Planning Board Meeting
I guess we started even to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisibley and justice for all [clears throat] before we start to ask the folks in the back, can you hear us? Are these loud enough? Yes or no?
You can hear. You can hear. You can hear. So far, we're close to the microphone. How's that? [clears throat]
That better yet?
All right. We're going to get going, I guess.
Let's see. Want to call
Mr. Anderson?
Mr. here.
Mr. Jarnia
here,
Mr. Malta
here,
Mrs. Maldman
here,
Mr. Yas
here,
Mrs. Corsy
here,
Mr. Artuso
here,
Mr.
Here. Okay, with that I asked the board if they were okay. We have two signs which shouldn't take long as opposed to them dragging later on in the meeting suffering through this whole agonizing program we had. Is it okay with everybody? We if we do that first, there's only two out of the way.
Okay, go ahead. A cool sign located at A55 Publishers Parkway, the applicant of Steve Stanley and he is requesting sign approval in association with the installation of two double-sided non-illuminated monument signs on a 44.14 acre parcel located in an office park district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster. Good day. Steve Stanley from Vital Signs and ID Sign Company here on behalf of Optic Cool uh to reface two monuments. One that is on Publishers Parkway, the other one that faces 5 mile line, the sign for Publishers Parkway. It will be refaced with aluminum panels and digitally printed graphics. The total total sign size is 70 in in width and 73 [snorts] in in height on both sides. The monument that is on the 5 mile side will be constructed of painted acrylic bed mounted into the existing facade. The overall size of the existing monument is 145 and 1/4 in by
60 1/2 in. Both of the sides will be non.
Okay. Okay. No. So that just got anybody questions. [clears throat] They need it. That's good. foot.
Is it?
Yeah.
It looks like three.
Oh, that's I'm looking I'm looking at the smaller side. Industrial park site.
Okay. That's what I
Yeah, me too. That's the one I was. Does it need numbers on
you guys that?
So I think [clears throat] it has a publishers Parkway address. So they've limited the numbers to the sign that faces publishers. Is that correct?
That is correct. There publishers address five mile.
Okay.
All right. So I'll get a secret
town electric consider request by Steve Stanley to install two double-sided non illuminated monument signs for obstacle on a 44.14 acre parcel having SP number 079.06-1-32.11 located at 855 Publishers Parkway in the OP office park district. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under section 6172 of the state department review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. Okay, motion
second. All in
favor make a motion for approval of the sign. I'll make a motion for the approval of the optical sign located 855 Publisher Parkway as presented by Steve Stanley uh for the installation of two double-sided non illuminated monument signs on a 44.14 acre parcel.
Okay, that's a motion. Second f
guess you're all set. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Have a good night.
You too. Second item on the agenda, Himalayan kitchen sign located at 1075 Ridge Road. The applicant Linda Yuri is requesting sign approval in association with the installation of one 48.2 square foot internally illuminated wall mounted sign on a 1.59 acre parcel located in a medium intensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster. Yes sir.
Hi. Uh my name is I'm the managing member of Himal Kitchen.
Put your put yourself a little closer.
Uh my name is Gordon. I'm from Himalan Kitchen. I'm the one of the managing member. Uh so I I have to be honest. I'm not too well prepared because I got an email today around afternoon. Uh it was a spam and it was saying that you know uh it was already uploaded. So, I'm not too big, but you know, I I know.
How much does How much does it say you have to pay?
4700.
I'll get a moment. We'll take a small bill.
We're okay.
All right.
Just a question on the sign is there's no background. It's just the letters, right?
That is correct. He has a balls white balls uh you know uh it's illuminated.
Okay.
So, [clears throat] The signs. Okay, Josh.
Yes, it complies.
What is that other one on there? The bowling.
Sorry. Where's that other sign on? It's like it's sitting on the floor or something.
This kitchen.
Well, that's the sign laying on the floor.
Yeah.
But you're going to put it on the front, right?
Yes.
Just check.
All right. We're good. We're not crazy here, are we?
Um, anybody have any issues with it? That's a simple sign.
Yeah,
just just going to number the figures.
Okay.
Consider request by applicant [clears throat] during Gary to install 148.2 foot internally illuminated wall mounting sign for kitchen parcel number 079.16-124.22 22 located in the located at 1075 Bridge Road in the medium intensity commercial district. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under section 617.52 the state environmental clause review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.
Okay, that be a motion second.
Second. Yes. Okay. All in favor?
I Okay. A motion for approval of the Himalayan kitchen.
I'll make a motion for the approval of the Himalayan kitchen sign located at 1075 Bridge Road as presented by applicant uh to install a 148.2 2 foot internally illuminated wall mounted sign that's going to be located at uh 079.16.1-2422 medium intensity commercial district.
Okay, we have a motion. [clears throat]
You said yes. Okay, all in favor
I guess you're all set. Good luck.
Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night.
You too. Thank you.
Okay. Now, back to our regular
the first table matter on tonight's agenda. Vital sign building edition located at 764 Ridge Road representing agent Thomas Fitzgerald is requesting preliminary final site plan approval and a public hearing in association with the construction of a 15,000q ft one-story addition to an existing 11,000t structure and a 4.21 21 acre parcel located in a commercial outdoor storage district under sections 269-5 and 350-20 of the code of the town website.
Just for the record that Derek used himself.
Okay. Yes sir. General name is Tom. I'm with MRB group. I'm here on behalf of our client building development as well as vital signs ground for uh preliminary and final approval of the vital science building edition. Uh we've received comments from both the engineering and sewer department and addressed most of the comments and all of them. uh we've included uh certain things with for instance the neighboring property uh which is also owned by the vital sign or viola property owns the vital signs property and that as well. So uh we were able to uh indicate that the existing uh water storm water uh facility is a infiltration basin. Uh we're in the process of making a sar agreement with the attorneys to uh with regards to doing the script report uh for the uh site utility. We made some slight adjustments uh with the building itself. Just uh some minor stuff with the loading dock uh egress doors and a few other things with the utilities itself. Uh we were able to
also add uh per the sewer department provide us the uh sanitary uh lateral uh electric drawing. So, we're also able to include the uh oil, water, and separator as well to the building edition with the floor drains. Uh we've also included uh pre-treatment facilities for the uh stone swale or uh channel for the stone. So, we're including uh four uh check dams and we'll pre-treat the uh facility itself. Uh currently, we're in the process right now. So, the plans are still getting updated. Uh we're in coordination with approval with the DOT as well as the water authority for water service and we're going to light. [clears throat] [snorts] So for the grading plan itself, we just made some slight adjustments again with the uh building itself and we also made uh adjustments based on regards to the swift design that we provided and we've also included for drainage itself uh
since this project is a redevelopment on pertasus area we only have to pre-treat approximately 25%. So roughly where the uh downspouts in the building are going they are pre-treated uh towards the swale. We also have uh rearranged the drainage. So we add structures uh and sections so it will drain towards the middle of the swale. So at least we can say most over 25% it's going to be pre-treated. And uh the other thing too on September 29th, we did a perk test of the infiltration basin adjacent to the property. Uh we were able to find that the perk rate is close to 8 and 1/2 minutes with a m minimum of 8 minutes and a maximum of 10 minutes. and we were able to uh say that this does uh meet standards and does drain properly. Uh we also included inverts of the two outlet culverts that are located on the north and on the northeast side of the uh infiltration basin. And we've been able to indicate that it does drain uh towards a drainage soil that goes in between the two subdivisions and that later drains on to
Lake Ontario. Which
way does that water flow from that area? So it goes so it goes north up here and then also there's here goes along here. So sort of like a reverse L shape going this way and then going down.
Anybody [clears throat] have any questions? This was in month ago. We looked at it primarily there were uh a lot of engineering things that weren't completed yet. Apparently they've all been completed according to engineering and the building is just matching the existing building. I'm sure it's all the same.
Yeah.
Elevations. Anybody questions or concerns on this? Just real quick, how's Gohead? How's garbage being handled? Recycling from all the crates and
how are the disposal like garbage how you handle that?
I would say same as existing just inreased volume.
So
is it an external dumpster or infernal?
Use the microphone.
Sorry, I'm Josh from Vital.
Go ahead. We have dedicated dumpsters and recycling. Um, we keep the aluminum right behind it neatly until we can take that for scraps. Everything's,
you know, trash.
Yep. We have large and we bring rolloffs when needed to to handle anything when we do cleanouts in the
Okay. Anybody anything else? We can move forward with it. I guess engineering is all satisfied. Everything's good on it. Okay. We're good with that. So, public hearing the way it is and I did not close it the last time. So it is a public hearing. So if anyone wishes to speak either for or against this
project close the public hearing back to the board and wait I have you got it. Sorry. Give me one job to do. Here we go. [snorts] So, the town of West Planning Board considered the request by representing agent Thomas Fitzgerald for applicant vital signs to construct a 15,000t one-story building addition to an existing 11,000t building located at 764 Ridge Road on a 4.21 21 acre parcel having tax ID of 079.17-1-8.1 in a commercial outdoor storage district under section 269-5 and 350-20 of the code of the town of Webster. The planning board determined that the proposed action is an unlicit action under part 617 OECRE. The planning board determined that the action is subject to a single agency review pursuant to a 617.6 six of seeker and that it is the most appropriate
agency for making determination of significance. The planning board therefore sign designates itself to the agency with proposed action. The planning board has given consideration to the criteria for determining significance as set forth in section 617.7 of seeker and has considered the information contained in the short environmental assessment form part one. has considered the public comment directive to the planning board during the public hearing on September 1st and October 6 of 2026. Now therefore be resolved that town of Webster Planning Board hereby determines the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached notice of determination of non-significance. We had further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board is authorized to take all actions reasonable and necessary to file the negative declaration and discharge the town of Webster's planning board's responsibility as as lead agency for this action. It is further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board based on the information and analysis above the reference supported documentation and discussions of the action by the town of Webster Planning Board as documented by the minutes for this meeting that the proposed action will not result in any significant environmental impacts and be it further
resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board therefore makes a determination of nonsignificance uh and then based on the above reasons issues a negative declaration as evidence of the termination. [clears throat] So that's the motion.
