[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.

September 8, 2026 Zoning Board Meeting

Agenda

Transcript