that were
[2:06:10] identified by the planning board. in the
planning board requested Verizon to go
[2:06:14] back and have discussions with the
landlord. Specifically, one was towards
[2:06:18] the uh south western portion of the
property so that it would be along the
[2:06:24] tree line and less visible uh as cars
are going past on Lake Road. The other
[2:06:29] was um on the
souththeastern side also along the tree
[2:06:36] line essentially trying to move back
from that that corner parcel.
[2:06:41] From Verizon's perspective, we need to
be in an area with the within the search
[2:06:45] area that will meet the coverage the
coverage needs and the coverage gaps
[2:06:50] we're trying to solve. But beyond that
where within the search area as long as
[2:06:55] it works for RF needs it's not
unreasonable cost or unreasonable very
[2:06:59] clear that there are no other locations
our tenno would interrupt. There's also
[2:07:03] some subterrain in infrastructure that
they use that is not possible to put us
[2:07:08] on another place on the farm. Candidly
they provided a letter to the town that
[2:07:14] is more than we typically get from
landlords really. we just need to um
[2:07:20] they we can't force them to lease to us.
So, typically once they say no, uh
[2:07:24] they're not required to explain to the
town what their logic or reasoning is.
[2:07:28] But I I'll note our landlord did go
above and beyond, provided a letter to
[2:07:32] the town explaining all the restrictions
on his property and the reasons that he
[2:07:37] will not lease other locations and
cannot lease other locations to Verizon.
[2:07:42] We also reviewed two additional
candidates. Those are shown on exhibit
[2:07:46] S. They're noted as H and I uh also
identified by the planning board, but
[2:07:51] those failed from an RF perspective. We
also re-evaluated the search area as
[2:07:56] directed by the planning board. Uh that
re that re-evaluation is set forth in
[2:08:01] exhibit U and that was to determine
whether or not there were any other
[2:08:06] places that the search area could be
expanded or moved to try to bring in new
[2:08:10] properties to review.
As shown though in the ex in exhibit U,
[2:08:16] the re the search area cannot be
expanded and it was properly sized in
[2:08:22] the initial analysis.
The remaining property owners within the
[2:08:26] search area declined to participate in
lease negotiations with Verizon. And
[2:08:30] again, these decisions are solely within
the landlord's discretions. We have no
[2:08:34] authority to compel any property owner
to enter into a lease agreement. So to
[2:08:39] the extent there are uh where there were
other opportunities to engage with the
[2:08:43] town or I'm sorry engage with the
landlord, we did so at the town's
[2:08:46] request. Um I'll also note the landlord
came in for a conversation with the town
[2:08:51] and the planning board chair and really
hammered through are there other places
[2:08:55] on that windmill farms complex that this
site can be located and that answer and
[2:09:00] the conclusion uh both the landlord and
Verizon came to was no.
[2:09:06] That leaves the selected site which is
the only candidate that's both
[2:09:09] technically viable and available for
lease for this particular project. We'll
[2:09:14] also note that the project will have no
adverse environmental or community
[2:09:17] impacts. This is a key part of that
telecommunications act of 1996.
[2:09:23] The perceived health effects for this
project and we'll say the same for
[2:09:27] Webster North and we've heard very uh
passionate testimony at the planning
[2:09:32] board. You may hear the similar concerns
tonight, but the science and the law are
[2:09:38] both very clear on perceived health
effects for telecommunications towers.
[2:09:42] Local boards are expressly preempted
from denying or conditioning approvals
[2:09:47] of wireless facilities based on health
or environmental effects of RF emissions
[2:09:52] where the facility complies with the FCC
standards. Here we provided that
[2:09:57] evidence to the town. It is exhibit P to
the application that the proposed
[2:10:02] facility will operate in full compliance
with all applicable FCC regulations. The
[2:10:07] ZBA as well as the planning board and
the town board is therefore without
[2:10:11] authority to consider RF related health
or environmental concerns when reviewing
[2:10:16] this application.
Moreover, we'll note that this project
[2:10:20] will not pollute. It does not create
noise. It does not incre increase
[2:10:24] traffic. It does not create or demand
additional needs on governmental
[2:10:29] services. It's an inert facility that
will enhance emergency communications
[2:10:33] for police, fire, and other responders.
Last, I'll note that the application
[2:10:40] does meet the requirements of state and
federal law. Again, going back to the
[2:10:43] opening uh comment about this being a
public utility and a wireless facility
[2:10:48] that's regulated by the FCC and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
[2:10:53] This is a public utility and this site
is important to fill the coverage gap.
[2:10:58] As noted most recently by the FCC in a
uh order that was put out, it's the
[2:11:04] matter of reducing barriers to network
improvements and service changes,
[2:11:08] accelerating network modernization,
which was released on March 27th. The
[2:11:13] FCC noted that as of December 2024,
there's approximately 390.9
[2:11:19] million mobile voice subscriptions in
the United States. And according to
[2:11:23] preliminary data from the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention as of 20
[2:11:28] December 2023, approximately 76% of
adults were living in and relying on a
[2:11:34] wirelessly household with adults in
lower age groups more likely to live in
[2:11:39] wirelessly households. To me, even
Wednesday's storm speaks to the
[2:11:44] importance of having wireless facilities
and wireless facilities in these
[2:11:48] coverage gaps. When electricity is out,
when internet is down, people are
[2:11:53] relying on their cell phones during an
emergency. And even candidly, people are
[2:11:57] relying on cell phones because they
don't have landlines in their home.
[2:12:01] Landlines in their homes. So again, the
importance of this is a public utility.
[2:12:07] It has to be located where the need is.
Verizon did work very extensively with
[2:12:13] the planning board and the town and the
landlord to try to determine another
[2:12:17] location for this to be located and are
now coming with this application fully
[2:12:22] vetted by the town, fully vetted by the
town's independent RF consultant that
[2:12:28] there is a coverage gap. This solves the
coverage gap and there is no other
[2:12:32] feasible location it can be located.
With that, I'll pause to take questions.
[2:12:40] Uh, [cough]
excuse me.
[2:12:42] » You you brought up uh last week's
storms.
[2:12:48] Does the cell towers have generators?
>> They do.
[2:12:51] » Okay. Um,
internal or external because you also
[2:12:56] said the site does not create any
additional noise.
[2:13:00] » It is an external uh generator. The site
plan is located in the application
[2:13:05] materials. It is under exhibit Q and
there is a 50 kilowatt generator shown
[2:13:12] on the site plan.
>> How frequently does that generator run?
[2:13:16] » It runs for testing purposes. It's my
understanding it's tested about once
[2:13:22] every other week. I think the typical
time is Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. It's meant
[2:13:26] to be identified at a time that uh would
be the least impactful to the
[2:13:30] neighborhood. It is tested twice a week.
It's about tested for I'm sorry. It's
[2:13:35] tested about every other week. It's
tested for 15 minutes and then it goes
[2:13:40] off. Certainly during a time of of an
emergency that generator is going, but
[2:13:46] several other generators are going at
that time as well.
[2:13:49] » So very similar to a automatic generator
at somebody's house.
[2:13:52] » Exactly. Right.
>> You said that they would have no
[2:13:55] utilities to it, but you do have you
will be powered. Are you planning on
[2:13:59] » There will be. Yes, there are utilities
going to the site. It's both fiber and
[2:14:03] electricity.
>> Okay.
[2:14:06] » Generators. Not that I guess not that it
matters. I don't know why I'm asking the
[2:14:10] question. Is diesel operated then? Not
>> Yes.
[2:14:12] » Okay.
[2:14:16] » The tower actually will it serve others
besides Verizon?
[2:14:22] This is being constructed for Verizon,
but pursuant to the town's collocation
[2:14:27] policy up to it will be designed and
constructed for up to two additional
[2:14:32] carriers to be located on the tower.
>> Has any inquired about it? Any other
[2:14:37] carriers yet or is too early?
>> Candidly, I don't know. I believe it's
[2:14:40] too early to for for inquiries, but
certainly Verizon um Verizon has a need.
[2:14:46] Verizon's building it for its need and
it's required under the town code to
[2:14:50] allow two other users.
>> So there might be another carrier that
[2:14:53] would be perfectly okay with a 100 foot
um ASL but so their antennas are better
[2:15:00] than Verizon's because they don't need
the additional height.
[2:15:03] » So each you know candidly each carrier
is different. I can't speak to their
[2:15:07] network. we need to be at this location
and at this height because it is the
[2:15:13] correct location between those three
sites. Um, you know, think of cell phone
[2:15:18] coverage. It's almost like a flashlight
going up and down. It can't be too close
[2:15:22] to the other towers that are already
existing or else there'll be
[2:15:26] interference. Um, it also can't be too
high up or else the signal um won't go
[2:15:31] where it's needed and it can't be too
low down because the the signal won't go
[2:15:35] as wide as needed. um which is how we
get to the 120 foot site. Um I'll also
[2:15:42] note that Verizon has 60% of the market
here in the town of Webster. So what
[2:15:48] other cell phone carriers need is
difficult. You know, I certainly can't
[2:15:52] speak to that.
>> So um
[2:15:58] other I almost I'd like to maybe hear
about the other site because I do want
[2:16:03] to hear from the expert. This way we can
ask questions
[2:16:07] » once
>> once to
[2:16:09] » No, makes sense.
>> So yeah, Mark, can I ask you one
[2:16:14] » question real quick?
>> So
[2:16:18] this um
the cap the capacity issue, right? You
[2:16:24] said in the end the the gap and the
capacity issue, my words I guess not
[2:16:30] yours, um
are interchangeable now in terms of what
[2:16:37] the courts have ruled
that that that triggers u this lower
[2:16:44] standard if you will in terms of what
what you have to demonstrate.
[2:16:47] » Correct. It is both coverage and
capacity.
[2:16:49] » Right. And when you talk about capacity
earlier you were talking about um
[2:16:57] the these different zones.
>> Mhm.
[2:17:04] » What what happens
when when the capacity breaks down like
[2:17:09] what's the net effect of that?
>> So those are shown it's in exhibit half
[2:17:16] of the of the application. um section
it's it's pages seven, eight, and nine.
[2:17:22] They're essentially graphs showing that
the capacity utilization
[2:17:26] » much rather listen to you than try to
figure out those graphs.
[2:17:29] » So there's there's there's three items
those those charts are showing. The
[2:17:34] first is if there is too many too many
devices trying to download from the cell
[2:17:40] phone tower then the download capacity
goes much very slow. So if you
[2:17:46] » let me just stop right there. So, is it
fair to say at the Lake Road location
[2:17:55] if capacity was not an issue
the um the coverage is sufficient?
[2:18:05] In other words, do you do you need
capacity in your [clears throat] opinion
[2:18:10] » to to to to to get where you want to go?
>> Correct. and and from our perspective
[2:18:15] those are a symbiotic relationship. So
although the low band is showing some
[2:18:21] coverage on the map you'll see that it's
uh rural and suburban uh for incar
[2:18:26] coverage. So it's showing if you go from
yellow or I'm sorry white being no
[2:18:31] coverage to yellow being adequate
coverage orange being a little bit
[2:18:35] better green being the best. I'm sorry
no cover no coverage is white orange
[2:18:40] yellow green is the very best. Let's say
it's level of five, one being the worst,
[2:18:45] five being the best.
>> Yeah. So, so we're right about a three
[2:18:49] for low band coverage.
>> Okay. So, if there capacity issue,
[2:18:56] would that be sufficient
in as a standalone?
[2:19:02] » That would not be sufficient for a
standalone. You would still have dropped
[2:19:06] calls. you would still have slowed down
coverage because there's only so many
[2:19:11] users that can be on that low band
coverage. So by having essentially
[2:19:17] because there is limited capacity on the
low band the result of that it once it
[2:19:25] becomes overutilized is no coverage. So
whether you don't have coverage because
[2:19:30] there's too many users, uh I'm sorry,
regardless of if you cannot connect to a
[2:19:35] cell phone, so you're dialing up and it
says, you know, no service,
[2:19:38] » right?
Whether that is due to the fact that
[2:19:41] there's too many users currently on that
lowband coverage or that there's zero
[2:19:47] coverage whatsoever, the impact to you
is the same that you can when when that
[2:19:53] low band is is overutilized and and
taxed out, it will either slow down so
[2:20:00] much that you can't download materials,
you know, you're driving down Lake Road
[2:20:03] and you're trying to find an address and
it it won't be able to connect or you
[2:20:07] will be dropped. your call will be
dropped. There will not be sufficient
[2:20:10] coverage for your call to go from this
cell phone to the other cell phone. So,
[2:20:15] as you're driving, right, you go from
cell phone tower to cell phone tower to
[2:20:18] cell phone tower. You're passed along as
you're you're driving down Lake Road.
[2:20:23] You would come from Webster speaking to
someone on low band and then if you hit
[2:20:30] this area and there is not sufficient
coverage or not sufficient capacity,
[2:20:36] that call will be dropped.
because there won't have
[2:20:39] » and then so then is there a frequency
upon which the dropping has to occur or
[2:20:45] just the fact that it occurs at all
>> those are shown in the KPI from a
[2:20:50] network perspective
the goal is to have no dropped calls
[2:20:55] right and the goal is to identify no
dropped calls before the the tower is
[2:20:59] built here we are already at
overutilization
[2:21:04] » right and I guess that's my point is
look on the one end
[2:21:09] Verizon wants to provide a superior
service,
[2:21:14] right?
>> It want Yes. It wants to be able to fill
[2:21:17] this coverage gap that that exists in
>> Webster and there's a gap and there's a
[2:21:21] capacity issue.
>> Correct.
[2:21:24] » At some point we get to a minimum level,
right? And then over that level
[2:21:32] is is is a fivestar rating for Verizon.
So I I was just trying to understand on
[2:21:36] the capacity level is is that a
quantitative
[2:21:40] uh failure point
>> I it is in perhaps your question is you
[2:21:47] know is five drop calls okay or is it
six drop calls right and that's that's
[2:21:51] something the the courts haven't spoken
to it is con it is known as a coverage
[2:21:56] gap this is a coverage gap
>> and it is the health and safety of the
[2:22:03] network to ensure that there are no
coverage gaps.
