Zoning Board Meeting · Webster Civic

Mhm.

closed. Um for anybody who does want to make public comments, we're going to limit uh comments to 5 minutes or uh per per person or public to speak. Um don't anticipate us going uh anywhere near 10:00, but if we get to 10:00, we do reserve the right to postpone anything left over to to the next day. Uh or to not next day, but to the next meeting. Uh, let's see. So, I do have here the proof of legal publication for all items. Uh, call for attendance.

Mr. Schwartz.

Here.

Mrs. Bola.

Here.

Mr. Stefanada.

Here.

Mr. Santola.

Here.

Mrs. D'Emilio.

Here.

Mr. Accorso.

Here.

Mr. Artuso.

Here.

Mr. DeMarco.

Here.

We can all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance.

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

[snorts]

Our first scheduled matter for tonight is 440 Lake Road. It's uh, I'm going to uh, I'm going to ask uh, you to come up. Is there anybody here representing 440 Lake Road? Push them off to later. Um, moving on to uh, El Garden sign, located at 931 Old Road. Is there anybody here representing

Here.

Uh, state your name uh, for the record.

Uh, my name is David Vitale.

Okay. And you are

Uh, I'm SCS Branding located at 6001 Merchants Crossing South Bend, Indiana. Working with Darden Restaurants on this Olive Garden. They were able to submit this recently and then we kind of step in and help them with these non-permitting processes. So, if you guys are good, I'm ready to Okay. All right. So, the address we're talking about is the old Uno's Pizzeria. It's located at 931 Holt Road in Webster. As you can see, the Uno's Pizzeria, they had three signs on their building and they are located in the middle of this development here. And I do have some handouts if you guys That would be all right. You know, I did make some

additions to the artwork though. Nothing's changed. That's your lies what I'm talking about a little bit better. I have a All right. Sorry about that. We'll go to page two here. This will give you an aerial view of the entirety of the development here. You can see the white-out building is where Olive Garden is going [snorts] to be. And all the lines you see over here, these are all the um traffic patterns. Anyway you can get to this site, so we wanted to make sure that it was obvious that you can come uh from basically any angle, and uh you can view this building from any angle as well. And, uh we're looking to have signage on all four elevations for the reason that this uh site is basically in the middle of the parking lot. Uh I was coming up to the site for the first time today, like I mentioned, I'm not local. Uh I actually drove up uh from the rear of the building, which was approaching from the north, and um I was able to see the old uh Uno's

Pizzeria sign there. It was great to be able to identify the building, and then uh get to the parking area, so I could kind of just get my way in my lay of land there. But, uh as we go on to let's look at page four here. We'll go right back to the site plan. And, uh on the left side of this page, you'll see the existing versus the proposed for the front elevation. Um the front elevation, we're allowed to have a sign there. On the left elevation, uh we're looking to propose exactly what uh Uno Pizzeria had. This is sleek design there, um giving visibility to the building for people who are uh in the parking areas in the development. Um I know when people are going to these commercial zones, they like to spend time in multiple areas, get a couple and then he's got to run and grab something to eat. So, uh if you're in the development all day, and now you look around, where's the Alber's? All right, well, if there's everything we blank wall on that building, you'll be able to identify it without having to look at it for too long, especially if you're driving past on roadways there and parking areas. Um inadequate signage can sometimes be uh more of a detriment than uh signage that's too big, per se, or whatever compared to the code, but if uh

the signs on the buildings are in an appropriate spot where people in commercial zones expect to see them, uh they can expect to see that information, get it, and then make an educated decision on how they want to uh keep operating their vehicle. So, um we want to make sure being located in the middle of this development uh on the uh east side of the building, the right elevation, we're also looking to propose a sign on that uh side of the building. Now, there is a tree line uh along that property line there, but as I'm looking at those trees, um a lot of those leaves are going to be falling off during the [snorts] winter months, so that's a pretty um that's a good viewing corridor there to help as well if you are driving past the building, and then you can kind of hit the next um curb cut in to get on the development. Um

[snorts]

And then as we're going on to page six here, I wanted to illustrate um the sign over the front door, and then the uh the remaining signs that we are proposing. These would uh all the red area, that would be essentially if we weren't allowed to have those signs, we wouldn't be able to identify the building from any of these angles, and uh we find that to be um a little bit of a problem, especially in these populated uh parking areas. If you're straining to look for a sign and you're trying to figure out what something is, you may drift over to a lane, you know, it just an inch may make a difference, so uh Alburn makes it um they they find it very important to make sure that their signage is appropriate, but then it's there to um it fits in with the architecture of the building as well, so it looks very nice. It's not too gaudy, it's um high-quality materials, installed by professionals, and um, we're just looking to get a presence on every side of that building there just because orders are going to be approaching from every side of the building. Um, so if you have any questions regarding our request, I'm here to answer them at your guys' convenience.

So, Josh, one question I have, um, in the original packet, uh, it also included a sign B, which was which is the roadside. Is that I assume is that still part of this request? I don't see it in this new package.

No. Um, that's going to be handled separately through the planning board cuz it's not really going to be mounted on the building. It's more upright where the parking space got it.

Okay. The um, board have any questions? I think it's pretty straightforward and basically putting a sign back where you know, originally had a sign.

Um, I think that the site three sides of the building already have signage approved which stays with the building. Um, so we're just really considering the fourth sign.

Yes. Yep.

[clears throat]

I don't I don't have any questions.

Yep.

[clears throat]

No. It's not pretty similar to the Olive Garden.

Yep.

Same question.