Okay, that is a motion. We need a second.
We have a second. All in favor?
Okay. And the applicant at this point is for preliminary approval or this motion to make a motion.
Is it is it for preliminary and plan?
You got to be two separate. Tony, that's not what we thought about last meeting.
Hold that. We have to do one at a time.
I'm looking for a motion for a preliminary.
I'll step up. [laughter]
Motion. Yeah, I'll make a motion for approval for sign. You did that quite close to June because that wasn't
vital sign building edition at 764 rich road 72 PRC 72 letter credit conservation cabinets were there any zoning all improvements should be constructed according to the specification of Mount Webster. All improvements shall be constructed according to this plan of the roadway construction to be in accordance with the specification and regulations set forth by the town of Webster. All site work to be in compliance with standards of the town of West. Comply with all requirements of any state, county or town agency. Address drainage, lighting, signage, landscaping, buffering and storage or something to draw.
Looks like it's July 31st, 2026.
Oh, I'm sorry. September 29th.
September 29th. September 29th, 2026.
Okay.
Yes. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second.
Mr. Malta.
Hi.
Mr. Jardina. Hi.
Mr. Gassic. Hi.
Mrs. Maltton. Hi,
Mr. Kosani. Hi. Okay. Now engineering is all satisfied. Everything's up to date. You're happy with that. We're going forward. Okay. So this is what we asked the last time to complete everything for the satisfaction of engineering. And if that was accomplished, the possibility was that we could give a preliminary and a final decision. So since engineering is satisfied with everything with a final approval Dave
actually you know what we ought to add something I'm just thinking okay you didn't do any landscaping or anything
we there's no spot for landscape we're basically payment right front building already has landscaping
you know what I'm gonna I'm gonna add into the record of fact I'm going to give this to you guys here why don't you go and get This is from the conservation board. Their comments. If there's anything in here you feel needs to be addressed, you can do it. All right.
All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Okay. I'll make a motion for final approval. Vital sign edition 764. Subject project review committee comments. Subject approval conditions. subject to all applicable government fees subject to the department of public works approvals significant construction so shall occur within one year as deemed by the planning board expiring on October 6th conditions of the preliminary final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final design plans engineer for proposed project shall provide letter certification that all proposed work was completed District planning board resolution for final approval before certificate of accuracy will be issued. A letter of credit to the found for the project shall approve the fee for the engineers final inspection and certification. All storm water facilities should be constructed first subject to resolution of final approved minutes are subject to same drawing number as
That's a motion.
That's a motion to accept.
Second,
Mr. Malta.
Hi,
Mr. Jardino.
Hi,
Mr. Gassic.
Hi,
Miss Maltman.
Hi,
Anthony. Mr.
Hi. There's two things on here that you put it in. I don't know if we always. Number seven was the conditions of a final approval. You picked it on the cover of the page of the final drawing. that needs to be on your final drawings, preliminary and final motions. Okay? And also the engineer for the proposed project shall provide a letter of certification that all the proposed work is completed according to what the plan show. So it isn't a game where engineering has to go over there and reinvent the wheel with you guys. You know what I mean? It should be done by your engineer. Review the project when it's done and you're looking to get a permit that everything agreeing that everything is up to snuff. No, follow me. Okay. Just want to make sure we start getting this covered. Okay. With that, we're uh good with that. You're all set, I guess. You're set. You got your title and
you're ready to go. Next item on tonight's agenda, Verizon Wireless Cell Tower, Western North located at 1222 Wildflower Drive. [clears throat] Applicant Laura Smith for Delta Atlantic Mobile Systems, DBA Verizon, is requesting preliminary site plan approval in a public hearing and association with a 135 ft telecommunication tower with a 4ft lightning rod associated ground mounted equipment on 14.2 2acre parcel located in a R3 single family residential district under sections 269-5 and 350-12 the code of the town of Webster. Thank you. I'm Laura Smith. I'm with Mixon Peabody. I'm representing this application. Um I'm happy to go back over the materials we discussed at our prior meeting. Um or if it's your preference, I can start with a letter that was submitted September 29th. Um, on September 29th, we submitted a vote.
If you recall at our last planning board meeting, a representative from the, excuse [clears throat] me, the Webster Presbyterian Church very generously offered locations of their site for us to be located. Um, we did go through an RF analysis. it was outside of our search ring. So, we were not hopeful and and candidly have looked at that. Um, I looked at that site when we were starting our evaluation of this area. However, we did ask our RF engineer who's here today to take a look to see if that site was viable and came to the determination that that site is not viable from an RF perspective. uh its coverage footprint displaces coverage to the east which fails to provide the adequate coverage for western and central corridors of the project area and would not deliver the capacity relief that the project is designed to provide. That information was provided in the letter dated September 29th uh as together with an updated RF justification showing those uh plots. I also wanted to raise that we uh did a an additional drone flight on Friday, September 11th to address neighbors concerns about visual impact. It's my
understanding from that drone flight, the drone was reported to not be visible from neighboring properties and further confirming the there is a limited visual impact of this project on the neighborhood. With that, I'll I'll pause. That's our new information. I do see Professor Johnson is here regarding the additional RF materials. So could either pause and take questions or or yield to Professor Johnson. for the uh planning board. Um so I looked at the new materials that came in from Verizon. Uh we showed the expected propagation from the church site uh and comparing that to the necessary overlap to the neighbor sites. uh the site fails uh doesn't provide the coverage as they've stated to the area to the west of the uh site and it overlaps into areas which were already being covered by the proposed site. So my assessment was that that's not a good site for them to uh replace the one that's being proposed. Uh if they did this site, there'd have to be another site uh to
the west uh to cover the area that's not being covered at this point. two sites to cover the area instead of just this one.
Maybe a foolish question, but suppose there was a tower at that church and there was on this site, but they were both lowered. That doesn't work that way, I guess.
No, it the the uh the lowering of the height, it it probably wouldn't I mean, you could do that, right? And I don't know what the propagation plots would show, but it would still be above the tree line. Uh it'd still have to clear the obstacles that are in the area to get any sort of reasonable coverage. Uh so it's not like it's going to shrink down to something that's 40 or 50 ft tall. You know, still be up in the 75 to 85t range perhaps. Um and I'm just speculating at this point because we don't have propagation plots for that scenario. uh and Verizon would need to address, but I I I know that uh you know, putting in uh two sites when you can cover it with one uh implicates some other legal considerations. Uh but I would defer to the attorneys to discuss that if that was an issue that you want to preserve. So on the other side, suppose just off the top of my head here, if you had a 150 foot tower located at the church, would that Would that work for you guys?
Well, we don't we don't know. Uh we would have to have Verizon uh do a propagation block for that. I think they were limiting it to the proposed heights so that you could compare apples to apples. Uh, but if the planning board, you know, had some interest in that, I think I would.
My point is, my point is if we're going to give a zoning board, we'll grant variance for 135 ft. We're talking 15 foot more, but a whole different location that doesn't really impact anybody anyone. Um,
so I would have to defer at at this point for Verizon to address that since I don't have any technical information on which to give you an opinion about that particular option.
It's just a thought. I mean,
average person isn't going to know the difference 135 or 150 ft, you know, on the back of a church somewhere.
I I agree with that assessment. I I think I shared with you that I ran
uh for my students at RIT. I'd send them out and ask them to not use any measurement instruments and just stand on the public rightway and take a look at towers and tell me how tall they are.
And 120 foot tower came in anywhere between 60 feet and 300. There you go. Um, boy, I don't know that I don't know. It's I'm looking for something that could possib possibly work. And so far, I mean, I understand you all done a whole lot of work on this. You researched everything that is possible to research. And today, I'm looking at the paperwork on this and I'm thinking, what if, you know, if that tower was taller, would you do you think that would work for you folks? So, and we can have our RF engineer come up uh to speak to that. Um, but you know, kind of again making the note of we did the additional drone flight. It is not visible from the neighborhood. I would respond with this site does work. It's not visually intrusive. It is protected by it is visually screened by the trees. So, I'd make kind of the counter argument of of we've
demonstrated that this site does in fact work for for the town's needs.
Hi, Tim, AR engineer for uh Verizon Wireless. I would note that, you know, we did a 130 run at the church and noting that there's so much overlap at 130 foot. going higher, we're just going to be duplicating more and more the we're creating a bigger problem to the east the higher we go at the top at the church. So that's why we're looking to stay further west, stay shorter. That way we're getting that western portion and we're not going to hold much as much overlapping to the east.
Okay. All right. That answers the question, I guess. All right. Anybody else if we can open this? Uh again, we didn't close the public hearing. We left it open. So if anyone is wishing to speak either for or against this project, please just come up, give us your name, address, and try and do it within three minutes. That's all.
Marcy Vino, I live at 124 Wildflower Drive. Marcy Vino lives at 1224 Wildflower Drive. So the cell tower proposed is going to go in my backyard. Um, one thing I would comment is how the distance between where it's proposed to go right now in Wildflower and the church is a quarter of a mile. It's not that far of a distance.
Yeah, I believe we got verification 2500 ft. So, it's almost a mile.