[2:22:06] » And then you you got to my last point
which
[2:22:10] I I guess as I understand like the the
third circuit court of appeals has made
[2:22:16] this standard and I don't know if the
second has or not where we sit
[2:22:22] » but that they they don't they don't
quantify that bar.
[2:22:26] » So we we in the second circuit we have
what's known as the will standard. We
[2:22:30] have to show that there is a sign
significant gap in coverage and this is
[2:22:34] the least intrusive means to fill that
coverage gap. That's the standard that's
[2:22:38] » so it's significant in terms of capacity
as well interchangeable.
[2:22:42] » Correct. capacity and coverage the FCC
has identified as being th this is the
[2:22:47] items and
>> that are a coverage gap
[2:22:49] » and the significant significancy
I don't know if that's a word at 920
[2:22:55] » at 920 it sure is
>> uh on the capacity side there there's
[2:23:00] not a a a a quantitative formula for
that
[2:23:04] » correct
>> okay
[2:23:06] » there there are standards that we can
show and I I want to make sure I'm being
[2:23:09] clear there are standards that we can
show through those KPIs that these three
[2:23:14] existing towers are at capacity and
reaching exhaustion. There is not a
[2:23:20] court case that says it's okay if four
calls are dropped.
[2:23:26] » Understood.
Key performance indicators KPI.
[2:23:31] » Correct. Well, our the three sites that
are currently serving this area are at
[2:23:36] exhaustion. They are at capacity and
those are that is what's shown on on the
[2:23:40] graphs. um within our RF justification
that that those three sites
[2:23:47] » cannot handle traffic
>> at exhaustion
[2:23:50] » as a professional in the industry I mean
I don't know if that's a term of art but
[2:23:54] you think by any reasonable measure
people would say they're exhausted
[2:23:59] » correct
>> similar experts
[2:24:01] » correct and and and that point of
exhaustion is when you see slowed
[2:24:05] coverage or dropped calls
>> okay
[2:24:08] » or inability to access the work.
>> Thank you.
[2:24:13] » Thank you.
I did not bring up my other materials.
[2:24:17] So, if you'll excuse me, I'll go get our
Webster North material.
[2:24:20] » Sure. Thank you.
[2:24:25] » GBS
[2:24:28] GB
questions.
[2:24:37] I'm trying to follow the uh
attachments is very difficult since
[2:24:42] they're not labeled.
[2:24:48] » Sorry about that.
>> Y
[2:24:51] » um so for Webster North,
this is a slightly different history and
[2:24:58] also slightly different coverage and
capacity gap that I'll go into in more
[2:25:02] detail
for this Webster North site. I first
[2:25:06] want to acknowledge that this has been
before the town and we have been working
[2:25:11] with the town for many years to try to
solve a a real coverage gap in the
[2:25:17] Webster North cell and in this
neighborhood. It started about two years
[2:25:21] ago, maybe by now three years ago, uh
working with the town to try to identify
[2:25:26] sites that could be uh for locations for
a telecommunications tower that could
[2:25:32] serve and solve the coverage gap in this
neighborhood.
[2:25:36] There is a townowned property that is
well suited. It's in this neighborhood.
[2:25:42] Verizon entered into lease negotiations
with the town to lease the property from
[2:25:47] the town. Last summer, we were before
the town board to approve that lease.
[2:25:53] The town board ultimately decided not to
lease to Verizon, but that is a
[2:25:58] legislative act that is fully within the
town board's discretion. Just as we were
[2:26:03] talking about the landlord for wind
windmill farms uh having full discretion
[2:26:08] whether or not to lease to us, the town
of Webster as a landlord likewise has
[2:26:14] full discrepancy whether or not to lease
to us. The town board decided voted no
[2:26:21] again complete within their right. But I
do want to make that distinguish between
[2:26:25] distinguishment between what the town
board decided in a legislative act
[2:26:30] whether or not to lease to Verizon
versus what is before the zoning board
[2:26:34] of appeals tonight for a zoning
decision.
[2:26:44] » Just out of curiosity and maybe it's an
inappropriate question. If it is,
[2:26:48] » you don't have to answer.
[2:26:54] The the sense is that at the end of the
day, if this new tower is more than
[2:27:01] likely to go up somewhere to to address
this coverage area
[2:27:07] and and by the town previously [snorts]
determining legislatively
[2:27:13] it
for those not aware the first time the
[2:27:18] town had the ability to say no because
it was a question threshold question of
[2:27:22] ownership just like you said about the
uh u the the wind windmill farm
[2:27:30] somebody doesn't want to lease it you
can't force them
[2:27:32] » exactly right
>> but the inevitable fact though it seems
[2:27:36] that this tower is going to go up
covering the same area that the town
[2:27:39] previously legislated and says no we
don't want to lease it the reality of
[2:27:43] that occurring and what I suspect will
be residents at the new proposed
[2:27:48] location being as equally opposed
as to the prior location that the town
[2:27:54] owned.
Has Verizon
[2:27:59] considered approaching the town again or
renewing the application
[2:28:04] in light of the town's and I I'm not
saying that it's a good idea, bad idea,
[2:28:09] or I have any inside baseball
information,
[2:28:13] but but was that part I guess I guess
the town recognizing that this is going
[2:28:18] to go somewhere, would they reconsider
it given the fact that Verizon hasn't
[2:28:24] given up, if you will, of putting this
within the same coverage area. It's it's
[2:28:28] it's another bad question at 920, but
you you understand?
[2:28:32] » No, I I I do understand.
>> Um, candidly, that was part of the
[2:28:37] discussion with the town board last year
of that there is a coverage gap in this
[2:28:42] neighborhood. There is a real need for a
cell phone tower. If it is not here, it
[2:28:49] will be somewhere in this search area.
and the
[2:28:53] ability for the town board to put in um
restrictions or or concepts is available
[2:29:02] to them as a landlord that is not
available to them as a zoning authority.
[2:29:07] So that was very clearly stated to the
town board. It was very clearly stated
[2:29:13] during all of the discussions and in
going over the lease. So to us this is
[2:29:19] » was very well
>> explained to it was very transparent. We
[2:29:25] were very clear with the town board of
it it will go somewhere in this
[2:29:28] neighborhood
>> and ultimately is from Verizon's
[2:29:32] standpoint is that proposal still today
given all the criteria at least from
[2:29:38] your side of the ledger preferable to
what you're proposing at um what's the
[2:29:44] second? Yeah, the the 1222 wildflower I
you know I think candidly no we've where
[2:29:50] we started our initial conversation with
the town was the town offered and again
[2:29:56] I you know I it was very collaborative
relationship and it was um over a course
[2:30:02] of several years that these
conversations were happening
[2:30:05] » when the town and Verizon first started
the discussions the question has was
[2:30:11] only about that parcel so there was no
site selection there was no comparison
[2:30:15] of other locations. There were no um you
know going through the analysis of is
[2:30:20] there an alternative site because the
town had offered that as a as an option.
[2:30:27] Now doing the comparison between the
other sites. Uh after last summer when
[2:30:31] the town declined to enter into a lease,
Verizon looked at 11 other sites within
[2:30:37] that area and found a location that is I
I think preferable to Verizon to be so
[2:30:43] certainly
>> including the town site.
[2:30:46] » Correct. Yes. Because we after having
the ability to go through the selection
[2:30:50] process, this was you know deemed to be
a more preferable site.
[2:30:54] » Great. That's helpful. Thank you.
[2:30:58] So here I'll go you know I again won't
go over that public utility standard but
[2:31:04] the same criteria apply here that is a
diminished standard of review rather
[2:31:08] than the standard criteria set forth for
an area variance
[2:31:12] here the significant gap in coverage and
also in our application it's exhibit F
[2:31:17] and Q and again independently confirmed
by the times RF consultant there is a
[2:31:23] significant gap in wireless coverage in
in the Webster North cell. This area is
[2:31:28] currently s served by three distant
overburden sites. The two are the same
[2:31:33] serving that lake road. It is Webster
and four mile creek. And here the third
[2:31:38] tower is Webster Park. All three sites
have terrain and foliage challenges
[2:31:44] resulting in significant gaps in both
mid lowband and mid-band coverage here.
[2:31:49] Moreover, again, as we discussed on the
lake road site, actual utilization data
[2:31:54] for the past year shows that several key
performance indicators have already
[2:31:58] exceeded that 100% utilization, which
means the existing network cannot meet
[2:32:03] current demand.
The goal of this project is to increase
[2:32:07] network capacity, provide reliable
coverage to North Central Webster, and
[2:32:12] offload the traffic from those
overloaded sites.
[2:32:16] Interestingly, we had one member of the
public testify at a planning board
[2:32:20] meeting that she has no cell coverage in
her home and must leave her neighborhood
[2:32:24] to make a phone call. And her testimony
illustrates the exact problem that we're
[2:32:29] trying to solve with these coverage
charts. In exhibits F and Q
[2:32:33] specifically, this is page 14. It's
showing that Webster North cell the
[2:32:39] existing lowband coverage is akin to the
type of coverage one would have on a
[2:32:43] rural highway subject to variable
conditions such as fading and
[2:32:47] seasonality gaps. That means you know
items such as inhome use is very
[2:32:52] difficult if not non-existent in this
area.
[2:32:57] Likewise, there is little to no reliable
mid-band coverage in this area. And with
[2:33:03] this project, again, as demonstrated in
our application, the area would have
[2:33:08] wireless service that's appropriate for
suburban single family residential. So,
[2:33:12] this unlike the Lake Road site, uh that
the midband coverage was lower here in
[2:33:19] the in the north Webster North cell, uh
the the low band coverage is weaker.
[2:33:27] Like the lake road site, we did review
if this is the uh the if the proposed
[2:33:32] height is the minimum necessary to
provide effective coverage. Here again
[2:33:36] demonstrated on page 23 and 24 of
exhibit Q and again confirmed by the
[2:33:41] town's RF consultant. The supplemental
propagation plots compared coverage at
[2:33:46] the proposed 13 foot 130 foot antenna
center line. So again, as we discussed,
[2:33:53] it's 134 foot tower. That ACL then would
be at 130. We compared the 130 center
[2:34:01] line against a reduced height of a 111
ft antenna center line and a 91 ft
[2:34:07] antenna center line. In each scenario,
both low band and mid-band coverage are
[2:34:12] materially compromised due to area
clutter from the dense old growth
[2:34:16] forests in these neighborhoods. also
uh confirmed by the town's independent
[2:34:21] RF consultant that the reduced height
operations would create or expand even a
[2:34:27] weak signal area north of the site along
Schlego Road to the east, Schumacher
[2:34:32] Road to the west, and within the
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
[2:34:36] This is because in that neighborhood
there is significant tree coverage. Um,
[2:34:41] [clears throat]
and we demonstrated in our application.
[2:34:44] We had a drone go up to measure actually
where the tree canopy is. And the
[2:34:49] surrounding tree canopy and area clutter
reaches as high as 110 to 115 ft in this
[2:34:55] neighborhood. The proposed 130 foot
antenna [clears throat] then is
[2:34:59] necessary to get above that foliage so
that we can get across the clutter and
[2:35:04] provide uh sufficient coverage to this
area. It is the minimum clearance that's
[2:35:09] needed to maintain the effective RF
performance under these sight specific
[2:35:14] conditions.
As we just discussed, uh the Verizon did
[2:35:19] conduct an exhaustive alternative site
analysis after the town board declined
[2:35:24] entering into a [clears throat] lease
with Verizon last summer. Um we went
[2:35:28] through a site selection analysis
evaluating 11 candidates uh 11 parcels
[2:35:34] within and immediately outside the
search area.
[2:35:38] Interestingly, I'm sure you're familiar
with these area. These parcels are
[2:35:42] usually residential parcels. They're
quite small. Um there are wetland
[2:35:47] considerations back in along the um
the creek that's going up through the
[2:35:54] neighborhood. So there are a lot of
sight constraints when looking at how to
[2:35:58] serve and how to best serve coverage in
this neighborhood.
[2:36:03] As and this is all shown again in
exhibit G that the search area is
[2:36:07] heavily wooded and consists
predominantly of those smaller
[2:36:10] residential lots and wetlands which
again uh severely limit the available
[2:36:14] options in order for a site to be placed
to meet the setbacks.
[2:36:18] The selected site at uh 1222 Wildflower
Drive is the only candidate that's both
[2:36:24] technically viable from an RF
perspective and was available for lease.
[2:36:28] This parcel also meets all the
applicable setback requirements.
[2:36:32] The remaining candidates, so those other
T those other 10 candidates were
[2:36:37] eliminated due to parkland or wetland
constraints. the landlorder land owners
[2:36:42] were unwilling to enter into
negotiations or they weren't able to
[2:36:46] satisfy the RF coverage objections from
the locations and those candidly are
[2:36:51] predominantly the areas located outside
the search area. They were not
[2:36:54] sufficient to meet the RF needs.
We've collaborated with municipal staff
[2:36:59] and stakeholders over several years. We
conducted an exhaustive search that
[2:37:03] extended beyond the defined search area
and identified and evaluated every
[2:37:08] technically feasible site that we could
locate in the vicinity. The record
[2:37:12] contains no evidence of alternative
sites that have not already been
[2:37:15] thoroughly reviewed and considered.
As we discussed for the Lake Road site,
[2:37:20] the project will have no adverse
environmental or community impacts.
[2:37:24] Again, here local boards are expressly
preempted from denying or conditioning
[2:37:29] approvals of wireless facilities based
on health or environmental effects of RF
[2:37:33] emissions where facilities comply with
the FCC standards. Here those standards
[2:37:38] um similar to the other application are
evidenced in exhibit O to the
[2:37:41] application.
We'll also note that that tree height uh
[2:37:46] that mature tree cover that is
necessitating needing this area variance
[2:37:51] to go up to the 135 ft tower that also
provides coverage though and screening
[2:37:57] of the tower from residents. If you
think when you're in a densely forested
[2:38:01] area or or a a a an area that has a lot
of tall tree growth, when you are in the
[2:38:08] neighborhood itself, you will be looking
up through the trees, which will
[2:38:12] certainly screen the effect of looking
at the ant looking at the antenna. Oh my
[2:38:18] goodness. Looking at the antenna when
you're actually located in the
[2:38:21] neighborhood. As shown in those photo
simulations, you will be able to see the
[2:38:25] tower from a distance, but from the
neighbor neighborhood itself, that tree
[2:38:29] coverage should provide uh some
substantial natural screening of the
[2:38:33] tower from the area residents. Again,
like the lake road site, the project
[2:38:37] will not pollute. It does not create
noise. It does not increase traffic. It
[2:38:41] does not create a demand on governmental
services. It is an alert facility that
[2:38:45] enhances envir enhances emergency
communications and allows the residents
[2:38:51] to make a call from their house and
really solve a coverage gap that that is
[2:38:57] real and existing in this neighborhood
and has been um an area we've been
[2:39:01] working on for many years.
>> Do you have any questions on this
[2:39:06] particular application?
Um, so as I'm looking at the
[2:39:12] the simulations,
um, and Erica, do you mind going to the
[2:39:17] simulations,
the image simulations?
[2:39:22] » What exhibit?
>> It is exhibit J K. Exhibit K of the
[2:39:27] original application.
[2:39:46] Yes. Yep, that's it.
[2:39:54] » So, where in this photo is the cell
tower?
[2:39:59] » There's two red balloons.
>> Yeah, the balloons.
[2:40:03] between the two trees.
>> Right in the middle.
[2:40:04] » Yep. Right in the middle.
>> Yeah. Okay.
[2:40:06] » Yeah. So, the you'll see the orange
balloons, there's a leader balloon, and
[2:40:10] then the second balloon is actually
where the tower height will be. So, it's
[2:40:14] the the top balloon is just holding up
this the second balloon, but the second
[2:40:19] balloon is where the
>> is up there first.
[2:40:23] » Top is just helped from a distance.
>> Gotcha. Thank you.
[2:40:27] » So then, yeah. So this first page in the
photo simulation showing the balloon
[2:40:32] that's simulating the height of the
tower. Again, it's that second second
[2:40:36] balloon down that showing that tower
height. And then the following page is a
[2:40:41] a photo simulation of what the cell
phone tower would look like shown at
[2:40:45] that height from that distance.
[2:40:51] » And then that's repeated from different
>> angles.
[2:40:54] » Angles. Thank you. Yeah, different
angles. Um, and where the locations of
[2:41:00] the photos are taken is on the first
page of exhibit K.
[2:41:09] » Okay.
Um, one of the neighbors uh in a letter
[2:41:14] to the town raised a question about the
height
[2:41:19] given the uh the tree the canopy the
tree canopy and what happens if the tree
[2:41:24] canopy gets higher
[2:41:28] » that is that so we we are here because
the tree canopy is higher than 100 ft.
[2:41:34] So your code is reflective of tree
heights that that are are no longer
[2:41:40] prevalent. I am not an arborist. I don't
know what the extent of the tree height
[2:41:44] would be. There's only so much higher we
can go and demonstrate that need. Um,
[2:41:52] I'm certainly I'm certain we would
welcome a taller tower at this time, but
[2:41:56] you know, we are trying to be respectful
and mindful of only ask for the height
[2:42:00] that is needed to meet the RF needs and
the coverage gap that exists today. So
[2:42:05] that 135 ft is demonstrating what is
needed to meet the RF coverage today. I
[2:42:13] don't know what the the future is 20
years from now if it it will need to be
[2:42:18] extended, but certainly from today's RF
needs. Being below that tree line is is
[2:42:26] not meeting the RF coverage. Being at
100 ft is not meeting the RF coverage.
[2:42:30] Being at that 135, that's what is going
to provide
[2:42:35] a meaningful RF coverage solution for
many years to come.
[2:42:56] So I I have a
guess I guess it's a question. Um
[2:43:03] what
all the data now is showing this is
[2:43:09] needed. um firsthand experience. Used to
live in this neighborhood, don't live in
[2:43:15] this neighborhood anymore. Um used to
call Verizon on a regular basis. No cell
[2:43:21] phone service.
>> Um their response was, "You have perfect
[2:43:25] cell phone service. You shouldn't have
an issue. I had to go and I had to leave
[2:43:30] my house, go down to the end of the
street to get cell phone service."
[2:43:34] So
what
[2:43:39] you are now telling me they don't have
cell phone ser you know they don't have
[2:43:43] coverage they were telling me they did
have coverage
[2:43:47] what which is it right I mean I guess is
is where my struggle is to have a
[2:43:53] corporation tell me which you should be
fine there shouldn't be any issues well
[2:43:59] now they want something now they're here
saying well we don't have coverage So
[2:44:04] again, year years have passed.
>> Mhm.
[2:44:06] » Right. So I understand that there's more
cell phone usage now. The technology has
[2:44:12] changed. I I get all that. But
help me understand how they go from
[2:44:19] it's no problem, which I could I can
tell you completely different from drop
[2:44:24] calls and everything else to now now
they want something and now they need
[2:44:30] it. No, I I you know, you're exactly
right. Years have gone by. Capacity and
[2:44:36] usage is very different even where we
were five years from now. Um, you know,
[2:44:41] I don't want to speak to what the answer
was when when you called the
[2:44:45] salesperson, right? That's our villain
today,
[2:44:47] » right? [laughter]
>> But here, you know, we do have an RF
[2:44:51] need. We have an RF coverage gap. We
have that evidence before the the ZBA.
[2:44:57] We have the evidence that it was then
supported by the RF consultant. But
[2:45:01] you're exactly right to ask those
questions. Those are very typical of a
[2:45:05] municipality to ask. It is what the
planning board asked of why should we
[2:45:09] believe you? We're just looking at your
data. Um and that's exactly why the
[2:45:13] planning board and then the planning
board asked the town board and the town
[2:45:17] board engaged an independent RF
consultant for for that exact question.
[2:45:21] It is typical of municipalities to ask.
It's certainly a fair question to ask,
[2:45:26] but that has resulted in the RF
consultant being engaged by the town.
[2:45:31] Why you were told there was coverage
years ago? You know, I I don't know, but
[2:45:35] I can very confidently say, as you
experience,
[2:45:39] » you're not being gaslight gas lit. There
is a coverage problem in this
[2:45:43] neighborhood. You are correct.
>> And they're trying to upgrade.
[2:45:47] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[2:45:49] » What a good segue to bring in the town.
>> Yes. I I think uh unless anybody has any
[2:45:54] any questions for this site, um let's
bring out the
[2:46:00] uh the town expert.
[2:46:05] Come on up.
[2:46:10] » Uh good evening. I'm William Johnson,
hired as the uh technical expert on
[2:46:15] these uh two sites. uh my colleague,
Professor Stephen Chikarelli and I uh we
[2:46:21] don't advocate for towers. We also don't
uh uh lobby against them. Uh we try to
[2:46:27] make sure that the planning boards and
zoning boards have the information in a
[2:46:30] factual uh manner that allows them to
then do a even-handed uh analysis of the
[2:46:37] uh situation. Uh I wanted to go back to
uh attorney to Marco's question. I I
[2:46:43] just want to be sure that was answered.
You asked the question about the lake
[2:46:46] road site that if capacity had not been
the issue uh would there be a need for a
[2:46:52] tower at this site. The answer to that
is no. Uh but that's not the situation.
[2:46:57] The situation is there is a capacity
issue and uh the number of users in that
[2:47:02] area are overusing
the existing adjacent sites. So in order
[2:47:07] to fix that problem, it isn't adding
radio frequency coverage. That's a
[2:47:12] solution. it's drawing traffic from
those sites to a more uh localized tower
[2:47:17] which will then support those particular
users. So I hope that perhaps you had
[2:47:22] your question answered but I wasn't sure
that uh it was put in those sort of
[2:47:27] terms.
>> No, I I appreciate that and and it was
[2:47:29] it was it was that coupled with the
quantitative
[2:47:33] » right
>> u measurement if there is one or it's
[2:47:38] kind of you know it when you see it type
of thing.
[2:47:40] » Yeah. on that particular point. So in in
wireless communications terms, uh it's
[2:47:47] it's sort of a soft failure. Okay, it
isn't like all of a sudden you have no
[2:47:51] service at all, but when you start
hitting capacity at a site, everybody
[2:47:56] has to share the same bandwidth, which
means everybody gets less time on that
[2:48:01] particular uh uh base station. And when
that gets to be too reduced, that's when
[2:48:06] this saturation problem starts to
happen. So it's possible in both of
[2:48:11] these locations that at times during the
day uh particularly talking about north
[2:48:17] uh wipes north site uh there is no
strong server in that area either at low
[2:48:22] band or mid-band but that doesn't mean
that somebody might on occasion be able
[2:48:27] to get a call. Uh they they may be
holding their their phone to the right
[2:48:31] ear and [snorts] the base station's over
here whereas if they spin around they're
[2:48:37] going to be facing the base station. So,
so the cranium does absorb some of the
[2:48:40] electromagnetic energy and can make the
difference between a call that goes
[2:48:44] through or doesn't go through. If you're
sitting in an automobile trying to make
[2:48:47] a call, of course, with your hands-free
device, a truck or another vehicle pulls
[2:48:52] up alongside you waiting at a
intersection, uh that may be the
[2:48:56] difference between a call that it goes
through or doesn't go through. So, it's
[2:48:59] a it's a soft failure that occurs. So
it's there's no hard and fast rule, but
[2:49:05] the the metrics that come out of those
soft failures are what are documented on
[2:49:10] those plots, right? You're see you're
seeing times that it it spikes and
[2:49:14] you're seeing times that it drops down
again below the 100% level. So it it you
[2:49:20] know doesn't mean it's always impossible
to make a call. It's just that it
[2:49:24] becomes less and less likely to get that
kind of reliability.
[2:49:27] » So if I have less in my cranium, that's
a reason why I've never missed a call.
[2:49:31] [laughter]
And that's why you and I can make phone
[2:49:33] calls very well. Some of our colleagues
staff u the u uh yeah so so I guess we I
[2:49:41] guess we'll just leave it at that. We
won't go too deep into that.
[2:49:43] » U so um u attorney uh Smith has made a
very good presentation. I was hearing a
[2:49:50] lot of the jargon that was in my report
and you know of course it's a common uh
[2:49:57] you know wireless is something that that
they work in every day and something
[2:50:01] that professor Chikarelli and I work on
every day too. So not surprising that
[2:50:04] there's some uh connection between these
two. Uh it probably would be easiest if
[2:50:10] you had questions for me uh that I can
try to answer. I I have no disagreement
[2:50:16] with anything that Attorney Smith told
you. Uh, Professor Chikarelli and I have
[2:50:21] looked at the uh, changes in height for
the proposed tower. Uh, we have met
[2:50:26] twice online with Verizon's radio
frequency engineers and we talked
[2:50:30] engineering, right? Is is what can be
done? What's going on? Where's the
[2:50:34] really important non-negotiable areas?
And, you know, some of that is actually
[2:50:39] on the shore of the lake. Uh, if I had a
flashlight and I was trying to shine it
[2:50:44] over a piece of furniture, if I was
close to that piece of furniture, I
[2:50:48] really don't have to go very high. But
if I get back away from that escarment
[2:50:52] and I and I try to reach over the top of
that sofa, I I have to get higher in
[2:50:57] order to do that. Terrain is certainly
an issue. Uh, loss of signal inside
[2:51:03] foliage that's around where the tower is
located, that's an issue. Uh, all those
[2:51:08] things are called clutter. So terrain
and obstacles are clutter to the radio
[2:51:13] frequency signal. It has to get up above
those in order to be very effective in
[2:51:17] terms of collocation. Uh the site's
being built to have two colloccators.
[2:51:22] Very perceptive question and I forget
who asked that uh question. That means
[2:51:25] that if someone comes in to colllocate,
they're going to have to go lower. And
[2:51:29] you will see the effect in the
propagation plots of what that looks
[2:51:33] like. It reduces the footprint, the area
that the uh base station can uh service
[2:51:39] and they would have to deal with that or
they would have to propose another tower
[2:51:43] uh or put an extension on the existing
tower uh to get it up above so that they
[2:51:47] get a bigger footprint and that would be
a question for the planning board. It
[2:51:50] would be a question for you uh to go and
look through this again to try to figure
[2:51:54] out what's what's appropriate to do. Are
there other ways that these could be
[2:52:00] solved? Uh if you if you you know were
in an airplane and you were looking at
[2:52:04] you know from 20,000 ft up you would see
a bunch of base stations that are you
[2:52:09] know scattered throughout the area.
There's nothing that says you couldn't
[2:52:13] put
7 10 15 100 foot towers 90 foot towers
[2:52:20] in an area. Uh it would be essentially
the same cost per tower to put that in.
[2:52:25] So I'm not going to get into the
finances of it. Okay. But you're
[2:52:29] putting, you know, you're not you're not
putting something just on a pole that's
[2:52:32] 10 or 15 feet up in the air. You're
putting a tower that's probably going to
[2:52:36] be up in the 80 to 90 foot range uh to
cover a parochially small area because
[2:52:41] of the trees and because of the radio
frequency obstacles. And every single
[2:52:45] one of those sites, you're going to be
having a hearing like this and you're
[2:52:48] going to have opposition from residents
uh for those. So, you know, minimum
[2:52:54] impact on the community, uh, and
possibly the feasibility of doing
[2:52:59] something like I just described, those
have to be balanced and they have to
[2:53:03] weigh in. Okay, this this site is a
single site. U, it will provide the
[2:53:08] coverage that Verizon needs to have.
There is a gap whether it's capacity or
[2:53:13] coverage in both of those locations. And
the heights that Verizon is proposing
[2:53:18] from a engineering point of view looking
at the propagation plots uh seems to be
[2:53:23] that those are the minimum heights that
they actually need to get those kind of
[2:53:27] that kind of service. And one last
comment before I uh stand by uh
[2:53:34] the question is is there really a gap
here or is because we're looking at
[2:53:37] Verizon's information, right? We're
looking at propagation plots. We're
[2:53:40] looking at uh information that comes
from about the key performance
[2:53:44] indicators. There's a lot of that
information that you or I can't
[2:53:49] independently generate. Okay, I don't
have access to get inside their switch.