Yeah, not far. Um and secondly, um when the drone was flown, it was not very visible because it was so small. The only way you could see the drone is if you zoomed in. So I don't think that's a fair assessment of the size of a cell tower and compared to that drone that was so small in the balloon. The only way we could see it, and we did see it, was by zooming in on a camera. So, I don't think that's a very fair assessment using the small small drone as compared to the size of a cell phone.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else wishing to comment? Not seeing no then we'll close the public hearing portion of the meeting bring it up to the board. Um anybody have any questions you want to ask? I'm lost. I think we this thing right out there. various studies we've had follow. All right. We will have to do a seeker on this lead agency. Derek, you want to go ahead? We have a motion for almost action making a declaration planning board consider request by Atlanta Global Systems LLC doing business as Verizon wireless to construct a 135 ft telecommunication towers tower with 4 foot
located at 1222 Wildflower Drive 14.2 acre parcel SPL number 065.01-1 01-1-48 and an R3 single family residential district under sections 269-5 and 350-12 the town website the plan board determines that the proposed action is unlisted action based on the following reaction includes 129 sorry 135 cell tire exceeds the threshold for a type two action as defined under section 67 17.5C9 for preliminary and accessory equipment and a residential structure. The planning board determined that the action is subject to a single agency review pursuit to part 617.6 D4 seeker and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination of significance. The planning board therefore designates the south lead agency for the proposed action. The planning board has given consideration to the criteria for determining significance as set forth in section 617 C1 seeker and has one consider the information contained in the environmental assessments form part one
and two consider public comments directed to the planning board during the public hearings on September 1st and October 6th 2026. Now therefore be a resolve that the township planning board hereby determines that the proposal action will not have a significant adverse effect on the department for the reason set forth in the attached notice of non significance. We further resolve that of the town planning board is authorized to take all actions reasonable and necessary to find to file negative declaration [clears throat] and discharge the town of planning board's responsibility as lead agency for the actions. Be it further resolved that the town of Wester planning board based on the information analysis above the reference supporting documentation the discussions of the action by the township planning board is documented on the minutes for this meeting that the proposed action will not result in any significant environmental impacts. We have further resolved that the township planning board therefore makes determination not significance. be further resolved. The township planning board based on both reasons issues declaration as evidence of its determination.
I motion
Mr. Anderson.
Hi,
Mr. Malta.
Hi.
Miss Maltton.
No. Mr. Gasset.
Hi,
Mr. Pani.
Hi. No.
Okay. Well, with that, I think I feel personally we listened to everybody. We had comments. We beat this thing through the bushes over and over. And I'm prepared for it. I'll make a motion for the preliminary approval for the Horizon cell tower near 1222 Wildflower and the Western Town Planning Board has completed formal review of the proposed Verizon cell tower location on Wildflower Way in Western New York. The planning board conducted a public hearing that was duly noted, noticed, and advertised in accordance with applicable law. All interested persons were provided an opportunity to be heard and to present comments regarding the proposed project. In addition, the planning board retained an independent consulting firm to review and verify all the documentation submitted in support of the application. The board carefully considered the findings and recommendations of the consultant along with all materials received the testimony presented during the public hearing portion of the meeting. uh based upon the informal or
based upon the information provided by the applicant, the findings of the board's independent consultant, the testimony received during the public hearing, and the board's review of the entire record, the town planning board hereby grants a preliminary site plan approval for the proposed Verizon wireless telecommunication facility, a wildfire, subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements in any conditions imposed by the board. That be a motion second
Mr. Pashani.
Hi,
Mr. Malta. Hi,
Mr. Jardina.
No,
Mr. Anderson.
Hi,
Mr. Gassic.
Hi,
Mrs. Wman.
No. Okay. Well, we're set with approval.
Thank you.
Uh, Verizon communication tower located at Lake Road and County Line Road. The applicant Laura Smith Atlantic Mobile Systems, DBA Verizon is requesting preliminary site plan approval and a public hearing in association with a 125 ft telecommunications tower with a 4ft lightning rod and associated ground mounted equipment on a 7.8 20 acre parcel located in a large lot residential district under sections 269-5 and 350-13 of the code of the town of Webster.
Thank you. I'm Laura Smith with Nixon Peabody, also representing this application. Like our wildflower application, we submitted additional information by letter dated September 29th uh demonstrating or or touching on two points for this particular site. The first was response to two attorney two letters from two attorneys addressing our obligation to review alternative sites when looking for a location and least intrusive means and most feasible site under both New York State's public utility standard and the telecommunications act of 1996. I'll just briefly go through um the the comments that we made in response uh and happy to go into more depth should the board should the board want. I'll note that under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a wireless provider seeking to establish that its proposed facility is the least intrusive means to close a gap in coverage must quote make a good faith effort to evaluate alternative sites. and courts have consistently found that a provider satisfies its good faith alternative site evaluation requirement by submitting a detailed site analysis, RF propagation studies, and expert
testimony explaining why each candidate was in feasible. Courts have likewise recognized that a property owner's unwillingness to lease is a legitimate basis for finding an alternative site is infeasible. and where a provider has met its burden that and there is no contrary evidence in the record, a board must approve the application. Here, Verizon undertook a comprehensive site selection analysis evaluating seven candidate parcels within and immediately outside the search area. As shown on page nine of exhibit G, the search area is primarily comprised of farmland owned by Windmill Farms LLC, which is our landlord. As documented in the March 31st, 2026 supplemental application, Verizon engaged in extensive negotiations with the landlord for permission to locate an alternative site on landlord's property, including two sites that were identified by the planning board. However, for the reasons set forth in exhibit T, the landlord could not permit Verizon to be located anywhere else on the property. The town independently confirmed this limitation through its own communications with the landlord. Verizon then evaluated two additional candidates which we had called H&I on exhibit S. Both of which failed from an RF perspective. And we
also re-evaluated the search area as set forth in exhibit U to confirm that search area was appropriate to meet our RF needs and could not be expanded any farther. The remaining property owners within the search area declined to participate in these negotiations. These are decisions that are slowly within the landlord land owner's discretion and Verizon has no authority to compel any property owner to enter into a lease agreement. For those reasons, we submit to the board that we've satisfied our obligation to engage in a good faith effort to evaluate alternative sites and that the site that is the subject of this application is the only candidate that's both technically viable and available for release. Also in our September 29th correspondence, uh we noted uh comments about the Great Lakes Seaway Trail that it is a 454 mile uh scenic byway along the shores of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and the project's anticipated viewshed along the seaway, which we showed in exhibit K, is less than one half mile and represents a minor fraction of the extensive scenic byway. Even if the tunnel were to find that the project had an impact on the aesthetic resource, any impact would be minimal. Not included in our September 29th
letter, but a no outrage to the board. Verizon has over a 100 facilities that are along the Great Lakes Seaway. So there are several telecommunications, over 100 of Verizon alone. And we'll note there are other industrial complexes. There's there's telecommunications facilities that are not uh associated with Verizon. There's uh windfill wind farms and solar farms all along the Seaway. So, or I'm sorry, the Seaway Trail. So just as a a a point of context, there are developments very similar to what is being proposed in potentially larger or even on the northern side of the road in between the seaway and the lake that are currently along this area. However, I do want to note that we did provide a landscaping plan. That's exhibit Z of the September 29th letter on sheet LA 100. So, I did want to draw your attention of our proposed landscaping plan to to the extent possible mitigate and and reduce potential vis visual impacts of the equipment. And with that, I can pause and take any additional questions.
You're [snorts] correct. There are several towers along Seawort Trail, but I'll bet you this is the prize for being the closest to the road.
I actually, thank you for asking. I brought pictures.
I'm sorry.
I brought pictures
local around here.
How long does I may?
Sure. To the board. [clears throat] And you know certainly I'll note I I don't want to make it seem like we don't hear the the issues or hear what the residents have raised. It is just a note of there are other facilities that are located along the seaway. So to the extent um the board is concerned about a secret determination or looking at an aesthetic review or the impact on aesthetic resources, we did just want to note to the board that there are similar facilities all along the 450 miles of the seaway.
I right and I I again I in no way want to diminish the impact felt by this tower just from a seeker perspective. the the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. And again, that's a significant adverse environmental impact on the aesthetic resource that is the byway. You would you would say that that's, you know, not supported by by the other development along the byway.
You happen to know where this the first page picture where this was taken? I I don't do we know where the specific locations in the pictures were?
I don't think we have that information, but can certainly get it from you. I think it was a a Google Earth drive down the byway.
The sign was written in a foreign language. I'm sure it was [laughter] on me. I think that one's
in recall.
This is the one I referred to.