[2:53:53] I wish I did, but I'm not a hacker. Uh,
but if I could get in there and look at
[2:53:57] those key performance indicators myself,
then my guess is I would probably see
[2:54:01] what they have presented to us uh
tonight. There is a website that's
[2:54:05] called opensignal.com.
All one word, open signal. and uh you
[2:54:11] can load that onto your smartphone and
then there are features on that where
[2:54:15] you can actually look at a map and see
what the coverage is for the various
[2:54:20] carriers. So, Professor Cheryl and I did
that uh because we just do that as a
[2:54:25] matter of course trying to look to see,
you know, is there an independent
[2:54:28] confirmation? Uh it matches pretty well
to what's happening in uh Webster North.
[2:54:34] Now we don't have that information uh at
uh uh Lake Road and County Line Road and
[2:54:41] that's because there already are some
existing sites that are there. Uh so
[2:54:45] there are some calls that are actually
going through there is radio frequency
[2:54:49] coverage but what I can tell you is the
Webster North site uh shows I I actually
[2:54:53] put their propagation plot and the uh
information from open signal.com uh over
[2:54:59] the top of each other and it almost
predicted uh what Verizon has has
[2:55:04] produced. So, Professor Chikarelli and
I, even though he's not here tonight,
[2:55:07] I'm going to speak for him that that uh
we're we're very convinced that the
[2:55:11] information you're looking at is valid
information and uh it could be
[2:55:15] independently confirmed, but I don't
think you need to do that. Uh I I've
[2:55:20] been involved with doing this type of
work probably for the last 30 uh years
[2:55:25] or so, and early on in that the
propagation tools were not very
[2:55:29] accurate. Uh, currently the propagation
tools compared to an actual drive test
[2:55:34] where you put an antenna on the roof of
a car and run it around the roads. We
[2:55:38] can't get into people's backyards, but
we can be on the on the main roads. If
[2:55:42] you put those things over the top of
each other, like the open signal.com uh
[2:55:46] exercise that I described, uh, you see a
very good correlation in present day
[2:55:52] between what is being uh, shown in the
simulation and what's actually real
[2:55:56] world uh, measurements. If we were
having this conversation 30 years ago, I
[2:56:00] wouldn't be able to be quite that
authoritative about it. Uh there was big
[2:56:03] discrepancies between the propagation
tools and the actual performance. Uh but
[2:56:07] these days, the reliability of that
information is pretty pretty good. So I
[2:56:11] hope that helps you. Uh and I be happy
to answer questions if you have them.
[2:56:17] » Thank you for that because that was
actually going to be one of my questions
[2:56:20] is where where did you get the data
from? Okay.
[2:56:22] » Came from Verizon. Um, but you were able
to at least one of the sites do an
[2:56:27] independent confirmation.
>> Um, and that lined up pretty well. Um,
[2:56:33] over the course of your career doing
this, how well does Verizon's data play
[2:56:41] nicely or line up?
You know, [clears throat] follow what
[2:56:47] I'm asking?
>> I I I I follow what you're asking. So uh
[2:56:51] when you when you do this type of work
and you engage with the technical folks
[2:56:56] at on the other side of the fence uh
with Verizon you do develop uh some
[2:57:00] familiarity with who the people are that
you're dealing with. Uh so we do have
[2:57:04] some very honest conversations uh about
these sort of things about how accurate
[2:57:09] is this and and where where are things
settling uh settling in. Uh Verizon has
[2:57:14] been very good uh you know at least at
least talking to their technical folks
[2:57:20] which is you know where professor
Chikarelli and I spend our time is
[2:57:23] talking to their engineers. Uh there has
always been a collaborative you know
[2:57:28] pretty much they're not scared to show
us what they can show us. Uh, you know,
[2:57:32] sometimes they show us some good stuff
that that uh, you know, perhaps wasn't
[2:57:36] actually entered into the record. Like
we've seen the video for the for the
[2:57:40] drone flight, right? It was wasn't just
still photographs, but it was actually a
[2:57:44] rotating drone video uh, that showed us
what the tree heights were, which is why
[2:57:48] we're fairly convinced that to go lower
than the proposed height would now start
[2:57:53] to put those antennas down into the tree
line. Uh, you've got four photographs.
[2:57:57] We've got a north north south east and
west uh photograph but those are very
[2:58:01] representative of what the actual video
shows but I don't think they can easily
[2:58:05] put that video into record to do that
but professor chigarella and I did look
[2:58:09] at those at those things and there's
other things like that that we try to
[2:58:12] just cross check
>> uh so I I have a very high confidence
[2:58:16] that the material that you've been
provided is is good not that not just
[2:58:20] for this particular case but uh for the
last couple of decades they've been very
[2:58:25] straightforward. Thank you. Um,
I think this has already been answered,
[2:58:30] but I'm going to ask it anyway. Uh,
tower height and the lease. Ultimately,
[2:58:36] take the lease aside,
regardless of if Verizon decides to
[2:58:42] lease out or not, the height that is
proposed is the height that is necessary
[2:58:46] for the coverage that has been
identified to be able to um to increase
[2:58:52] coverage, to increase capacity. Correct.
Anything lower really isn't going to
[2:58:57] meet the needs of of the area.
>> Yeah, that that's our opinion and we
[2:59:01] actually asked for that material to be
put in the record uh so that you had it
[2:59:04] so that you could also see the
comparison, but that's the same
[2:59:07] materials we looked at. We didn't look
at anything different than what you're
[2:59:10] seeing.
>> Perfect.
[2:59:11] » So what what they're asking for is the
absolute minimum to pro what they're
[2:59:15] asking for is the absolute minimum to
provide coverage, not necessarily for
[2:59:18] the densification of the network.
Yeah, this is yeah, those those heights
[2:59:22] that are being proposed are at or near,
you know, I try to fudge that just a
[2:59:27] little bit, right? It if it was two feet
lower or two feet higher, it's not going
[2:59:31] to make a huge difference, right? That
that that antenna center line is what
[2:59:34] they need to offload the adjacent sites
for capacity issues, but particularly in
[2:59:39] Webster North to provide new coverage
because there's areas there that just
[2:59:43] don't have any coverage at all.
>> Okay. Thank you. does um you know you
[2:59:50] drive through the aderondex the
Catskills um there are cell towers that
[2:59:55] have um
provided
[3:00:00] awful aesthetic but aesthetic uh
enhancements [snorts] to try and hide
[3:00:04] them. Um do those enhancements affect
the coverage area?
[3:00:11] » If if we're talking low band, it doesn't
affect it so much. uh it's it's feasible
[3:00:17] to do that. There are a lot of stealth
sites that are in the area uh at low
[3:00:20] band. Uh now when you go to the
mid-band, it's higher frequency. So
[3:00:25] putting the artificial limbs on on the
trees and putting leaves out in front of
[3:00:29] the antennas. So you know these are
plastic, right? So that they don't
[3:00:33] actually absorb the uh uh energy. Uh but
it turns out that those do enough things
[3:00:38] with defraction of the radio waves to
disrupt how the antenna was designed to
[3:00:42] perform. So there is some degradation
and we have Verizon I say we Verizon put
[3:00:49] a site in in Pittsver. It's a stealth
site that's in a bell tower in uh the
[3:00:55] the town of Pittsver and uh was a very
nice uh site. It works pretty well for
[3:01:00] for low band, but uh for the midband uh
there are some problems. And there's
[3:01:05] problems when you have a a dialectric
material, plastic material, and you try
[3:01:09] to shoot a signal sideways through that
material. If you're shooting straight
[3:01:13] on, it's way radar uh systems, you see
those rotating, you know, radar beams or
[3:01:17] the big domes that are the weather
radar, that signal is shooting straight
[3:01:21] through that plastic material, but when
it shoots through at an angle, uh
[3:01:24] there's there's very bad things that
happen to the radio signal. But that's
[3:01:27] that's part of the RF engineering, and
that's one of the reasons stealth sites
[3:01:31] are uh not preferred. But if they're
necessary, there's some degradation in
[3:01:36] technical performance for the advantage
of an aesthetic improvement. A 135 ft
[3:01:42] artificial tree, okay, may may be a
little bit questionable. Okay. Or 125
[3:01:48] foot artificial tree might be a little
bit question standing by itself, but
[3:01:51] that's a m matter for the planning board
and for you folks to consider.
[3:01:55] » Understood. Other questions from the
board before I open up to the public? I
[3:01:59] would say that any type of at that
height, if you're going to create a fake
[3:02:05] tree, it's going to stick out as fake
tree anyhow. In my opinion, worse than a
[3:02:10] monopole would be,
>> but that's an opinion, not a question.
[3:02:15] » Other questions before I [clears throat]
open up to the public? Not
[3:02:18] » yet.
>> So, I'd like to open up to the public
[3:02:21] who whoever may want to speak for or
against this project.
[3:02:26] » Which one? [snorts] Um
when you when you come up if
[3:02:33] » can can I have them come up for either
site and just specify which site John?
[3:02:39] » Yeah that's fine.
>> Okay. So just specify what site you are
[3:02:42] speaking for or against?
>> Webster North.
[3:02:44] » Webster North. Thank you.
[clears throat]
[3:02:46] » Hi.
>> Can we before the public starts? We just
[3:02:50] for the minutes I think it's cleaner if
we keep them separate for the public
[3:02:55] hearings.
>> Okay. Then let's do Webster North then
[3:02:58] first since you're the first one up.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[3:03:00] » Yep.
>> Uh my name is Jared Pashard. I [cough]
[3:03:03] live at 632 Pine Lakes Trail and I'm
here tonight to speak on behalf of
[3:03:09] Webster Presbyterian Church. They have
heard of the opposition to this cell
[3:03:14] phone tower. No one really wants it in
their backyard. They understand that and
[3:03:20] they are very sympathetic to the
community and they would like to make
[3:03:24] this offer to both the town, the zoning,
the planning board and Verizon that the
[3:03:31] Webster Presbyterian Church located at
550 Webster Road would be very open to
[3:03:38] the cell phone tower being put on their
property.
[3:03:42] That I hope you consider. They have a a
a decentsized piece of property and it
[3:03:48] would really virtually affect very
limited amount of houses. I think only
[3:03:53] one home and even that's questionable.
So, I hope this board takes that to
[3:03:59] consideration and Verizon does as well
because this is a very generous offer
[3:04:05] from this comm my church and um it might
help alleviate some of the anxiety that
[3:04:12] that homeowners are having.
>> Thank you for your time.
[3:04:17] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[3:04:18] » Others who want to speak for or against
uh Webster North,
[3:04:24] » come on up. Speak your name and address.
[3:04:32] » My name is Barbara Robbins and I live at
1205 Wildflower Drive in Webster and I
[3:04:40] had submitted a petition with 95
signatures to the town planning board.
[3:04:47] And I actually was the only person who
walked around the neighborhood and spoke
[3:04:52] to all of the residents and obtained
signatures from people. And the
[3:04:58] individuals
that had problems with their cell phone
[3:05:03] coverage were all Verizon customers.
There were no other carriers that
[3:05:10] expressed individuals that expressed
issues with their coverage other than
[3:05:16] Verizon. I know a few people um after
talking with um Verizon, they offered
[3:05:24] them the additional uh boosters to put
into their homes so that it would help
[3:05:30] them. There were other individuals that
said no matter if they had something in
[3:05:35] their house or not, if they stood in a
corner, they couldn't get coverage
[3:05:39] unless they walked out their front door.
It's not that we don't want people in
[3:05:44] our neighborhood to have coverage
because I feel that's important for
[3:05:47] anybody who wants to have a cell phone,
but our neighborhood is made up of very
[3:05:55] large trees. And that is part of why we
purchased the home that we did 24 years
[3:06:01] ago. My husband, when we were looking to
move from the Maplewood neighborhood to
[3:06:06] out here to Webster, he didn't want to
look for a new development because we
[3:06:12] didn't want a six-foot tree in our yard.
We wanted a tree that was taller than
[3:06:18] our home.
And we don't want to see, you know, the
[3:06:24] trees be cut down or in a few years if
this tower that's 139 ft, you know, 39
[3:06:32] ft above what the town has right now as
the height for towers and things. Um,
[3:06:41] are they going to have to go in and cut
down trees? The gentleman over here,
[3:06:46] John, he asked attorney Smith a question
about what happens when the trees
[3:06:52] continue to grow. It really that Verizon
didn't need to come back and ask for
[3:06:59] additional approval if the height of the
tower or the pole was increased. It
[3:07:05] would just be that they could just
increase it at random. When I walk out
[3:07:10] my front door at 1205 Wildflower Drive,
I'm going to see that tower across the
[3:07:19] street. We thought that having it
camouflage [clears throat] was going to
[3:07:24] be an option.
We had not heard nor have I read
[3:07:28] anything where it ever stated, you know,
that it impeded the um the radio
[3:07:34] frequency. So, that in and of itself is
another concern. I know people that live
[3:07:40] up the street from us, they have a pool
in their backyard. Um,
[3:07:45] this tower is going to be right off the
side of their yard. They own about three
[3:07:51] and a half or 4 acres
and it's just not something that's
[3:07:57] really conducive. We don't even realize
if where this tower is looking to be
[3:08:04] built.
Are they going to be clearing out a lot
[3:08:08] of the um trees that are in that
property in order to get this back in
[3:08:14] there?
>> So, uh one thing I want to address, if
[3:08:17] Verizon has to go taller,
they do have to come back to the zoning
[3:08:24] board to go taller.
>> They do.
[3:08:26] » Yep. because the motion will be for us
uh for this particular tower will be for
[3:08:34] a height of it was I think it's 139 ft.
Um so if they want to go another 10 ft
[3:08:42] taller because the trees have grown they
will have to come back to the zoning
[3:08:46] board for that. I they probably don't
have to go to the planning board, but
[3:08:51] they will have to come back to the
zoning board because the the height
[3:08:55] the zoning board is restricting it to
that height.
[3:08:58] » Okay. So,
>> and because they're leasing the land
[3:09:01] from the owner, I doubt whether their
lease gives them approval to trim down
[3:09:06] the trees to whatever height they want,
but that would be between Verizon and
[3:09:10] the land owner,
>> but it's unlikely that they would. I
[3:09:14] would very much encourage though for
them to look at the Presbyterian site. I
[3:09:18] mean, we do walk around the block. It is
probably something that still could be
[3:09:23] seen, but it wouldn't be in the direct
area and it wouldn't have all kinds of
[3:09:29] forest that's going to affect it.
>> Y understood.
[3:09:35] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[3:09:36] » Thank you.
>> Does anybody else want to speak for or
[3:09:39] against uh the North site?
[3:09:47] Hi folks, Kevin Lockard, [clears throat]
town of Webster Street.
[3:09:51] Why don't we just make a local law that
says that the town boards can do
[3:09:54] whatever they want around here?
I've haven't seen this much theatrics
[3:09:59] around a town board in
well, probably a few weeks.
[3:10:05] But you guys are doing this big
theatrical performance tonight, I guess,
[3:10:10] about
whether to approve a 39 ft variance or
[3:10:14] an area variance.
You guys know what you have to do
[3:10:18] because the town code dictates what your
decisions have to be. So, I knew the
[3:10:23] outcome of this meeting prior to coming
into this meeting, and you guys know the
[3:10:28] outcome of this meeting prior to coming
into this meeting. So, why the
[3:10:32] three-hour long theatrical performance,
I suppose, is my question. It's not
[3:10:37] really being fair to folks. Now, we do
[clears throat] have to make sure that
[3:10:41] we supplement the record and that it's
diligently pursued, for lack of a better
[3:10:45] term. So, I think that you guys
are required to go and inspect the
[3:10:52] Presbyterian Church on Webster Road to
determine whether it's less intrusive.
[3:10:59] There's a real hardship here regarding
the residents over on Wildflower.
[3:11:04] All the neighboring houses are going to
have their property values diminished
[3:11:09] because of the aesthetics and because of
the the perception of the cell phone
[3:11:13] tower. So
the least that you could that you folks
[3:11:19] can do and I know there's a lot of
talking from Verizon. There's we have an
[3:11:25] independent contractor with lots of
information. But what you guys need to
[3:11:29] do is actually very simple, which is
deny the deny the height variance for
[3:11:37] these folks because I'm look I'm looking
at you guys and I'm thinking these guys
[3:11:44] work for the developers.
That's what that's what I think when I
[3:11:49] see you guys here and I look at you
guys. I think these folks work for the
[3:11:54] developers
because it's so clear in our town code
[3:12:00] that there is a maximum height allowance
of developments in the town of Webster
[3:12:06] for 100 ft. But somehow the town code
doesn't apply to Verizon Wireless.
[3:12:13] And there's a discussion, will more
micro towers
[3:12:18] produce more hardship if they build
micro towers to fulfill the to fill in
[3:12:22] the coverage gap. I don't think that's
the point that the residents are trying
[3:12:27] to make. I think they're saying first of
all, follow the town code as it's
[3:12:31] written, which is really like your
number one job description. Follow the
[3:12:35] town code. Second, fulfill make sure to
diligently fulfill the record, which
[3:12:41] yeah, i.e. go and inspect the press. I
think you're actually required to go and
[3:12:45] inspect the Webster Road Presbyterian
Church site at this point.
[3:12:51] So when you know go and do that, please.
Because if that if that results in less
[3:12:57] hardship,
that's what you
[3:13:02] need to be doing.
The third issue, and I'm just going to
[3:13:06] restate it before closing, is as far as
the 39 foot height variance, we should
[3:13:15] we should
end that argument, end that whole
[3:13:19] discussion right now. Absolutely not.
Because again, our town code says
[3:13:26] 100 foot max. So what's the deal? Why
are you having this argument saying the
[3:13:33] developers and you guys shouldn't have
to follow our town code? It is so it
[3:13:40] could not be clearer. Follow our town
code.
[3:13:45] And guess what? We're going to have to
change our town code so that cell towers
[3:13:51] cannot be built on residential
properties because that's what caused
[3:13:55] this whole dilemma for these residents
to begin with. For some reason,
[3:14:03] the town code says that the cell towers
can be built on residential properties.
[3:14:09] » Can can you limit your comments to the
application?
[3:14:13] » Sure, John. What's what what what
comment is not relative to the
[3:14:18] application?
>> I'm not answering your questions. I'm
[3:14:19] asking you to limit yours because it's
10 10:10. We can call the meeting rather
[3:14:24] have the public be heard. So just keep
your comments limited to the
[3:14:28] application. It would be helpful.
>> What what comment was not limited to the
[3:14:31] application?
>> Unfortunately, I don't have to answer
[3:14:33] your questions, but I'm just asking if
you would
[3:14:35] » You're answering John. You're answering
a question right now. I didn't ask
[3:14:39] Kevin. Do you have any more comments?
>> Call the next speaker. Did did you guys
[3:14:42] understand what is expected of you
tonight?
[3:14:45] » Kevin, we understand what's expected of
us. Do you have any more comments for
[3:14:48] us?
>> I'll trust that you guys will do the
[3:14:49] right thing. Thank you guys.
>> Um, any any additional comments for
[3:14:53] Webster North?
[3:15:01] » Yeah. My name is Mark Robbins. I'm uh
Barb's husband. I live at 1205
[3:15:06] Wildflower. And I just wanted to uh
clarify something for John. He he uh you
[3:15:12] asked a question earlier about the the
town's um location on Wildflower Drive.
[3:15:21] Um I guess there's a water treatment
plant that was originally considered. Um
[3:15:26] that's only about 250 or so feet away
from what's being proposed now. And it's
[3:15:33] not clear to me and I I would like an
answer specifically why why
[3:15:37] [clears throat] the town rejected that.
I mean, it's their right, you know,
[3:15:42] it's, you know, as was stated
legislatively, but we didn't get an
[3:15:46] answer technically why that was turned
down from that particular site
[3:15:50] initially.
>> So, I just wanted to clarify that it's
[3:15:53] only a few hundred feet away from what's
being proposed.
[3:15:56] » Yeah.
>> So,
[3:16:02] you know, when the town board voted,
they didn't each board member didn't
[3:16:06] have to give his or her reasons,
>> right? My guess is if you went back and
[3:16:10] you looked at the tape, you could
probably surmise, if not individually,
[3:16:15] collectively what what the stated
reasons were. And it and it may very
[3:16:20] well be if you were to call the
individual town board members, at least
[3:16:25] two of which are new, I believe, I don't
believe voted on that. So, three of
[3:16:33] them, if you were to call them and ask
them, they they may tell you. I don't
[3:16:35] know whether they will or not. But the
the reason why I had asked the question
[3:16:38] was if the town considered to revisit
it. And I'm not saying that they're
[3:16:44] interested or not interested, how it
compares with the proposed site. And I
[3:16:50] guess for whatever reason, I was
surprised to learn that apparently the
[3:16:53] proposed site from Verizon standpoint
and coverage and capacity apparently is
[3:16:58] superior. I don't know by how much, if
it's just slight or it's significant to
[3:17:03] what they're uh proposing now,
>> but it is a high
[3:17:08] at this wild flower site. I think there
was a difference of 10 ft, wasn't there?
[3:17:13] » Well, we're going to we're going to
allow we're going to allow the uh
[3:17:18] applicant to come back and answer any of
the questions that that they choose to.
[3:17:23] » Any additional comments for Webster
North?
[3:17:29] So, we'll stick with Webster North. Um
let's see. That's true.
[3:17:36] » Cool.
>> Public on the other.
[3:17:38] » Public on the other.
>> Yeah.
[3:17:42] We can answer.
>> Okay.
[3:17:44] » What are we going to do with Webster
North though? If if you go to Lake Road,
[3:17:49] what you going to make that you're going
to go back and make a determination?
[3:17:53] Then
>> let me ask the board. Does the board
[3:17:56] want to hear comments for
um hear comments for um
[3:18:03] the other uh was it uh Lake Road? Again,
I'm trying to
[3:18:08] » Yeah,
>> get get all all the comments in so we
[3:18:10] can move this along. Is there
>> Let let me make a suggestion.
[3:18:15] » It's 10:15,
I think, out of courteousness to the
[3:18:21] public. Why don't we switch gears and
let the public speak on the other site?
[3:18:27] So, at least if we have to close the
public hearing because of the lateness
[3:18:31] of the hour, we can do that. And
hopefully the applicant will have enough
[3:18:35] time this evening or if not at the next
date to to answer any concerns. But I
[3:18:41] think I don't know if the public wants
to come back again. Um to me it would
[3:18:45] make more sense to let them speak now.
>> I would agree with John.
[3:18:51] I'm good.
>> Okay.
[3:18:54] Hi.
>> Are we okay with that, Josh and Erica?
[3:18:57] » I think in the interest of clarity for
the minutes moving forward, you should
[3:19:03] make a determination to close the public
hearing for the Wildflower Drive and
[3:19:08] then go into the Lake Road.
>> Yeah. To close. Yeah, absolutely.
[3:19:12] » Great.
>> So, um, with that, we're going to close
[3:19:15] the public hearing or public, uh,
session for Webster North. will open up
[3:19:21] uh public comments for Lake Road. So,
does anybody want to speak for or
[3:19:26] against Lake Road? Come on up.
>> Yep.
[3:19:32] » Show of hands of how many people are
going to speak on Lake Road.
[3:19:36] » So, one more one more.
>> Okay.
[3:19:38] » I'm it.
>> Hi, I'm David Rasmmanson. I'm an
[3:19:41] attorney. I'm representing my
daughter-in-law and son, Kelly and
[3:19:46] Daniel Rasmuson. They live at 1890 Lake
Road. Kelly's here in the audience. Um,
[3:19:51] they live at 1890 Lake Road which is
directly across the Lake Road proposed
[3:19:56] facility.
Um, couple comments and I'll I I'll
[3:20:02] recognize the lateness of the hour. Um,
[clears throat]
[3:20:05] the planning board is still deliberating
on this. Council made a comment that has
[3:20:09] been fully vetted and I I don't know
that she intended it, but I think that
[3:20:15] the the insinuation was that it's all
done before the planning board. It is
[3:20:19] not. It is being vetted. It is being
argued. It is still being presented and
[3:20:24] there has been no decision made. So I
would suggest to you that any decision
[3:20:29] by this board at this point would be
premature and unless and until the
[3:20:33] planning board makes some makes some uh
deliberation or some decision on it or
[3:20:38] if you were to make a decision that you
would do so conditioned upon what the
[3:20:43] planning port may or may not do. I
certainly wouldn't want anything
[3:20:47] prejuditial to happen here with respect
to the planning board's uh deliberate
[3:20:52] deliberative process. [clears throat]
Now, one of the tests that council and I
[3:20:58] agree with her that they have to meet is
that the project as proposed must have a
[3:21:03] minimal intrusion intrusion on the
community.
[3:21:07] They haven't they haven't even addressed
that. They are so far from being being
[3:21:11] able to establish minimal intrusion on
this site. This site has the maximum
[3:21:16] intrusion. It's out in the open. It's
out there for the whole neighborhood to
[3:21:21] see. There are no trees, no buffering,
no nothing on it. Plus, it's situated
[3:21:26] right on the corner of the on the
National Scenic Byway, the Great Wake Se
[3:21:31] Scenic Trail. It is a National Scenic
Highway, and this is going to be built
[3:21:36] right on it. Now, the scenic byway is
administered by the New York State
[3:21:42] Department of Transportation. I've
spoken to them. I've given the
[3:21:45] information to Mr. Artus and I and I
believe he has reached out to DOT.
[3:21:50] They're concerned about it. They have
concerns about this being on the
[3:21:54] National Scenic Byway.
Also, when there's an intrusion on an
[3:21:59] aesthetic resource such as this, the
National Scenic Byway is defined as an
[3:22:04] aesthetic resource. The DEEC strongly
recommends that any the deliberative
[3:22:10] process include a visual impact study
that's very detailed to minimize the
[3:22:15] visual impact of the project. That
hasn't been done as far as I know. The
[3:22:19] lead agency in the secret process would
take responsibility for that and I think
[3:22:23] it should be done here.
Finally, I think windmill farms controls
[3:22:29] this search area. I think more inquiry
needs needs to be made in into what
[3:22:34] availability they have. They've cited a
conservation easement. I've researched
[3:22:39] the conservation easement. It doesn't
preclude this use. It could be taken out
[3:22:44] of the conservation easement and and
this use could be put farther back on
[3:22:48] the property. So, I think a lot more due
diligence needs to be done on this
[3:22:52] search area. So, with that, I'll close
my comments for tonight. Thank you.
[3:22:56] » Thank you.
[3:23:08] My name is Bob Jansen. I live on County
Line Road directly across from where
[3:23:13] this is going to be. If you could find
the picture, I think it's either 140 or
[3:23:19] 125 in the pages. Um, give you a sense
of what I'll be looking at. Um, it is a
[3:23:26] visual intrusion. Um,
[3:23:32] » keep going. Oops.
>> This says Webster North.
[3:23:39] » Is that Oh, yeah. I need a Lake Road.
Anyway, um
[3:23:46] in 1996, 30 years ago, um the Federal
Communications Commission um had
[3:23:53] hearings and came up with
recommendations
[3:23:56] um on cell phone cell tower uh
placement. Um their recommendation 30
[3:24:02] years ago was 1,600 ft from a residence.
My house will be about 300 325. Uh the
[3:24:09] Rasmusen's probably about the same um
given where they're going to locate this
[3:24:13] thing right at the corner. Um the issue
of coverage, um I have the exact
[3:24:20] difference from what your coverage is.
I've got Verizon telling me I don't have
[3:24:24] coverage and I have coverage every day.
I use my phone all day long. I was out
[3:24:29] on my mower all afternoon, got
headphones on, Wi-Fi, and I'm listening
[3:24:33] to music off Verizon. I'm a Verizon
customer. So I I I don't understand and
[3:24:40] my neighbors tell me they use their
phones, they work from home, they're
[3:24:43] getting coverage all day long. So the
idea that there's no coverage is kind of
[3:24:48] specious. More importantly, if you look
at the maps they've got, um
[3:24:54] you look at their marketing map, they
tell everybody that wants to buy
[3:24:57] Verizon, we got great coverage. 5G, I'm
sitting in Vi 5G and 4G is all the area
[3:25:05] south and east of me. all of in Ontario,
the other side of County Line Road from
[3:25:10] where this tower is going to be. And if
we look around, we've got a tower on
[3:25:15] Dean's Parkway. Milk Plants's got a
tower. Bolter's got a tower. There's
[3:25:19] four Mile Creek's got a tower. Gana's
got a tower.