Travels on the road.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's in the
Yeah,
I know. We've beaten this thing again every which way. I [snorts] I just personally feel that there's I've talked to Josh about this and Erica about getting together again with getting together with the with the farmer of windmill farm there and see if we can't resolve something to relocate. I think it happened out on by Pellet Road way back at the Peak Georgia area that was moved all moved all the way back and that's Seaway Trail. No complaints about it, but it was totally inconspicuous. You'd have to turn your head 90 90 degrees to even see it while you're driving. And this one just sticks out to me. It looks like we had one years ago on Lake Road. It was going to be right on I'm sorry right on Bay Road and it was going to be close to the road and we managed to move get that moved back to the Masonic
organization's site that I just feel strong that there's something we're missing here that I I've got the farmer's letter here. I've read it half a dozen times and I understand what he's saying. He's got this thing in a program and it's good until in 2029, I believe it was. Um, I don't think this organization could fault him for working with the community to use a quarter of an acre of that parcel back by his woods to locate this thing. And there's a roadway that goes back. They would have to put electric. And I know he has concerns with his underground drainage facilities and stuff, but that's all possible stuff to work to and I would really like to see if we can get together with them again sometime before we approve this. Just my opinion, that's something Tony, I want to like piggy back off some of the things that you said there. Um for me unlike the previous application the question here is is there a need to have a cell tower in this location? You mentioned that you know in 2029 the farmers agreements in some areas
technically you know are renegotiable and this facility could be relocated. So then looking at this facility and what it's being proposed, what it's looking to address, is it something that could wait three years and then be re-evaluated potentially? So in in this case here for this application, you know, for cell towers, there's three bands. And I'm sorry, I'm going to get a little technical in here. Uh but in in this specific case here, you know, we don't have high bandwidths. We have a low band which is the one that reaches and penetrates buildings and foliage and provides the coverage layer for you know phone use and connections. Then there's the midband which is basically for capacity. So I think the question here is really capacity uh for this application. So the proposal for the facility uses low band and mid-band spectrum only. We had our consultant uh also evaluate the band service generally present across the project area. So again we do have the low band service which is the cell service in this location. Um so I guess my the question I'm struggling with is if you could identify which spectrum layer the claim proficiency resides in that
warrants a tower uh specifically. So and if the answer is midband which is capacity I I'm still not seeing why we cannot address that efficiency with you know small cell sector splitting additional carriers or antenna reconfiguration instead of a 129 ft tower. So if we have the low band I don't I really don't understand why we can't wait 3 years to put potentially relocate this somewhere else on this property to address capacity because we have low band we're missing capacity. So, I could muddle my way through, but I'll invite Tim to to come back up talk about dominant servers from engineer for warehouse again. So, it is for midband. That's what we're looking for here because right now what's [clears throat] happening is our low band, the 700 frequency band is overloaded. We need something to offload that 700 sensor. Remember, like you said, 700 is technically fan that we connect to the service with. We don't do much with it other than hand you off the next one that if we can. It doesn't do our capacity, doesn't do our speeds, and it doesn't do a lot of our data if any
really in those bands. We're looking to that midband and our newer frequencies, you know, the C band. That way, we can get our higher capacity, our higher speeds, and our better coverage to to our customers.
Again, that is a capacity, not a need. In my opinion,
it's that's neat because if you look at our capacity uh graphs and
for higher speed,
you still have something there.
We have something there, but as you can see, we're already over our current capacity limits. That means people connecting to our network right now are not getting what they what they you know what they pay for.
I mean, where else struggle is if if low band service already exists, this is a service improvement in my opinion and not prohibition. So
Amy, my answer's the same. It's, you know, you're getting we're getting we need capacity because right now we're our sites are turning that being flooded down with what they can do. So you go and you try and download something or you try and connect, you might get kicked off because there might be too many people on there right now. So like while you have coverage there's potential you actually don't have coverage because there's too many people already in the network.
I mean again we're looking at threeear duration. What could happen in three years when it comes to technology or the technology is not there in 3 years we could relocate this and have happier neighbors. I think they would be happier not seeing this than downloading something. So actually I keep hearing this argument about three years and we do have an interesting situation here attorney has said this before Verizon cannot compel people to these property and so all the people in the study area that said no we don't want that cell tower on our property they simply said no we're not responding this particular land he has agricultural stuff
and he felt obligated to say you I'm saying no and this is why. And what I'm hearing people saying is your reasoning is not good enough. In reality, he didn't have to say anything. It's a parcel that was available and he says this is the one I'm willing to lease. We have no business saying no your reasoning for agriculture or whatever. It's going to end in three years. That has nothing to do with the project. It just so happens that he happened to offer information that unfortunately for him is becoming a detriment, he could have simply said no.
But aside from
following your reason,
following your reasoning,
aside couple, excuse me,
follow your reasoning.
Following your reasoning and the reasoning of a couple attorneys have sent letters in the city, he has not provided a good enough reason for no. Why don't you go to the parcels in the debt center list and say you didn't respond. You said no. That's not good business. We're going to put it there. You can't do that.
This is the parcel who has said we are willing to put up a cell tower at this location. It doesn't matter about anything else. Our RF consultant in regards to capacity our RF consultant and their consultant that says that there's a need for capacity. You're saying that was a service emergency. Personally, I'm a water guy. I design water distribution systems. I think of this exactly as you need a 12in pipe to get water to the building for fire, but I'm only going to put a 6 in.
You have water, but it's not what you need for that building. This tower has given you what you need for service in this particular area, which consistently said that the need for capacities because people are being dropped.
That is the need.
So we have two issues. There's a need that's being satisfied. Arkansas said that that's also the argument about the land owner saying that oh your argument for saying no it's not good. We shouldn't even be going down that path or even considering it. Even talking in terms of a fiveyear duration or three year time limit because the information provided for agriculture things came on that shouldn't even be part of our discussion.
I agree with you correctly what you're saying. My point was just to maybe renegotiate with them that maybe he could
I see it just relocated.
I I understand that but I know he's he's also said no. I mean a few times and I'm not sure why the town was going out of active talking to this person negotiating person that should be Verizon's pretty
I mean I I agree with you the land component but using your own analogy on the capacity of a pipe for example they're proposing a 12in pipe let's say 12in pipe plus would be industrial commercial district not a residential where you would use a 6 inch pipe in this case they're looking for more capacity because they want to service a higher speed. There is already a speed there. Yeah, it might be dropped, but there is already an existing speed that is accommodating though that need. You're not going to all of a sudden put an industrial complex here that's going to need a faster speed.
It's not just the speed of service. You have a possibility of people dropping service. That's the capacity. You're trying to get online and you're trying to use something to talk and your phone stops working. Your data stops going someplace. That's capacity.
Doesn't work.
We did receive a letter from Bob and Meg Jansen, I believe. Jansen.
Yes.
Are you here?
Yes.
Oh, okay. I I got your letter here. Um, got a good good point there since I won't go through the whole letter. I'll put it into the record. We'll have it there. First, what would Verizon have done if the farm had said no to the proposed site? What would we have done then? We never came at it from outside the box.
You know, we we would be in a place that we wouldn't be able to serve Western. All right. This is a public hearing. So again, we never did close it. So leave it open. If anybody wishes to speak either for or against, you come up to the microphone, just give us your name and address. [snorts] David Rasmus representing [clears throat] Daniel and Kelly Rasmus. 1890 Blake Road. They are here. uh in the audience um you've heard me speak before um I won't go over this the same points we don't think that the the site analysis has been have been sufficient for the letter for the reason stated in that letter but I'd also like to address specifically a couple of points that raised by council Smith in her letter of September 29th she seems to be urging you that if they've done what they call a good faith an analysis of the of the site of the of circle, but that's it. You don't have a choice. I think that's kind of maybe what you're saying, Mr. Anderson. That is not an accurate statement of law.
The second circuit court of appeals, which is the for those of you who aren't lawyers, the federal the federal system, the second circuit is the high court that controls all of the courts, federal courts in the state of New York. [clears throat] That court has said that aesthetics can be a basis for denial of application. And I would urge you to strongly consider the aesthetics of this project. They could not be more profound. There's going to be 125 ft pole on the Seaway Trail, which is a recognized aesthetic resource with no trees around it, nothing visible from for a long distance from the east and the west. The traffic study in the 2005 comprehensive plan estimated about 800,000 cars on Lake Road. that doesn't it's on an annual basis that does not take into effect the townline road or pedestrian traffic or bicycle traffic there that is a significant corridor which is an aesthetic resource now if [snorts] you get into the seeker process the impact on the aesthetic resource has to be considered and Mr. Bird Dorf and the Smith in their letter say, "Oh, it's just light. It's little, it's a little speck on the map of the 454 mile seaway trail." Well,
that's not what the workbook that they site says. What the workbook they site the DEC workbook that they site says is that it's a moderate to heavy impact if number one, the pro I'm quoting from the workbook, the project will be visible and in sharp contrast to surrounding land use due to height and the that it would change the visual impact of the scenic resource. I don't I don't think there's any dispute that both of that would occur and that the impact would be moderate to severe and if you go into the secret process I think you need to make a positive declaration with all the processes that would go with it.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Goldman.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Jerry Goldman. I'm the attorney agent for um immediate neighbors across the street uh Tim Lochner and Janette Kathalone Lochner uh who are at 1854 Lake Road. Um I I'm going to start out by saying we certainly differ from uh from Wildflower in terms of discussion because there is no question that we are visually obtrusive. it is right across the street from these residences. So that being the case, we really need to have a robust alternatives analysis. And I'm not going to go into Derek's point or anyone else about or Laura's point about uh about the fact that you can't force somebody to lease their property. You can't force anybody to lease their property, but you can explore that property and you can explore the others. And in order for this board to discharge our obligation, you really need to drill down on those facts, especially if you have something that's visually obtrusive. Uh, as I stated in my letter, we had a number of candidates here that