[3:25:24] If they build a tower at the corner of
Lake Road, 50% of the coverage for that
[3:25:29] tower is Lake Ontario. Not many people
out there. there. I realized it from
[3:25:33] Boers probably needed maybe an
emergency, but the reality is 60 maybe
[3:25:39] more percent is south and east of where
the maps show that that what they want
[3:25:46] to call a dead zone. But it can't have
it both ways. You either have coverage
[3:25:50] and the maps they market with and sell
with say fine, we got all the coverage
[3:25:56] you need to buy the coverage and it's oh
well you don't have coverage there. And
[3:26:02] I think it's time to get that straight.
I I'm not quite untechical, but I don't
[3:26:08] know low m low band, mid-band, and I
doubt that any of you do really
[3:26:12] understand it either. Um, I was out in
my yard. I have five acres. I'm
[3:26:19] surrounded by trees, a lot of them dead
ash, but I've got a lot of huge
[3:26:23] cottonwood trees, big ones, tall ones.
And I never lost coverage once. I can
[3:26:29] drive around in my car all the time out
there and I can have all the coverage I
[3:26:34] want. I think the argument that there's
no coverage and it's maxed out and it's
[3:26:38] not available
just and I understand there's been a
[3:26:42] study done looked at Verizon's data.
Well, if you're looking at their data,
[3:26:48] what do you expect to find? You're going
to find them saying this is the problem.
[3:26:53] And I'm not saying they're lying, but
I'm not saying either that it's true. I
[3:26:58] think there needs to be an actual
coverage done and check it. Take their
[3:27:05] word for it. That's fine. But I think
they did it by having all the equipment.
[3:27:10] Let's get someone to do it and show with
real equipment. Yes, they're absolutely
[3:27:14] right. But I can tell you I use my phone
all the time. My neighbors do. They all
[3:27:20] tell me they use good coverage. And
something's wrong. I don't know who to
[3:27:25] believe, but it's not Verizon.
Thank you. Does anybody want to speak
[3:27:31] for or against uh Lake Road?
And with that, we're going to uh close
[3:27:36] the public um public portion of of this.
Um
[3:27:44] do have a question, Steve. Right. Is
that
[3:27:48] » Mr. Jensen?
>> Mr. J. Mr. Jensen. John, it's Johnson.
[3:27:52] Sorry.
>> Johnson.
[3:27:54] Um
you mentioned earlier when you were just
[3:27:59] when you were talking that you know
Verizon if Verizon kept with the 100
[3:28:04] foot towers uh they'd have to put more
in basically to hit the same coverage.
[3:28:10] I know I'm pretty sure we weren't you
weren't asked to study how many more
[3:28:14] towers but you've done this a long time.
If you were to throw a dart at at a
[3:28:19] wall, how many more towers would be
necessary to to make the same coverage?
[3:28:26] Again, it it's a guess and I understand
that, but how many more towers?
[3:28:32] » Yeah. So, so uh one of the u things that
has been done when they have to densify
[3:28:38] and this is for any of the carriers,
right? If they have one particular
[3:28:40] tower, what they would do is lower the
height of that tower and put six more
[3:28:44] around the periphery.
>> Okay.
[3:28:47] » So, you know, lack lacking
>> specifics
[3:28:50] » information, right, that that probably
we would take one tower and make it into
[3:28:55] uh seven.
>> Gotcha. So, so with that right from a
[3:29:00] from an impact um h one could argue
one tower at 139 ft is less impactful
[3:29:10] than seven towers at 100 ft. So okay
>> and there would be also I mean keep keep
[3:29:17] in mind there's a cost uh implication
here too which you know something you
[3:29:22] need to consider because there there
they are a public utility and there is
[3:29:26] case law from the New York court of
appeals that uh speaks to those kind of
[3:29:30] issues. It was it was about a nuclear
power station that was never built uh
[3:29:34] but a municipality wanted to do some
improvements uh to that particular uh
[3:29:39] power station. It increased the cost to
I think 20% more than what it was being
[3:29:44] proposed. New York Court of Appeals
struck that down. Uh the site was never
[3:29:48] built. Okay. But that's probably the
closest we have to uh you know something
[3:29:53] dealing with a public utility and the
increased cost. Would a 5% increase be
[3:29:59] reasonable? I don't really know the
answer to that question. That's all
[3:30:01] speculation.
>> Okay.
[3:30:04] » Mr. Johnson, the I want to go back to
the Verizon data for a minute.
[3:30:08] » Sure. Have you ever
I think you may have spoke in your first
[3:30:14] presentation about that that there's
a trust factor.
[3:30:20] Have you ever had occasion to request
the data
[3:30:24] that would
address the figures that they're showing
[3:30:29] in the exhibits?
>> Uh I in this particular case you mean
[3:30:34] » no ever in your 30 years that you've
been doing this?
[3:30:37] » Well Oh yeah. So, so the present
individuals were not involved in a case
[3:30:42] that goes back probably 20 years ago. Uh
there was a site that was being proposed
[3:30:47] in the town of Lockport out to the west
of here. Uh was a huge uh tower. If I
[3:30:53] remember right, it was about 150 ft 180
ft uh tall. and uh the propagation plots
[3:30:59] that were supplied were not uh uh
convincing me that actually that was
[3:31:06] what was was needed. And I pushed back
on that quite a bit and it was an
[3:31:12] attorney who was representing the site
from from out of the area and a
[3:31:16] different RF engineer than who was
involved here. And um I got a phone call
[3:31:21] one day from uh one of the other RF
engineers that said he was taking over
[3:31:25] that site. And I asked him, you know,
what what had happened? Why why are you,
[3:31:30] you know, swapping in and uh things? He
said, "Let's let's just leave it at the
[3:31:33] fact that I'm I I'm on the case now."
And he sent me some propagation plots.
[3:31:37] And I, if I'm going to remember, it was
like 120 ft, maybe 110 ft, uh, was what
[3:31:43] they were going to propose because that
would actually accomplish the
[3:31:46] » Well, my my question is,
>> yeah,
[3:31:49] » have you made that request in other
cases that you Okay.
[3:31:54] » Yes. Yes. And have the carriers readily
provided them to you?
[3:31:59] » Forget about the word readily for a
minute. Have they been provided to you?
[3:32:02] » Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, so particularly
Verizon.
[3:32:05] » Okay. But but in this case, you did not
request them.
[3:32:10] » I I I'm trying to understand what data
you're referring to. You you're you're
[3:32:13] talking about for lower height analysis.
No, the data that
[3:32:19] uh
>> capacity
[3:32:21] » the capacity and the coverage data
>> that that was the information that was
[3:32:27] provided in the application materials.
>> So I I'm trying to address the the last
[3:32:33] gentleman that was opposed.
>> Oh, okay.
[3:32:36] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[3:32:37] » And we talked earlier about data that
you were relying on that you didn't have
[3:32:41] visibility to.
>> Okay.
[3:32:43] » Right.
>> Yeah.
[3:32:44] » Which data is that?
Okay, that that would be the coverage.
[3:32:49] So, we're talking about Lake Road with
that particular comment. Uh my report uh
[3:32:54] said that there is ubiquitous coverage
of 700 megahertz. That's low band. Uh
[3:33:01] but at times capacity for the number of
users that are trying to use that
[3:33:06] particular spectrum is being exceeded.
And he so he so right now he'd be
[3:33:10] drawing signal off of one of the
adjacent towers. when you're listening
[3:33:15] to music, uh there's a buffering that
occurs, right? Is that when the system
[3:33:19] is available to do it, it will download,
you know, ahead of where you're actually
[3:33:25] listening. And then when there's a drop,
the buffering actually starts to catch
[3:33:29] up with the point where the phone has
stopped downloading that information,
[3:33:33] but the music keeps playing. But during
that period of time, it can re-buffer
[3:33:38] when the system becomes available, and
it'll buffer some more a little bit
[3:33:43] further out. So from a user's point of
view, it may not be at all apparent that
[3:33:47] the connection was dropped for a
substantial period of time.
[3:33:50] » Was there any data that you needed from
Verizon that you would have liked to
[3:33:53] have had but didn't receive or has not
have that asked for?
[3:33:57] » No, that no, the information that was
provided in the application is what we
[3:34:00] typically asked for. We asked for
cleaner plots because we wanted to be
[3:34:04] able to read the captioning. We wanted
to actually see what the uh numerical
[3:34:08] information was and they provided
cleaner plots of those of those data but
[3:34:13] it wasn't different data.
>> Substantive data that Verizon relied
[3:34:19] upon for their conclusions that you
verified
[3:34:24] you were not without any of the
underpinning data if you will the native
[3:34:29] data
>> correct
[3:34:30] » upon which the conclusions were.
>> Yeah. We don't we don't have the raw
[3:34:32] data because that's what comes from the
switch. But that raw data is plotted on
[3:34:36] those plots.
>> But but also that data that was provided
[3:34:40] to you, there was no red flags that you
saw in that data as you did 20 years ago
[3:34:47] with that other other project.
>> That's correct.
[3:34:50] » I think that's what you were you were
asking, right? So, so you didn't need to
[3:34:53] ask Verizon for any additional
information because the information that
[3:34:57] you had, you were able to verify at
least the one site which gave you a
[3:35:02] comfort level for both sites.
>> Uh, correct, correct, correct. Although,
[3:35:08] you know, I I have to add this that uh
we didn't try to generate that empirical
[3:35:14] data to compare it to,
>> right? We're looking at the information.
[3:35:17] When you have saturated sites, and this
is a very typical scenario on a lot of
[3:35:23] locations, when you have saturated
sites, you start to see those key
[3:35:26] performance indicators start to ramp up
and start to either go over or or
[3:35:32] substantially go over the 100% mark.
>> Yeah. And you were able to verify that
[3:35:37] against the opensignal.com, which is a
open
[3:35:42] readily available data as well. That's
that that's right.
[3:35:45] » At least for the one site. I think the
other site you weren't able to is what
[3:35:48] you mentioned,
>> right? Because because again that those
[3:35:51] are sample points. I mean when you do
crowdsource data uh you're calling a lot
[3:35:56] of information from a lot of users uh to
try to establish okay what's the typical
[3:36:01] statistical performance of the system in
that area. Uh we couldn't see the type
[3:36:07] of information we'd have liked to see
for for lake road from open signal.
[3:36:11] However, when I looked at open signals
information for uh Webster North, uh
[3:36:17] there was almost a match.
>> Understood. When you uh one of the
[3:36:22] criteria that [clears throat] uh one of
the neighbors spoke about as well as um
[3:36:27] Miss Smith, this um minimal intrusion
does is that part of your expertise or
[3:36:35] is it not?
That's an aesthetic uh judgment that has
[3:36:40] to be made by the planning board.
>> That's why I'm asking that question. So,
[3:36:43] it's it's it's a lay person's Well,
>> it's not necessarily your Bailey Wick.
[3:36:49] » Correct. Correct. Because my my my
perception of minimal intrusion might be
[3:36:53] I want to have really great cell
service.
[3:36:55] » Well, I think minimal intrusion it's
two-tiered. there's minimal intrusion in
[3:37:00] the area where that's lacking the
capacity and the coverage and then
[3:37:04] there's a second tier at the actual site
that was determined to be minimally
[3:37:08] intrusive how minimally intrusive it is
what they're putting up.
[3:37:12] » Sure.
>> And but on on the first tier that is in
[3:37:15] your wheelhouse, right?
>> Yeah. If if if there is a need for
[3:37:20] actually wireless services, so that
would be the establishment of a
[3:37:24] significant uh coverage or service gap
in the area. That's that's what
[3:37:29] Professor Cheryl
>> did you opine that out of and I I forget
[3:37:34] what Miss Smith said for um for each
location how many there were to choose
[3:37:40] from, but you're opining that the sites
that were here for tonight were the most
[3:37:46] minimally intrusive of
>> Oh, you're not. No, [clears throat]
[3:37:51] no. That this according to the
application materials of all the sites
[3:37:55] that Verizon looked at, there was only
one that was viable either technically
[3:38:00] uh or landowner uh agreement. Right? So,
we pushed them on that particular point.
[3:38:06] In fact, in our first report, we noted
that uh the boards were being presented
[3:38:10] with only one option that there were no
other options. And when you're talking
[3:38:14] about something being [clears throat]
minimally intrusive, I mean, the
[3:38:17] implication is you're comparing it to
something
[3:38:21] Right? And there's nothing else to be
comparing it to because that was the
[3:38:25] only site that was available. Now it
comes the question is the minimally
[3:38:29] intrusive height
is that the minimum height for
[3:38:33] performance? So we looked at that and we
gave you a finding on that.
[3:38:40] Okay.
[3:38:45] » I have a followup question but I'll ask
Miss Smith. Okay.
[3:38:49] Thank you.
>> Okay. You're welcome.
[3:39:01] » So, could could I just follow up on this
minimally truth? You probably have a
[3:39:04] list that you want to go and respond to,
I'm assuming.
[3:39:07] » I'll I'll I'm happy to start with your
questions.
[3:39:09] » Okay.
And I could be easily the densest one in
[3:39:14] the room here, so forgive me.
>> I'm sure that's not true.
[3:39:18] We did find out that cell phone service
>> I've never I've never dropped a call. It
[3:39:22] goes right through my my ears.
>> The on the minimally intrusive
[3:39:31] following up on what Mr. Johnson just
said, if there was a site
[3:39:36] where you couldn't get a lease,
[3:39:41] maybe you didn't want to pay what the
land owner wanted.
[3:39:47] Is it is a takeaway possibly that that
site
[3:39:52] could have been less intrusive but for
Verizon's unwillingness to pay a price?
[3:40:01] » I don't know if I did a good job with
that question.
[3:40:04] » No. And I, you know, I I think I'll
note, you know, we [clears throat]
[3:40:09] we have gone through that exercise and
and maybe I'll say it differently,
[3:40:13] right? I I think there's no disagreement
that being on the tree line in the back
[3:40:19] of the farm would be less intrusive than
the site that's being proposed. Right.
[3:40:24] So there there is, you know, I I don't
believe that we take issue with that of
[3:40:29] of having the tower so that it abuts the
tree line um would be a better position
[3:40:35] for it to be in. And and candidly, we
don't want a controversial site, right?
[3:40:40] we would love to go where it is easier
to build.
[3:40:43] » Um, but the landlord declined and said
we couldn't go there for farming
[3:40:47] operations or conservation easement
operations. So, you know, from Verizon's
[3:40:51] perspective, we want to be in easy
sites. We want to be in sites that are
[3:40:56] easy for a planning board to say yes to
or easy for a ZBAH to say yes to. You're
[3:41:01] you're indicating though that on the
Windmill farm site
[3:41:06] the undesirable
piece of it or or or the it was blocked
[3:41:12] because of other reasons not dollars and
cents. It was a conservation easement or
[3:41:17] some other reason
>> correct and and candidly what the reason
[3:41:21] is we have to defer to the landlord. So
I'm using right we we have more
[3:41:26] reasoning on the windmill farms. Let me
ask you the question this way.
[3:41:31] » Were there other sites where you you
weren't deferring to the landlord, but
[3:41:35] Verizon was making a business decision.
I don't want to we don't want to pay X.
[3:41:40] The land owner wants too much.
>> So, there is in in the record there is a
[3:41:45] site selection analysis that goes
through the re the reason why those
[3:41:51] choices declined to lease with us. Often
they don't want to engage in lease
[3:41:56] negotiations. There are there are
instances where they never respond when
[3:42:00] you knock on the door and and leave a
card and send a certified mail. So it's
[3:42:05] they are for a variety of reasons that
are not just
[3:42:11] » and were there reasons in this selection
process where
[3:42:16] Verizon chose not to negotiate based
upon
[3:42:21] terms.
I would I don't want to misspeak.
[3:42:27] It is set forth in the record. My my
understanding is no. There were only
[3:42:31] instances that either I'm I'm saying
that in a negative way.
[3:42:37] Either the landlords did not respond or
did not engage in negotiations with
[3:42:42] Verizon. They said no in this particular
instance.
[3:42:45] » Last question on this issue.
when when you talk in terms of
[3:42:55] of case law,
Verizon or a utility reserves the right
[3:43:04] that even though a location might be
less intrusive,
[3:43:09] they reserve the ability to not be
required at that location based upon the
[3:43:14] three criteria that you gave us if they
feel they're paying
[3:43:20] a price they don't want to pay.
>> There is very strong case law that a a
[3:43:29] telecommunications provider
does not have to pay above market rates
[3:43:35] or something that does not make the
business case work. Whether it's a lease
[3:43:40] a a length of lease term that's not
acceptable. Um if it's a rent that's
[3:43:45] above market. So yes, there is strong
case law that says and and
[3:43:51] I'm saying this to be transparent, not
not in a negative way, but a
[3:43:55] [clears throat] a zoning board can't
dictate business terms that a
[3:43:58] telecomunications provider goes with.
>> You're representing to the best of your
[3:44:02] knowledge in this case.
>> Correct. Yes.
[3:44:04] » There wasn't a le a more minimally
intrusive location
[3:44:10] » that Verizon turned away from. Cor
>> because
[3:44:13] » correct
>> it was greater than market rate.
[3:44:16] » Correct. But I do have our site
selection specialist that can talk about
[3:44:22] the site selection.
>> Yeah. I and again I'm not trying to
[3:44:24] invite more information than we need.
It's late. I I just as I understand this
[3:44:30] more refined. I just wanted to see
whether
[3:44:33] » Yes. I Nico Facy for the record. Um
[clears throat] I have the unfortunate
[3:44:38] job of trying to find sites. I think
what you're trying to ask was there
[3:44:43] another, you know, landlord interested
but wasn't able to get a deal because of
[3:44:47] a because of finances. The short answer
is no. The farm is the only interested
[3:44:53] party. Um, and we we contact people the
same way. Everyone is the same. Knock on
[3:44:59] the doors. We leave letters in their
mailboxes. We send certified mail. Um,
[3:45:04] people who aren't interested, they just
most times they don't contact you.
[3:45:08] People who have some interest, they'll
call you. they'll try to solicit more
[3:45:11] information. Um, and then the ones that
are interested, they'll call you right
[3:45:15] back and say, "Hey, let's talk about
this." But in this case, the only
[3:45:20] interested party was the windmill farms.
So, the short answer is no. There was no
[3:45:25] one else that was interested and we
couldn't get a deal done because of
[3:45:28] finances.
What happens in an area? Say you have 10
[3:45:34] lots or land that you want to go look
at. Everybody turns Verizon down. How do
[3:45:40] you start back at square one?
>> We just don't stop. The problem doesn't
[3:45:45] go away because we don't find a location
right away. And you know, case in point,
[3:45:49] Webster North has been around for we've
been trying to solve it for we've been
[3:45:53] working with the town for three years.
So because the problem exists, it's not
[3:45:57] going to go away. Okay. So Verizon kind
of has to fix it. So
[3:46:00] short answer is we we have to stay you
know we go back we try again know maybe
[3:46:05] you know somebody sells their property
you have a new owner someone you know
[3:46:09] may be interested at a later time. So
some sites take longer but we it just
[3:46:15] don't problem doesn't go away doesn't
solve itself. So we have to kind of stay
[3:46:18] on the case until we can find something.
>> Quick so quick question. Um, looking at
[3:46:23] the graphic up on the uh screen, the
circle represents the ideal location.
[3:46:30] Somewhere inside that red circle
represents the ideal location for the
[3:46:36] cell tower. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
[3:46:38] » Okay. So, to um one of the residents
that came up uh speaking about the
[3:46:45] Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian
Church site was outside of that red
[3:46:50] circle. So it was not in an ideal
location for the Verizon tower.
[3:46:55] » Um,
>> correct. So the church is outside and we
[3:46:59] actually, like I said, because we've
been working on the site for so long for
[3:47:02] Webster specifically, we looked at
multiple locations outside of the search
[3:47:07] area, which we typically do not do. But
that church was vetted by our RF
[3:47:11] engineer and it simply doesn't work.
It's it's way too far outside the area.
[3:47:16] » Okay.
>> This does not represent
[3:47:20] No, this one does not. No, I understand
that. But when the graphic was up here,
[3:47:24] I took a look to see where the
Presbyterian Church was in relation to
[3:47:28] that circle and it didn't that circle
didn't cross 250. So,
[3:47:36] I have a question regarding uh the
conservation area. Did you [sighs] I
[3:47:42] don't know if this gentleman that spoke
a while ago said that you can build a a
[3:47:47] a cell tower in a conservation area. I
don't know whether that's true or not.
[3:47:51] I'm basing it on what he just said and I
don't know if you know if that's true or
[3:47:55] not. But if I'm thinking that if
[clears throat] the farmer
[3:48:03] is of the opinion that he can't do
anything with that because it's a
[3:48:07] conservation area. I'm wondering
if if he's cor if this gentleman over
[3:48:12] here is correct.
Could we have a discussion? Is it
[3:48:16] possible to have a discussion because it
everybody seems to have admitted that
[3:48:20] the conservation area would be a better
location for the tower.
[3:48:24] Uh what I can say is the the landlord
has come in and actually met with the
[3:48:29] board um regarding his entire property.
So I mean Verizon can't force him to put
[3:48:36] us in a location, right? We're leasing a
small area of his property and where we
[3:48:42] are is the only area that he has
available for lease.
[3:48:47] » But I'm not I don't think I'm making
myself clear. I I think if I'm
[3:48:51] understanding this correct, he may not
think that he can lease
[3:48:56] the uh lease a piece of that
conservation area to because it is in
[3:49:00] fact a conservation area.
>> So that he has told us no based on and
[3:49:06] we have a supplemental lettering
>> as well. So we've already asked him
[3:49:10] multiple times about that area and he
said [clears throat] no.
[3:49:18] » Okay. If I can also speak to the minimal
intrus intrusion
[3:49:24] um exhibit K of the lake I know we're
like bouncing around. Exhibit K of the
[3:49:30] Lake Road um application
in in no way do I want to to minimize
[3:49:38] the testimony that you heard. Um but I I
do want to note that the area that this
[3:49:43] is located does have a significant
amount of electrical utilities. um
[3:49:48] transversing the area. So this is not
you know I I guess I also don't want to
[3:49:52] give the impression of there is nothing
on this parcel but for the cell phone
[3:49:56] tower that's about to be there. There
are other utilities that are located on
[3:50:00] this site and that is part of the
the the the viewshed when one is driving
[3:50:08] down Lake Road. So it's it's not um it's
not uncluttered. It is a cluttered area
[3:50:14] that a cell phone tower will also go in
to the extent of you know landscaping
[3:50:20] around the base to hide the equipment
that is done routinely. Um but you know
[3:50:26] when looking at these various sites I do
just want to raise that note of it's
[3:50:32] it's not a completely empty field and
the cell phone tower is the only thing
[3:50:36] that will be in it. There are other
utilities and electrical lines that that
[3:50:41] are in that viewshed. it it will be the
only thing that is over 100 ft taller.
[3:50:47] » Very no. Very very true. Right. I I just
don't to to have the impression of
[3:50:52] there's nothing there and there will be
something there.
[3:50:55] » I mean it's typical telephone poles that
are are there currently right. Yes.
[3:50:58] Yeah. No certain transformers and things
of that nature. It's not
[3:51:02] » Yeah.
>> 125 ft but it is
[3:51:06] » there are other there is other
infrastructure that's located on this
[3:51:10] parcel.
>> Okay.
[3:51:12] Um,
>> it's a 7.8 acre plot. It's at the very
[3:51:19] end of the farm. It's leased out every
year to another farmer for planting.
[3:51:25] Worst comes to worst. And I didn't get a
chance to show you the picture that I'll
[3:51:30] be looking at.
Talk about intrusion.
[3:51:34] This tower could easily be moved south
100 150 200 feet more where it doesn't
[3:51:41] sit right next to the road doesn't
intrude exactly in our
[3:51:47] 125 ft it's going to be an ice
>> how friendly are you with the farmer can
[3:51:51] you convince them? Uh, no. [laughter]
And I can tell you, well, I won't
[3:51:56] because I can't back it up with that.
[laughter] There's there's a desire by
[3:52:01] members of the farm to not have to look
at that tower. Well, that's they dumped
[3:52:06] it off to us.
>> And from the minimal intrusion issue,
[3:52:10] the real estate hit to the people who
live right next to that tower is
[3:52:14] estimated to run from 10 to 30% of the
value of their property. In my case,
[3:52:19] that's 50 to $150,000
when I go to sell my home. So, there is
[3:52:25] a maximum intrusion. It's going to
affect all the values. One developer has
[3:52:31] already lost one sale of the development
that's trying to do on Lake Brook right
[3:52:37] across the street. Um there's a lot of
impact here. isn't just that we don't
[3:52:42] want to tell
>> and and it's that's what we're trying to
[3:52:47] we're trying to weigh and I I appreciate
the comments.
[3:52:51] » Um other questions from the board. I
don't mean to cut you off but obviously
[3:52:57] I mean it
>> it's late.
[3:52:58] » It's late right? Um
>> can I just say something? My name is
[3:53:03] Kathy Pomponio and I'm the project
manager.
[3:53:07] We've been through this conservation
easement issue with the planning board.
[3:53:12] We have taken the planning board's
comments about the conservation easement
[3:53:18] which was
very extensively explained in a letter
[3:53:22] to that board. Um we have taken that and
met again with the property owner on
[3:53:30] site to try to see if there was any way
that we could move that tower.
[3:53:36] We have gone above and beyond. We have
taken the property owner to meet in a
[3:53:43] work session with the chairman of the
planning board, the town supervisor
[3:53:49] um in Verizon, and he has extensively
explained why he cannot put this tower
[3:53:56] on any other portion of his property. We
have tried. We have tried multiple
[3:54:01] times. It is not a financial issue.
There are things that you cannot see
[3:54:07] that are in the ground related to
irrigation
[3:54:11] that prevent this from going anywhere
else. We have extensively exhausted that
[3:54:18] conservation easement.
Um, our attorneys have looked at it. We
[3:54:23] have spoken extensively with all of the
parties about it. Um, and obviously we
[3:54:28] wouldn't be here for either one of these
facilities if it wasn't necessary.
[3:54:34] Verizon doesn't expend the capital on
something that isn't necessary.
[3:54:39] » Appreciate that.
>> You recognize we have a job to do,
[3:54:42] right?
>> I I I completely understand and I
[3:54:44] understand your questions, but I wanted
you to understand that we have already
[3:54:48] met with the town,
>> right? But it it it sounds as though
[3:54:53] » I don't know if you appreciate we have a
job to do. I I do understand your job.
[3:54:57] » We're an independent board from the town
board and the planning board. So, we're
[3:55:00] performing our due diligence.
>> And I just wanted to add to that. I
[3:55:04] wanted you to know that's I wanted you
to know how extensively we have
[3:55:09] researched that conservation easement.
>> Do you mind? I mean,
[3:55:14] » can you summarize
the reasons why the conservation
[3:55:20] easement area is not
>> It's all explained in that letter.
[3:55:24] There's a letter. I don't have it in
front of me.
[3:55:29] » It's all explained in the letter.
[3:55:35] » Was that supplied to this board? Was
that letter supplied to this board?
[3:55:38] » Yeah, I don't believe so.
>> Yes, it's exhibit T of the application,
[3:55:43] the supplemental materials that was
>> um dated March 31st.
[3:55:49] » So, that's the letter from the landlord.
>> It's
[3:55:56] And even after that letter came out, we
went and met with him.
[3:56:00] » We brought him to the work session so
that he could explain
[3:56:04] » for this board. Can you summarize just
quickly summarize?
[3:56:06] » Oh, go ahead. I have it.
>> I'm I'm wary of I'm wary of doing so
[3:56:13] because I don't want to misspeak what
the conservation ement says, but the the
[3:56:18] crux of the letter is
>> there's infrastructure in the ground.
[3:56:22] There are farm operations that they
renting right leasing to us. They will
[3:56:28] never lease to us in an area that will
impede their farming operations. That's
[3:56:31] their going concern.