were cited um by the u by the applicant and there's very little substance in terms of what the contact has been with them. Um there even even limo farms candidate B it talks about um the [snorts] property or express interest in the project owning the tower could be placed outside the farmland however there's no space outside the farmland on that particular site this is the uh this is the town of Ontario site then you go down to the rest of these and you get a very conclusive uh conclusory multiple multiple attempts to engage the property owner resulted in no interest. There's no discussion of what the contacts were, whether in fact they did talk to these people, whether it was just a phone call and uh and no one answered the phone or exactly what the nature of the contact is. The neighbors um and our clients have indicated that they're willing to go out and to talk to those people. Uh to Derek's point, it's not really the town's role to go and do that, but the neighbors can go and do that and and ask
them whether they want to or not. In fact, your own expert, Professor Johnson, in his uh letter, unfortunately, I didn't have it with me, so I'm relegated to using my phone, but in his August 3rd letter uh specifically said that the alternatives analysis was thin and was weak and really did invite uh further drilling down on that. Uh there were subsequent letters from Mr. Burgdorf did not address any of those details, did not go back and provide any better alternative view or alternative analysis. Um, that needs to be in your record. You need to have a little bit more in terms of substance uh to have a valid record talking about
[snorts]
uh alternative sites and alternative site analysis. Um we uh to Dave's point about the Seaway Trail, the [snorts] Seaway Trail does have um is generally under the jurisdiction of New York State Department of Transportation. Unfortunately, when County Planning took a look at this and sent back their review, they didn't even send it to DOT. DOT has and it's attached to uh the letter September 15th specific guidelines to be reviewed in terms of viewshed and we urge that the board go through those carefully and make sure that the viewshed analysis is properly discharged in order to come to a correct seeker determination. Dave [snorts] also points out that a permanent seeker handbook is a moderate to large impact. What that does is that it requires as part of your negative declaration instead of going with your normal text on a negative declaration if you were to adopt one uh requires you really to explain the reason why that moderate to large impact is not a
significant adverse environmental impact. because if it if it may be a significant adverse environmental impact as Dave points out uh a positive declaration needs to be issued and there needs to be an environmental impact statement. Um in addition to all of that um the landscape plan really needs to be drilled down. I don't know how much you have taken a look at that. There are ways to mitigate uh visual impacts. Uh cell towers can look like trees. I don't know if that's being proposed here. Uh I'm not sure and I think that you really need to uh do a lot of analysis of that landscape now uh landscape plan uh to take a look at it. Um, also like to point out you guys do have uh a bit of a window here to deal with. Uh, the applicant has indicated that the quote unquote shot clock has been extended to the end of November uh, which takes you past your next meeting. So, there is a window for us to really drill down on some of these issues and for you to drill down on some of these
issues. and we would request that we be given more information relative to uh the alternative candidates and and we would be willing to pursue them. So we request that you ask the applicant to provide contact information uh for them. The shot clock itself by the way is not a determinative factor. It is a timeline which is set under federal law uh dealing with review of applications. It doesn't result in a default approval if you don't decide within that period of time. Uh but it is presumptive uh that uh you have to do it. I think this board is discharging your obligations very well. I think you've you've hired u an excellent consultant. I think that you have spent uh lots of time you haven't really adjourned this matter unnecessarily um from time to time to delay it. So I would feel confident that the court would not find at this board unduly delayed any uh any application um for consideration. also like to point
out that your uh your code specifically there is uh a request in Mr. Burgdorf's last letter for site plan approval tonight zoning board at their next meeting and then back at the town board in November uh for approval under under the code. this board cannot grant final site plan approval um until all necessary variances are granted. As a matter of fact, uh the code even goes one step further and talks about the fact that all use permits from the town board shall have been granted ahead of time. So um clearly you need to take a few steps need to deal with seeker need to deal with these alternatives you need to have that consideration and then then you're ready to move forward in one way or another on this application. Again, we would urge that everything be done to minimize the impact of this tower which is located directly across from residences and clearly within a viewhed. Um so with that um I'm going to conclude my presentation. You have my letter from uh
from earlier this month a couple weeks ago and if the board has any questions of me be glad to entertain them. Otherwise, I don't know if the lockers had anything they want to offer uh with regard to the nature of their self-service and what they have uh what their experience has been so far. Uh I think the answer is yes or no because you've related to me that to this point you have had no issue with regard to sell service at this uh at this time. Hi Tim Ler 1854 Lake Road. Um no we have no problems with cell phone as well. I just want to confir you do you have Verizon?
Yes. Verizon works.
You heard me right.
Okay. Okay.
Hi, Kelly 189 Road. Um, I just wanted to say I do have Verizon as my um cell phone provider. I work from home. Um, I'm home every day, all day, and I never have any issue at all. I have two um monitors, I have my cell phone, I have a work phone, and I don't have any issue. So, I just wanted to say that. Thank you.
Okay. Where do we go from here?
Oh, okay.
Jansen County Road right across the street from where this is going to be. I don't know if you can get I can't remember where the photo is in their initial procedures here, but it's either like 125 or 140. and the pages. Um, you can see how this thing lines up right down my driveway. The discussion about landscaping is a joke. Unless you're planting 125 ft trees or something that's going to grow that tall, you're not hiding this tower. You may hide with some bushes around the diesel power generator that is there if they need it, but it landscaping is a ridiculous discussion. Um, and if you look at the site as it sits right now, they took the easiest position of moving right off the corner of the road in probably just to beat the variance required to be off the road and that's where they planted the site. There is additional space to the south of that on that parcel. Now, I don't know if this was negotiated with the farm and they said, "No, you can't come any further down." They don't farm it. They lease
it. Every year somebody's growing something different on it. Corn, wheat, um, soybeans, but the farm's not farming that parcel. So, it's no effect on them. Whatever happens here, if you move south on there, at the very least, that moves it away from our homes and away from our view. But the reality is there's nothing they're going to do that's going to make this thing look attractive. And one comment on Seeker. Seeker New York State code for Seeker also includes that under the environmental issues, you have to consider social and economic impact. Economic impact on everybody that lives around that is going to be severe. Um, our assessments will obviously go down. That's a given. We don't know what it's going to do when we come time to sell. I know there are new homeowners that live across the street from this. They weren't told about this tower before they bought the house recently. I mean, within the last couple of months, and they're not happy. And there's a small development, three sites just to the west of them that have had sites turned down for deals because of finding out this tower is going to exist. So, you're
hurting the people that live there. you're hurting the town because you're going to lose some funds out of assessments and taxes because everybody's going to challenge their assessment once this thing goes down. But if you take a look at that site, they couldn't get any closer to the road on the north side, but they certainly could move this to the south if that was the only solution. And I don't think it is. And I don't think they tried hard enough. They found somebody who would lease. They didn't question it. They went ahead. The farm's getting a big check. Everybody's happy except people that live there. And as for the cell tower or cell service, there's a cut off that runs right across that corner. Every day we see people pulled over in that thing to work on their cell phone, answer a call, answer a text. Probably happens all the time and there was one there this morning. There is there's plenty of service and I'm sorry to say that Verizon claims that they don't have any service or people being cut off. I use my cell phone all the time. I'm on the phone making calls, getting calls. I never get cut off.
Okay, we appreciate that.
That argues just specious.
Okay, thank you.
The letter from what before she starts. Yeah, I'm reading the letter from them which I understand the point. The productive farm makers are currently enrolled in a conservation stewardship program through USDA natural resource conservation service. The program contract includes our delivery of several environmental conservation practices on the enrolled acreage through the end of 2029. As per the contract, enrolled acres cannot be taken out of these practices during a contract period. The locations discussed by chairman uh for project relocation both on Webster, Ontario parcels with disturbed land currently enrolled under our contract and we are thus not able to accommodate these locations. Now, I I can appreciate what he's saying there, but could would this conservatory organization be willing to say, "Look, you're just putting a tower. You're not putting a building up or you're not disrupting the land." They see that's what I don't know. If they would say, "We could go
along with this. They're putting a tower in there if it's the neighborhood and so on and so forth." And it doesn't exclude the land owner in way home. I think that would be a possibility that may be agreeable to do, but somebody's got to find that out. I don't know how to do that, but anyways. Yes, ma'am.
Uh, good evening. My name is Janette Kloner. I live at 1854 Lake Road. I also own 1854 Lake Road LLC. I own three acres between Lake Road and the lake, which is right across the street from this parcel. I've spent a lot of the last 3 years developing this property, that 30 acres. Number one, I'd like to point out that that property is within the circle, and at no point were we ever contacted about putting a cell phone tower there. The other thing is um I just had a I was under contract for a lot, Lakefront lot um for $160,000. And as soon as my buyer found out that we were um that this this cell tower was proposed, they pulled their offer. And I got I lost I lost $160,000 because of this cell phone tower. I just want to make that. So I don't want to dismiss all of our property values. There's several houses. We have five houses that were just built. We have millions and millions of dollars of homes that are that people don't want to live there and it's depreciating our values and I don't think that's being
brought up either and you can't deny it because I have the proof. I have the contract and it states they cancelled because of the cellar.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. What are we going to do here? I my opinion I would like to see I mean Mr. Goldman said it should be the neighbors contacting but the town or the neighbors. Should anyone contact and see if we can set something up with the farmer to
make an agreement?
After the last planning board, we did reach out again. He said in no uncertain terms, he has he feels and and candidly I agree right as as we've discussed on the board that he's gone above and beyond and is not interested in continuing this conversation. And I can invite Jessica of NBNC to discuss the state selection plan and how what how we reach out to residents.
Before you do that, can I just ask so oneird of our code allows for aesthetics to be taken into consideration?