>> They also have um conservation easements
[3:56:36] I believe both with the USDA and then
also with private companies that they
[3:56:42] contract with. I think they mentioned
KURG Dr. Pepper is one of the entities
[3:56:46] that they contract with and they have to
abide by
[3:56:50] certain standards and certain
procedures. So by them allowing the
[3:56:53] tower on their their contract with that
entity essentially is broken and then
[3:56:59] they would lose that
>> what whatever the correct benefit of
[3:57:03] that is
>> and and to the extent of could that be
[3:57:07] amended is there ways around it you know
I I don't want to speak to that but I I
[3:57:12] can't imagine leasing to Verizon
they would make that business decision
[3:57:18] versus Kirk Dr. pepper or you know a 100
by 100 foot lease area versus Kur Dr.
[3:57:24] Pepper or the conservation easement. So
I I guess I I wouldn't want the
[3:57:28] impression of
>> they can't break the conservation
[3:57:33] easement or it is in such a way that it
can't be interpreted one way or the
[3:57:38] other but
>> they're not willing to.
[3:57:40] » I couldn't imagine a business right
there's no business case for that. So
[3:57:43] » regardless they're not willing to.
>> Yeah, exactly.
[3:57:44] » Okay. Thank you. I yeah, we don't have
to get any further into it unless
[3:57:49] anybody on the board wants to. Okay.
>> Um
[3:57:53] » I think Miss Smith had something she
wanted to address.
[3:57:58] » I think candidly the one I had was the
550 Webster, but I believe that Nico
[3:58:04] tied that up nicely.
>> Okay. I do have a question regarding uh
[3:58:08] Webster North. The trees. Uh there was a
question of how many trees are
[3:58:13] potentially going to be cut down to
accommodate the cell cell site.
[3:58:18] » So where is located and it's on the site
plan which I think is Q to the big
[3:58:25] application.
Um
[3:58:30] [clears throat] there it it was chosen
on the site there's a clearing on the
[3:58:34] site. So it was chosen on the site to
really minimize the tree clearing. It
[3:58:38] was uh
>> there's only a handful
[3:58:40] » site. Yes, thank you. Cited in such a
way and the goal is not to cut down
[3:58:44] trees. That is uh the goal is to to
preserve the trees. It's an candidly an
[3:58:50] additional expense to to remove trees.
So the goal of the construction is
[3:58:54] always to make as little impact as
possible.
[3:58:57] » That was that was it. Right.
>> Back up.
[3:58:59] » Back up. Right there.
>> Thank you.
[3:59:01] » Okay. Yeah. And looking at the aerial
that that area is
[3:59:05] » Yeah.
>> Fairly open. We did meet out on site
[3:59:08] with your environmental specialists,
>> the con the conservation board.
[3:59:12] » Conservation board. We did meet with
Okay.
[3:59:14] » in the rain that day. Um and we did mark
the trees that there's just minimal
[3:59:21] » Can you speak into the mic? Sorry.
>> I'm sorry.
[3:59:22] » It wasn't being picked up.
>> So, we did meet out with your
[3:59:27] conservation board on a very rainy
evening in the spring. Um and we marked
[3:59:33] the trees that were to be removed. There
were a handful. Not very many at all.
[3:59:38] » Okay.
[3:59:43] Um, other question I have is the scenic
byway. Um, I don't know what kind of
[3:59:50] impact that has with New York State. Um,
I'm assuming,
[3:59:56] uh, some due diligence has happened by
Verizon. Uh, can you explain that?
[4:00:01] » Yes. And we actually we do provide the
visual addendum that's put out by the
[4:00:06] DEEC. Um
trying to see my tile straight.
[4:00:11] » Yeah. Sorry bouncing bouncing all over
on you on on the two sites.
[4:00:14] » Oh, it feels like it's a pop quiz. It's
like oh yeah, I have the answer to that
[4:00:17] one. Um so in the seeker form, which is
exhibit H to the environmental
[4:00:23] assessment form, we do supply a visual
addendum,
[4:00:28] » different site. Erica, you're on uh
Webster North. You got to go to Lake
[4:00:33] Road.
>> The Lake Road application, the one that
[4:00:36] we have on the drive is not the full
drive, so I can't pull that up right
[4:00:40] now.
>> Okay.
[4:00:41] » All right.
So, it is so the visual addendum that
[4:00:45] that was referenced that is provided. It
is noted as being near the the byway,
[4:00:51] but there is other infrastructure that's
in the byway um and would be part of the
[4:00:56] secret determination, which is is there
potential for significant adverse
[4:01:00] environmental impact on a protected
viewshed and for the small portion and
[4:01:07] and again I'm not minimizing the impact
felt by the neighbors but to the small
[4:01:11] portion of the national byway of having
one of very many cell phone towers. The
[4:01:16] Gana Tower is also visible from there
are many towers that are visible from
[4:01:20] » the byway. It is the byway that it is
one of the areas we're trying to serve.
[4:01:24] Um you know from from the visual
addendum to me the only logical
[4:01:30] conclusion would be there is not the
potential for significant adverse
[4:01:34] environmental impact to that shed. But
that is something that would be
[4:01:37] considered as part of the secret
determination. Well, also when you're
[4:01:41] considering a byway, it's because it's a
sequential thing. It's not a site.
[4:01:48] » It's generally a roadway, Route 66. Yep.
>> Or the Seaway Trail where it's
[4:01:54] sequential.
>> And if you're traveling at it at 55
[4:01:58] miles an hour, there's a lot different
visual impact than if you're living
[4:02:02] across the street from it.
>> For sure. So that's that's the um
[4:02:06] [snorts]
the basis for when you determine
[4:02:09] something in a byway, not necessarily if
you stop and look at it. It's what's the
[4:02:15] impact as you're going with the speed
limit up and down the road.
[4:02:19] » So um I asked uh
I think uh doc is it Dr. Johnson um
[4:02:27] regarding
um aesthetic improvements. Um, right.
[4:02:32] So, being out in an open field, uh, is
there
[4:02:38] screening, whether it be vegetative
screening or other types of screening
[4:02:41] that would be utilized to help improve
uh, visual impacts, uh, specifically for
[4:02:51] Lake Road because Web North is going to
be [clears throat]
[4:02:54] » surrounded by by vegetation. Um but is
there anything being provided for visual
[4:03:03] impact support for uh Lake Road?
>> Certainly having vegetative screening
[4:03:10] around the equipment base as you
correctly pointed out we we can't screen
[4:03:14] right the the entire tower but it is
very common to put landscaping around
[4:03:19] the equipment location. um there it will
be screened by a fence but then
[4:03:24] additional vegetation arborites can be
planted on the exterior of the fence to
[4:03:29] help even further mitigate that that
visual impact. So certainly that's
[4:03:32] something that is is done with
regularity. Um I'm I don't I can't point
[4:03:38] you exactly whether it is proposed here,
but could be a condition of an approval
[4:03:43] uh to have that screening put in as a
vegetative um vegetative screening
[4:03:49] around the equipment.
>> Thank you. Um,
[4:03:54] I heard that having the uh uh this the
stealth tower, if you will, which you
[4:04:00] know, you see 120 foot tower with uh
sparsely uh placed branches uh sticks
[4:04:10] out like a saw thumb, but so does a uh
gray tower. Um,
[4:04:17] I don't know the answer to this other
than So, I'm going to ask it. Do does
[4:04:23] color help with
um cell tower
[4:04:30] um aesthetics, if you will, as you're
driving by on a byway.
[4:04:35] » Better question is, is there a way to
camouflage the tower itself via paint?
[4:04:42] » Thank you. So, as a Rochester native,
I'm sad to say this, but the gray sky
[4:04:46] actually is is the camouflage. It is it
it does typically um blend into our our
[4:04:53] gray sky. So, the galvanized that color
is chosen to to blend in with the with
[4:04:58] the gray sky.
>> Okay.
[4:04:59] » Um I I don't I can't think of a color
that would be less
[4:05:05] » intrusive than that. And of course, at
night time it
[4:05:07] » you wouldn't see it. It's not lit. It's
not over 200 ft. Um, I think from and I
[4:05:12] I think Kathy's going to speak to this.
You know, from a from a stealthing
[4:05:16] perspective, I think I think I know
Kathy's heard every choice or question
[4:05:21] under the sun. It is difficult to
identify a structure that is actually
[4:05:26] stealththed and then the added weight of
a of the tree
[4:05:32] infrastructure makes it bulkier.
>> Okay. Well, you have to understand too
[4:05:37] that if you're talking about a tree, you
can't you're actually going to put 10
[4:05:42] feet more onto [clears throat] the
height of the tower because you have to
[4:05:46] make the tree look realistic with a cone
above the antennas. So, you're adding 10
[4:05:52] feet to the top of the structure
automatically. And that's a pretty tall
[4:05:56] tree to begin with. Um, so that's it
doesn't really, I don't think, jive with
[4:06:03] with what you're trying to accomplish.
Stealththing is very specific to the
[4:06:07] situation. It only works in certain
instances.
[4:06:11] » Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's now 11:00
p.m. So, I'm
[4:06:19] requesting that the board, if the board
doesn't feel comfortable making a
[4:06:22] decision tonight that we table this
until the next meeting, um, at this
[4:06:28] point, the questions are
repeating. So
[4:06:37] if no decision, if the board's not
comfortable, I request that we table
[4:06:42] until next month's meeting.
>> So I I guess um
[4:06:47] » so let
>> Thank you.
[4:06:49] » I'll ask the board if they have um any
additional questions first. Um at this
[4:06:57] point, the public public session is
closed. Um,
[4:07:03] does the board have any additional
questions that they want to ask tonight?
[4:07:09] » I'm good for tonight, but I I I there's
a lot more that needs to be discussed.
[4:07:15] » Okay. So, you have more more discussion
that you want to go through then, Chris?
[4:07:19] » There there might be more to help me
make a better decision. Okay. I for one
[4:07:23] would like to know what the planning
board is, what planning board changes
[4:07:27] might be occurring to the site which
might impact any decision we make
[4:07:32] tonight if we were to vote on it.
>> Okay.
[4:07:35] Does anybody else have other um may I
guess ultimately
[4:07:41] most of my questions have been answered.
Um
[4:07:46] are there does the board have other
questions that they want to ask? If so,
[4:07:50] then I would agree that we should table
the the remaining portion of this till
[4:07:56] uh till the next meeting.
[4:08:01] » I'd like it tabled only because of what
Chris just said. I'd like to hear what
[4:08:05] the planning board
>> Okay.
[4:08:06] » has to say about it.
>> So, if I haven't closed I think I've
[4:08:11] closed both. I have closed both. So,
public hearing uh public uh comment has
[4:08:16] been closed on both. Um we are going to
table this until uh next month's uh so
[4:08:25] se October's meeting.
>> Um so can I uh I make a motion to table
[4:08:33] » the Verizon cell tower uh Lake Road and
Verizon Cell Tower Webster North until
[4:08:39] October 14th.
>> Second.
[4:08:41] » Second.
>> All those in favor? Hi.
[4:08:44] » This so-called shot clock is it was it
150 days?
[4:08:49] » It is 150 days. We have extended if
you'll note our application. One of them
[4:08:53] is January. Uh we we have extended until
I believe after the town board meeting
[4:09:00] in October with the expectation of
returning to the planning board meeting
[4:09:05] and then perhaps the ZBA meeting for
this. Um we also need a a special permit
[4:09:10] from the town board. So you've been
tracking.
[4:09:13] » So zoning board is October 14th.
>> The town board is likely
[4:09:20] » October 6th
>> in the the second I'm sorry. The second
[4:09:24] town board meeting of the month is what
we
[4:09:28] » September
>> second.
[4:09:30] » I'm sorry. You're right. You're speaking
of the planning board. Yes. The planning
[4:09:33] board would be the Tuesday before the
ZBA meeting. We have agreed to extend
[4:09:39] the shot clock to after the second town
board meeting of the month in October.
[4:09:45] But but do request and and we'll note um
we expressed this at the planning board
[4:09:51] of
the the FCC and the the
[4:09:55] Telecommunications Act of 1996 is put
into place because this is a difficult
[4:10:00] choice, right? It's put into place
because this is a controversial topic.
[4:10:06] But Congress and the and and through the
rules promulgated by the FCC, the goal
[4:10:11] of the Telecommunications Act was to
encourage rapid deployment of
[4:10:15] telecommunications facilities across the
country. So it we have things like
[4:10:20] preeemption for um RF effects of health
or perceived effects perceived health
[4:10:26] effects of RF on health. um that's been
fully preempted because that is an area
[4:10:31] that the telecommunic that Congress and
the FCC have identified as this is
[4:10:35] something that is universal across the
country and something that cannot
[4:10:39] » be addressed. So the shot clock is one
of those items of
[4:10:42] » you have the authority as the applicant
to um stay extended.
[4:10:47] We we do have the authority and we have
done so. But the note being we are
[4:10:53] appreciative of the town continuing to
move through this process and and
[4:10:58] request it continues at a a good clip as
this has been.
[4:11:01] » The the applicant believes the town's
acting in good faith at this point.
[4:11:04] » Yes. Of course. Yes. Yes.
>> Okay.
[4:11:08] » Thank you. We'll see you next time.
>> I appreciate your time. Thank you for
[4:11:11] letting me go past 10.
>> Okay. Yep.
[4:11:16] Um,
do we need to look at the minutes?
[4:11:22] » So, this is being tabled
>> till October 14th.
[4:11:25] » Okay. Everybody
>> and we voted on that.
[4:11:28] » Yes, that's been voted on.
>> All right.
[4:11:31] [cough and clears throat]
>> Minutes.
[4:11:33] » All right. I have minutes for the August
11th zoning board meeting.
[4:11:37] » Has everyone had an opportunity to
review those?
[4:11:40] » Yes.
>> Then I'll make a motion to approve them.
[4:11:42] » Second.
>> Second.
[4:11:43] » All those in favor? I
>> have a good motion there.
[4:11:46] » Thanks for sticking around.
>> Okay, with that I make a motion to
[4:11:50] uh end our meeting.
>> Second.
[4:11:54] » Thank you.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it.