Sorry. One of our code allows for aesthetics to be taken in consideration. One of the specific parts is whether or not to the natural surroundings of the location. I mean, what other things could could you address that? What other things could you guys do to make it you're using a road coming from Lake Road potentially? That's where the majority of the properties are located. I believe oppose this instead of using for county. Um there's some trees that are going to be placed around it. What else? up consider what other things can you do to make these steps because realistically the biggest part of our code that would potentially have this property be denied or this project be denied is is the aesthetics and I don't know if there's been enough address with regards to that specific I know we've looked at other sites potentially to help the aesthetics but if you're going to keep it at that location what other things have you looked into
or what other things can you potentially look into to make it a little bit more appeasing and more in line to what our code says it has to be blended in with the natural surroundings of the location. I I think that's a great point and in fact that's something that we have requested of the planning board and are willing to again offer of taking suggestions right we can put in a different fence we can put in a more attractive fence we can put in different landscaping candidly the the concept of having a a franken tree in the middle of a field to to me does typically isn't the um the most aesthetically pleasing uh It does add height and weight and reduces the ability for collocation on that tower when you make it look like a tree. That being said, if that's the planning board's direction, it's something we can explore. But when when thinking about not how can we move this location, but how can we make this site better? That that is something that we do consistently with planning boards and and would welcome that conversation. From our perspective, we um find
landscaping to be the the most productive, but if there are other items from the planning board that we can show at this site to help address at least the equipment aesthetics or the location of the driveway, we would welcome those those comments from the planning board. See the landscaping that's proposed is basically that's just concealing the need for a fence and the mechanicals that's not really doing anything for the tower. The only thing that could remedy that is that landscaping had major goodsiz pine trees and a sawtooth pattern maybe around it and they have to be high to cover like 20 footers. be going to the White House to get their Christmas tree. That's the only thing I could see that would do any kind of concealment on this. Then you're looking at the trees, you aren't necessarily looking up above 25 ft, you know, at the tower so much. I think that's if this is what we've got to deal with where it goes, I have no idea at this point. But my suggestion would be there have to be a minimum pine trees 25 foot pies put in during the winter when when the ball is frozen
and they can plant them and guarantee positive tick I don't know anybody what do you guys think I'm just grasping here
I mean I I just go back to my previous question I apologize for harping on this again the proposition here is 129 foot structure I'm I'm asking why does it have to be a tower if it's a capacity problem and I I haven't gotten an answer to like why the deficiency cannot be addressed with small cells sector splitting additional carriers or antenniguration like what does the answer have to be 129 ft tower for capacity only
and and I guess I'll I'll invite Tim but the the capacity the result of what you point to his capacity is that you do not have coverage. I would question the individuals that are pulling over at the side of the road to check their cell phone is because they lost coverage in that area. So, you know, to the extent there is antecdotal evidence of having coverage or someone is able to reach reach a cell phone site at that particular time, that is not the ability to reach the network in a reliable way. That alternative So sector splitting, small cells, whatever. Um, why those don't necessarily work is the area that we're trying to cover. So sector splitting, the only thing, as you can see by our propagation settings, the only thing that's getting in here 700 700 is not the capacity component of our network.
What we're trying to do is get the capacity beef of our network in here so that more people can do more stuff in this area. So we need to get the midband frequencies in here. I appreciate and I know that we said before and Mr. Johnson is well stated coverage is not necessarily issue. Yes, you can get your calls and you can do things but there are areas and there are times where our capacity gets overloaded. The area that is covering is not just this corner. There's a whole area south that this is going this whole area west whole area east from this area that we're trying to grab coverage from where people are and they're having those problems thanks to. So what we're doing is we're going by our numbers by what we have for as far as records as far as data that we pull down from our sites in the area and we're trying to find the focus area where we can get the most capacity most people off the existing sites around the area and we can do it as efficiently as possible.
So I guess While you're up there, my question is, you know, you have the other facility that currently are not active on Gravel Road, Holton Lake, I think, as well because they're waiting for fiber.
Yes.
If those go active, if will that alleviate some of the capacity need from this area?
Unfortunately, those on the wrong side. So like the Holton Lake is not farther west on the other side of it's on the site south down by grace. So they're not going to help us in this area in particular unfortunately.
Okay.
All right. Anyone else wish to speak? So, one one additional comment outside again outside of the current landlord because they and no uncertain terms said please stop calling us. If there are other sites, I think the the comment of the the 30 acres across the street, I you know, I'll I'll note when one is surrounded by neighbors saying that they too don't want it, it is a difficult proposition to state, but there's someplace else to do it, right? We have very passionate neighbors and and they are are very strong in their convictions that they do not want a cell phone tower but are convinced if there's another location another neighbor that would like a cell phone tower. We are happy to to reach out to a specific person but from our search area and our
ring we feel that we have exhausted all potential feasible locations. But if there is another location that that we're not aware of, you know, we we welcome that feedback. As far as we know, there are no other locations. [clears throat] Um, I'm just going to go back to what I said. This is the location ultimately. Never asked for anything like this, but that needs to be enclosed. Not by a little white or something, but by and I'm going to use 25 foot minimum height pine trees 8 ft apart in a sawtooth configuration in the our 25 ft when they're planted that expectation. Um that's the only thing I can see is when you're driving along in the proximity of the site, you are not going to see the lower part of that tower. You would have to actually look up. Does anybody Does that work in for anybody? That's all I can.
That's good screening for that.
That's the only part.
Yeah. I just look at this first.
You can't hide that power.
No, you can't.
What I'm saying is a compromise. If you can conceal the lower part of it where you're driving, this is where you're looking. necessarily will not see above those trees looking. You're not looking up there. I mean, you right now you drag down 104, you see these huge telephone poles.
After a while, you know, just there, you know, best I can think of is anybody's got anything better. Go ahead. Wouldn't that satisfy code?
Wouldn't that satisfy at least portion of the code in regards to
Yeah, that would that is part of the code is to try and do whatever you can to use that.
So, it's on farmland and there's million dollar houses around it. So, how is 28 foot trees going to conceal 130 foot.
Well, it won't conce it'll conceal 25 ft room level that you're looking.
I get that. It's just So, if you're 2 miles down the road,
you're going to see it.
If you're two miles down the road, you won't even know the tower is there because it's a monopole. It isn't. It isn't a guy.
You'll still see it though.
I don't know. Anybody please speak up any ideas?
I'm just curious about this coverage, but I didn't want to go off track from what everyone else is talking about. But the question that I have in my mind is there people that are saying we have no problem with our cell coverage. Then we're listening to people who speak and saying, "Well, we don't have we do have a problem." And I just like to know how do you how did Verizon determine, excuse [clears throat] me, I'm losing my voice in here. How did Verizon determine that they had what I call a black hole with no coverage?
So, do you want to speak about our RF analysis?
[snorts]
I just reiterate that we have not said we don't have is not a black hole. We have a capacity issue. So we have little our smallest frequency bands at 78. It's tiny. It does. It's more more or less a connection. Take a phone call. It's about all you're going to get out of it. You'll get some, you know, bandwidth if you try and download our meat and potatoes of our system. people that get on to them and we can carry the most people with is our mid band and our C band. Those are two times the size of our of our low bands. That's what does our horse course horse work and ending up in the frequencies. So yes, there's coverage in there. It's not going to be as great or as or as good or is as we listed in our our justification of the site, it is reaching an over capacity quite frequently. That means people are getting those. You hit the phone and you don't get anywhere. So, you have to hang up and call again. Those are going to happen to people in this area. Maybe these people aren't getting it. That's that's great. I'm happy for them. They're not. But those that corner is not all that we covered in these sites.
There's a lot of other areas that we cover with these sites and that's what we're trying to grab up. It's a lot of the capacity in that area. That's why, you know, the 125 ft tower is to try and make sure we're getting a good portion of the area that is being covered by the surrounding sites so we can get them to get them better service [clears throat] now.
Okay. We have to make some sort of a decision one way or the other here.
Follow question.
Can you tell can you tell a difference between a call being dropped and a call being hung up on your just within your equipment.
Not necessarily. Um because you could drop a call for multiple reasons. We'd have to look through like all the extra back layers. You know, we can do those things if we have cell phone. We can look through and find out why did it drop. You wouldn't necessarily see everything. You just all of a sudden would not have that phone call. You would not have service. A lot of times, you know, it just looks the same. But a lot of times, you know, if there's a lot of people on it, you go make a phone call, doesn't go through the first time, so you hang up, try again, that means there's a lot of people on that phone. I know people go to like the state fairs or any of our other funeral mass events, you know, happen sometimes there you're trying to download, you try phone call and you're like I can't get through what's going on that that's what we're talking about. We need cell phone numbers. you know incidents where you are
not exact but you have those
can you repeat your question I may not have heard it properly
so what I was asking within Verizon's monitoring the cell service the data that type of information going out and in the area they have identified TDF analysis that there is a potential for drop calls, difficulty calls we go through because the system is overloaded through. So I'm wondering is there a way to actually document the number of calls on their end without having to go into individuals cell phones part of the data we gave is the you know the traffic of the sites mid and whe is one of those Those are the average users trying to get on our sites. And that goes over the 100% that's when you start seeing this. So those days you see
over 100% in there, those are users not getting users getting kicked out. As far as like solid numbers, I'd have to use all pull out all sorts of information and get legal approvals and just in case we're not pulling phone numbers like that. and and those KPIs Tim's mentioning that's in exhibit F and it's starting on page seven. So that's showing the exhaustion of the current locations uh and and dropping calls and prohibiting individuals from being able to get into the server.
I only see a couple of things here possible. Either in one way or another we approve the way it is with some landscaping but state or the other thing my thought was to reconnect with the land owner farmer and see if he can talk to the conservators of that property he's working with that they say it's okay to put it there and then he'd have to agree to it also but then engineers are saying that they've already after the last meeting they did contact So I don't know what to do.
Within this report there should be the analysis
correct
the pictures are show all the technical data that's not the issue.
Exhibit yes exhibit K or the photo simulations and the first page of exhibit K shows a view analysis. So it shows from where the site would be visible and then the and it also the numbers show where the individual pictures were taken and then the photos after that map. The first photo showing uh a current location and then the photo immediately after those photos is then showing showing the photo simulation of what the tower will look like.
[clears throat]
Yeah, there's a lot of documents that might take me a minute. I try and pull that up. While you're doing that, if I may, just uh I wasn't sure if I was clear, but um Professor Johnson, who everyone respects uh in this in this realm, recommended that the board ask for more detail on the alternatives and said specifically, you recommend that the board determines that present record does not adequately establish the unavailability of reasonable alternatives. the applicant be asked to provide additional documentation describing its outreach efforts for candidates C, D, E, and G. Again, that's what we were asking for. Give us a little bit more than just saying multiple attempts to engage in property owner resulted in no interest. That's that's kind of a generic uh statement. Uh if in fact it could be um documented a little bit better or if we had the ability and and perhaps bring it back next month uh to go and to contact these individuals. That'll be better. Kathy over my left shoulder is
probably going to comment on that. So, welcome to the podium.
Yes, I'm Kathy. I am the project manager and what Jerry's saying makes it sounds reasonable to me and if you know we can have another month we'd be happy to come back and provide some more documentation on you know the outreach efforts to the rest of the search area. Um so you know that's I I don't even know if 25 foot trees are feasible to be honest with you. I I I have never planted a 25 foot tree, let alone multiple 25 foot trees. Um but if if if more documentation is what is needed here, then we're happy to comply um and try and bring it back through. As far as the property owner is concerned, we did after the first planning board meeting, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we did go back and meet on site with him. Um We even brought him to a work session with you and Mr. Artuso. Um, so he is pretty adamant that he cannot accommodate another location here. We tried several times. Um, I I
just don't know if that effort is going to go anywhere.
Unfortunately, you're correct what you're saying. We've got
Exactly. We We have tried. We put forth put forth the effort. Um he
does he let me I'm gonna interrupt you just for a sec. Does he he is affiliated with conservation stewardship program through USDA natural resource conservation service based on that is probably his reason because the land is in this conservatory.
Yes.
Okay. any detail,
but has anybody talked to the conservatory to see if they would have a problem if he did it?
I I don't know. The conservator would have
if that was researched and they said maybe, yeah, because you're not putting, like I said before, you're not putting a foundation, you're not building a building, you're not tearing trees out, you're simply putting a tower back there. He may go along with that. I don't know.
Well, I mean, I think I mean, we're willing to give it another shot. I
And and again, what what Mr. Golden has said, we believe is reasonable. We we'd like to comply. Give us a little bit tonight. folks back here.
I think they have to make every effort in the world to relocate this this thing.
So I ask the question,
I think that they need to make every effort to try to relocate this this town just on the aesthetics alone and [clears throat] the economic impact that the lockers had on the development. Those two reasons alone would make me vote against this.
So this be proposed to the table. Well, that's that's what I'm asking.
If I may, before a motion for tableabling, I I would ask and and Jerry makes a point about the shot clock, but I'll make the contrary point of the the purpose of the shot clock is to help boards come to a final decision and to move this process forward. We have been here since January. I had a hard time finding an outfit that you hadn't seen yet this morning. So, I would ask for the board, even if it's after the meeting and it's through the planning department, if we can get a final list of what information that you need to see to make a determination, we have responded every time we get a document request. I think from our perspective, we've we've done a thorough job. We we've done our
We've done everything that we've asked, but we've only asked for what we've been shown.
And if we point is can there's a final step in there so to speak the way I see it
with the farmer the land owner being in his cons conservatory that he's involved with would it be possible would they agree to him using a parcel of his land a quarter of an acre of his land to facilitate a tower back there and you know where we originally talked at the very beginning of this project back by the woods would they viewed that, then maybe he would say, "Well, if they're okay with it, I'm okay with that. It doesn't ruin his contact with that association." So, I I certainly hear the point. However, when thinking of a a a reasonable position of the town board, kind of the converse of that, right, is that would the planning board deny an application because a private business owner who's already told us they do not want to lease another portion of their area to us, goes and makes a a third-party request to someone that
holds an easement. I just, you know, I I I understand what you are struggling with, but from a perspective of land use and what is appropriate for to to deny a site plan because we a a private land owner is refusing or not even refusing. A private land owner has determined it is not in his business interest to upset an apple cart of of an a conservation easement or a a a business relationship that he has. We can go back and make that ask. But I want to be clear that if the answer is no, that is not a sufficient reason to deny a site a site plan and want to set expectations that from a land use perspective forcing a landowner to make certain decisions.
It's also useful visual compliance. Again, the reason we're asking it to be pushed back to that location is because of visual mitigation that you wouldn't be able to
100% I I very much understand. I I
the denial isn't just because of the ass of the third party. The denial could be because of the non-compliance, the visual portion.
I I again I I very much understand, but I I do want to make it clear that being asked a private land owner being asked to go back to a business relationship
is is for the third time
right for the third time. But I you know just just making it clear of also the the the justosition of even our other site at Wildflower that the town said no to lease to us and we moved on as as we should have done and as was the the town as landlord's right to do so. This individual has the right to say no to us. So I I I want to manage expectations of what we couldn't even expect this landlord to do for whatever reason he has right or wrong or indifferent but we will make that ask again.
I just think as an alternative when you have a code it's quite clear that aesthetics got to be taken into place you have to look at all the other alternatives or way that look a little better
might not please everybody but make it a little better so it does the code does
again 100% agree and I I'm not I'm not fighting against that argument I'm simply raising to go back a fifth time or a sixth time there has to be a limit of a a conclusion that this is that he has said no and and I I want to get us to a place that we are respecting that decision Let's bring this thing.
Who wants to contact Who wants to contact the land owners? You or the town? I don't know.
Who should it be up to?
Verizon.
Josh, what do you think?
I think it's more appropriate for Verizon.
Verizon. Okay.
Okay. So then if you can you contact and ask what their situation is with that with their agreement on on the property conservation and if it would be possible for that organization to allow a tower to be built to the south edge of the property closer to the woods of which he has a driveway that comes in off of of a county line road goes back into that area. I believe they know a land owner or we ask organizations.
No, shouldn't be contact.
Hold on. I'm sorry.
Verizon should not be contacted about who's who's a party to that agreement. Horizon was not a party to that agreement. We will ask the the property owner if he is willing to go back to the ship.
No, that's fine. Yeah. No, you're right.
And if there are any other suggestions, we're willing to look deeper into the calls that we have made, the context that we have made, the denials that have come from folks within the search area.
All right. If there's any other suggestions, I know the attorney suggested, you know,
well, we've got this narrow down.
Are there suggestions on making it look better? Because someone suggested camouflaging it as a tree, which we typically do. We're doing that at Oakill. Just got to prove this to do this at Oakill Country.
Doing a tree, but it's 100 ft in the air. You can plant large.
You can't disguise 129 foot tower to look like a tree reasonably. It's going to look terrible. Trees and camouflage work in context with the surrounding environment. Um, so I I'm I'm open to suggestions if anyone has any other suggestions. Sometimes I'm going to give you mine. I'm going to give you mine and then
Okay. If you talk to the landowner, something can be resolved in that avenue. Great. If not, you come back. My only way to ever even think of voting yes on that would be trees that are equal, like I said, a 25 foot height tree. They can they dig them, they freeze it, they move the ball and plant them like that. That's how you do it. And it's done. It's a big job, but that's the only I can see and a 20 25 foot tree now will grow. But that at least at road level while you're driving, you're not looking at a tower. The tower from a distance, yeah, you'll see it over over the top of the tree. No question. But it's not that distractive. I I don't believe that. That's just my opinion.
I would also add to that. You mentioned you got over 175 towers in a similar location trail. Let's see some photographs of what you've done at those locations.
You've already done this. What have you done other places to make? It is tempting to say it is only 4T diameter grade with our race guys. That's not
Let's see what what you have done at other locations instead of you at least 175 times. You already said
again we have we have camouflage towers. We do camouflage towers but it has to be in the right context.
I do park where we're putting them in forest and they we do it just above tree level around that park. Um,
no. Exactly. So, you should have experience with the same the same kind of you you have experience
at other locations with the same kind of setting. You should be able to show us what look like there.
All right. And if I can ask again if there's any other items that we can provide before the next meeting, I I would ask if you could convey them to Josh or to to the attorney that can convey it to us so that we can come with what I hope is a finalist in in robust information for the for the planning board at the next meeting.
We understand your frustration. You want to you want to complete this and I think we're in equal terms with that. Anybody anything further on this?
I think it's a great idea.
That's the only thing I can think of. That's just my suggestion. I don't know if it works for you guys. That would be the way to think of it.
Excellent.
Extra large trees like that. 8 ft apart sawtooth pattern so you don't even see through them. And that that would conceal majority of the tower at close range. Far range you're only seeing at the very top of it. I use that cart on the corner of Empire Boulevard there by the express road.
They've got a cell tower there. They got they've got lights with the wall field.
They're equally as high almost as the cell tower. Nobody even knows it's there. So, I understand the dawn of it, but it's a personal thing. It's in a neighborhood with, you know, pretty nice houses down there. So, anyways, with that, I guess we want to ask motion table. Motion to table county road applications.
Second election
correct?
Yeah. November 10th.
Okay. All in favor of the All right, that's true.
Okay, the next item on the agenda tonight is barn located at 501 public road. The applicant Daniel Bennady is requesting preliminary final site plan approval and public hearing in association with the construction of a 768 square footbar on a 3.01 01 acres parcel located in the large lot residential district under section 269-11 section 350-13 and 350-36 of the codeb text That's back from the road, isn't it?
Uh, yeah. Won't be able to see it from
Yeah, it's pretty good.
Now, what do you what is this going to be? What is it?
Yep. I I got a call today and I do have a uh color sample.
Can I give that to somebody? Anybody?
So, [snorts] the colors are to match the house.
Got charcoal siding. Have white trim and black roof.
So, that's the colors of the house. So, it's basically designed to uh match the house. Are you self performing it or are you building it or
um I I've got a contractor that I'm contracting to build it.
It's for personal use.
Yes. Yes. Just for storage.
Are you going to have an access drive to get to it somehow or because I don't said you have barn door?
It's actually going to be grass.
Grass.
Yeah. It's not like am I going to got tractors and snowblowers and
fourwheelers you pull any power to it?
Uh, no. I'm not insulation. It's just basically for storage.
Okay. on the second line. We just have a red off [cough] the there is 15 ft. So we're going to the closest point is going to be about 17 ft off and then it's going to angle in a little bit. So the back of the the back corner there going to be about 17 ft off the property. Just curious too, does a neighbor's house go on your property?
Um, that's that's a um that's a rental property there and there's a staircase that comes off the back of the rental property which actually does hit the property line.
So, the closest building
[snorts]
heard some um probably. Yeah.
Right. Exactly. So that's a little clearing there. We're putting it between the trees. We want to take out a lot of trees. So,
neighbors are putting this up.
As far as I know, yes, 15 is the
All right. I don't see any issues with it. It's encroaches on the line. You got an e. Has he got an ement to be there now or what? Uh there is an easement for the uh staircase. Yes.
Oh, okay.
Yeah. There's a note indicating a license agreement.
Yeah. There the building itself is not there's a there's a staircase that comes off the back for a fire hazard
because there's an upstairs. So they have they built the staircase over and down. So that's from the second floor down for fire. So that part only touches the property line. There's a fence there. That fence goes over. So you can see kind of angled a little bit.
That goes out and back in.
Okay. Well, all right. As far as what the applicant is here for, any issues with personal use?
Again, this is a public hearing. Anybody speak against it?
No.
We'll close the public hearing. Bring it back. Anybody have questions or concerns?
Town funding board consider requesting construct a 768.01 acre parcel having SPL number 064.01-1 -1-5.25 located at 501 road residential district classified as a proposed action as a type two action under section 617.59. Okay. Motion to
second. All in favor? I
motion for approval for make a motion to approve barn located at 51 room is restricted to one accessory building. The building is to conform to the size and location presented on a plan. Placement of the building shall conform to all setback requirements. The building should not be placed near to the front line and the rear line of the main building for residence upon the lot. No point of the building will be higher than the existing structure. No commercial use shall occur on the parcel. Excessive building should be used for personal use only as defined by town. Significant construction shall occur one year as deemed by the planning board. expired on October 6th, 2027. Comply with all requirements of any state, county, and town agency. All site should be in compliance with the standards the town of Western subject to all engineering governmental rules
to all appropriate governmental fees to resolution.
Okay, that's a motion. Second.
All in favor? All right. Final approval basically just include that date and just make it subject to 225-36 the code regarding accessory buildings complies with all that
you said
construction. All right, that's a motion for final approval. Do you
second?
All in favor?
I luck with your project.
Thank you very much.
Next item on the agenda, P bar located at 747 Gravel Road. The applicant president is requesting preliminary final site plan approval and a public hearing in association with the construction of a 1,40 square foot coal barn on a 1.3 acre parcel located in the single family residential district under section 269-11 section 350-12 section 350-36 of the code of the town of Webster. Good evening, Mr. Finch.
My name is Tim Finch. I own 747 Gr and I would like to put up a structure.
We got enough things by 38, right?
Yes. All personal use.
Yes.
Storage, no insulation, no electricity, no water.
Um, I heard you were on the thing, so I brought you a sample so you could see it. 40 years ago, I came in front of this board and he was here. [laughter]
Good luck.
Marches shows a kid.
Shows an existing metal shed that's still there.
Um, we had a major fire two weeks ago.
It's gone. It is cleaned up like it was never there. The dumpster left today.
Okay. You just used it for yourself. It's not rental property or anything like that.
Environments for me.
Okay. Anybody any concerns? Okay. Again, it's public hearing. Anybody want to deny it? Okay. Anybody concerns or The house is white. It's got a charcoal roof and I got slate shutters. So, we pick this so it won't be red, orange, or something else.
That'll work.
Town planning board consider request by applicants finished to construct a 1,140 foot barn and a 1.3 acre parcel having number 63.20-1-9. located at 747 Revel Road in an R3 single family residential district. The planning board classifies that the action was a type two action under section 617.5C9 review regulations and therefore not subject to further review.
Okay, we have a motion.
Second favor. Okay. For approval approval motion for 747. No. The lot is restricted to one accessory building. Building is to conform to the size and location presented by the plan. Placement of building shall perform all setback requirements. Building should not be placed near to the front line or the rear line of book main building. the residents of my lot. No point of a building be hired under this construction. No commercial use shall occur in the parcel. Accessory building should be used for personal use only as defined by [clears throat] significant construction shall occur within one year as deemed by planning board to expire on October 6, 2027. Comply with all requirements of any state, county, town agency. All site workers need compliance with the standards of sub to all engineering government tools. Sub all appropriate governments
to resolution minutes. That's a motion.
Okay. Motion in a second. Second.
All in favor? Make a motion for final approval by 747 road to include all everything that was in the subject to 22536 accessory building.
Okay. The motion is second.
I second. Sorry.
All in favor?
I [clears throat] application.
You should be all set then. Good luck. It
was really nice to see you, Mr.
He'll see you 40 years ago. [laughter] See me in 40 years. I don't think so.
Okay, take your and go home. Yeah.
Uh, last item on the agenda is the Olive Garden located at 931 Holt Road. The applicant Jeanie Shamberg is requesting sketch a sketch plan review in association with a renovation and expansion of the former UNO's Pizzeria building on a 15.14 acre parcel located in a highintensity commercial district under section 269-5 and section 250-9 of the code of the town website. [snorts]
Good evening. Uh my name is Shannon Dun. I am the brand design manager for Olive Garden and I'm here to present um our re renovation of the cafeteria. So Olive Garden's intention for this project is to expand the building um roughly around 1,200-,500 square feet. We won't be taking up any more of the building footprint outside of the patio that exists today. Um it's we needed to get all the capacity of our restaurant. Um, right now the plan is to recclad the building with our Tuskin farmhouse stone and bring in some of our new um, elements of our prototype. In addition to clatting the building, we're going to also be redoing the landscaping. So, there's a lot of landscaping on the existing property that's overgrown. So essentially, we're going to be bringing most of that back down, trying to keep some of the the local um relevant species and bring in some of the Italian um landscaping that we do in our participations. So I know it's late, so I don't know if anybody has any more questions. I can go through the deck if everybody would like or we can open up [clears throat] for questions. I was asked one request from you and that on the elevations
you all stone on there.
Mhm.
That you incorporate slanted brick as the plaza contains.
So
somewhere.
Yes. And you know we've sent that to our our landlord for review. So, if you look at the front elevations, well, actually all the elevations, um, there's brick tower accents throughout the building that have been painted. Um, unfortunately, they were painted by Uno's Pizzeria without the approval of the landlord. So, our intent is to remove the paint and restore it to the original brick. Um, we also are doing a little bit of brick at the back of the expansion area to tie into the the brick that's on the existing um down enclosure in the rear.
That that's that's an attraction. Now you're putting that wing on there that is currently just an outside cab that's closing
correct. So the entire work will be shifting out the entire side of the building there. Uh
and um we're going to be redoing some of the gable the roofs right now are hit roofs. So we're going to be putting some gable roofs so they bring more of the Tuskan farmhouse that has
and again that's good. I think that track um landscaping it's not Arizona desert. So my suggestion is probably you know that you have grass and give us a give us a nice design. That [snorts] design should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
Okay.
If if I don't know if you guys have the renderings in the back of the package.
I've got I've gone through it.
Okay. Because we we have shown quite a bit more grass um and a lot more shrubs and trees that that were there originally.
Yeah. Sorry. We're looking at what he has up up there right now which shows stone. But you're right. in the renderings down here. It's all grass.
Apologies. I don't think that got swapped out in our package. We did redo the elevations based on the conversation
renderings. Show us a draw architecture.
Okay.
Okay. Other than that, I don't know what else we
So, are you going to have drive-thru here or is it just
just curbside? Yeah. Now the Josh point the dumpster area lot you may have to have a
Oh okay we can look at that
is that only if we have a drain in the dumpster or
Oh the actual cover on the dumpster.
Yes.
Yeah. There apparently there are new regulations that require refuge dumpsters to have cover over them.
Okay. Um, I think one of the other points I was trying to bring up was I think our code requires a solid form of screening whereas I think this is see-through. So that
Yeah. So I apologize but it would not be see-through.
Okay.
We typically do with a corugated metal and it would be brown to match the rest of the the facade. I'm jumping ahead a little, but you're not going to have any signs with your public.
Yeah, it's not allowed on our property.
Okay. Anybody else? Anything? I think
No, that's good.
Although there is a little bad news, I think received a couple of letters. I respect I respectfully ask the board to seriously consider the long-term impact of continuously approving additional fast food chains and other national franchises which is a wonderful community. We're lacking unique restaurants and we should not approve the garden. Yeah. Okay. Then the other one is I would strongly encourage the town of Webster to reconsider adding an Olive Garden to our community. Webster already has several locally own family owned restaurants and served. This is from somebody from Ontario. So anyways,
there were two ladies in the back that left that were pro.
They're not here to speak to me right now. But
anyways, we just I just wanted to bring them up. Thank you very much. what we did.
Okay. Anything else? Anybody?
All right. Then you can prepare yourself and come back in for
approval on the project. Good luck with
I think I think this is a real real asset to the area. [snorts]
So that's good.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. Okay. Need approval of the September 6 meeting.
Yeah, I said I'll make a motion to approve a second.
I hope you guys are reading these second I made
Hey Josh. Josh, when does the new emails take into effect that you want us to use?
I guess we're all set with everything for this evening. Um, we've got two RVs.