I'll open up the public if anyone wants to speak for or against this project. Please come on up. Nope. Back to the board. Any final comments from the board?

Regarding the signage.

I'd just like to make the board aware that part of the um, landlord tenant agreement does not allow Olive Garden to put a sign on on the Plaza monument signs, which is also part of the reason why they're requesting this additional building on the site.

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

[clears throat]

Thank you.

Mhm.

Any final comments from the board? No? All right. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action on the procedure pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Resolution on the findings?

Sure. Um granting area variance will not create a

[clears throat]

will not uh create an undesirable change in the area or the the living parking or driving of the public plaza or the adjacent neighborhood. Um the benefits are not adequate. It's minimal. Uh especially since they're not able to have a sign inside of the plaza entrance and it ensures that their business will be seen from the most from all sides. Uh area variance is not substantial, it's minimal. Um it's not really achieved by any other method. Um and like I said, it won't have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the existing plaza or surrounding neighborhood. And uh the existing vision is itself creating that the previous use at sites at the same location. So, they are they're just uh taking over the lease from the previous uh tenant and doing the same thing. We're going to find out anything else.

[clears throat]

I'd like to make a motion for area variance located at 931 Holt Road to allow a 71.6 square foot wall mounted sign on the north elevation of the building on a 15.1 5 acre parcel having SBL 079.06-1-2.11 located in the ACE height as a commercial district under section 265-4 of the town

[clears throat]

code of the town of Wappingers.

Mr. Schwartz.

Hi.

Mr. Centola.

Hi.

Mr. Corso.

Hi.

Mrs. Mola.

Hi.

Mr. Stefanoda.

Hi.

You have your area variance 1 year to to get all the rest of the permits and get the equal progress moving.

All right. Thank you.

Have a good day. Next up, zoning interpretation 1854 Lake Road and Timothy Yeah, I'm not going to be able to see that from here.

[clears throat]

I don't blame you.

[clears throat]

I'll start first. Hi, my name is Tim Lochner. Good evening. Uh 1854 Lake Road.

Yep.

And I'm Steve Schultz with MRB. Um Janette Lochner, uh Tim's wife, is also here. Um They're proposing a 20 by 50 addition to their detached garage that was constructed in 2021. Uh two variances were granted at the time for that garage project um on August 25th, 2021. One was for an accessory structure located near the front property line and the other for a second accessory structure. Uh the garage addition will house a recently purchased uh 40-ft motorhome. Its primary purpose is to keep the motorhome out of the the neighbors' view and keep it tucked away in an aesthetically pleasing garage and also keep it out of the the lousy weather we have a lot of the year. Uh the neighbors are in favor of the motorhome. Um It was determined variances were necessary when uh Mr. Lochner's building permit application was denied back in

May uh due to non-conformance with town code. Uh once he found out the reason for the denial, he reduced the scope of the project, uh scaled back from 24-ft wide to 20-ft wide to be closer to compliance. However, these variances are probably still necessary for uh town code section 350-36. Um at a meeting with the town staff on September 14th, it was suggested our initial application be an interpretation review to confirm what variances are required and then kind of map out the best path path forward for the application. Um We did submit site plan and architectural elevations. Um the elevations um once we make a formal application will be will be colored and we'll submit the justifications and any other additional um we do have supporting letters from the neighbors. We'll also submit those. Um so that's kind of where we are and and due to due to an interpretation meeting, but I'd like to see what you think.

All right. So um the town board and Josh Bricker is our lawyer. Right now what we're doing today tonight is interpreting whether a variance is required um or is allowed uh due to an accessory structure being in excess of 2,500 square feet. Up on your screen is section 350-36-8-3. Uh which states no such building shall be larger than 25% of the square footage of the main uh building or habitable floor area. Um or 2% of the lot size, whichever is larger. Um just by going uh I believe if you do 25% of the main house it is limited to 1,500 uh square feet. If you go by the size of the lot it's it's larger uh significantly larger cuz it's a 5.6 acre lot if I remember correctly. Um but that section also states in no case shall the accessory accessory building uh exceed 2,500 square feet in size. So um question is

uh is a variance allowed per uh per the town Webster code. Uh is I'm looking what we are discussing today. So, then John, you sent uh some information over. Would you mind sharing that with the board as well?

I um Let Let me start in reverse. I I don't think this is a question for the board. I think that legally it's not really a factual issue, it's a legal issue. That with regard to the statutory language cited in 350-3683, um I think I had used in in my email to you the language I thought was "Under no circumstances here it's in no case shall." Uh it's essentially the same language, but the New York State Town Law, Section 267-B, the legislature provided authority to ZBAs to vary any local, dimensional, or physical requirement. And And the word any being in italics if I was writing it out, uh and then Court of Appeals, New York, it's New York's highest court, has held that local town boards cannot use restrictive phrasing in local laws to override the New York statutory authority, statutory authority being 267-B,

which says that um the ZBA has the authority to vary any local, dimensional, or physical requirement. So, it would be my opinion that the phrasing here, which is quote "Under no case," does not preempt the state law, but state law preempts the local law. Which meant that is that this board he the authority to grant a variance. Um based on terms and conditions that have always been evaluated for variances. So, there's no preclusion. There's there's nothing special about this language that takes that authority away from this board. So, I I don't think it's a question of you all voting. Um I think that's just a matter of law. And then because of the way the agenda is set forth, um it's really not sufficient to go through go through the variance this evening because the public really wasn't properly notified of the criteria that the board is going to be going to evaluate either grant or deny the variance. So, and I think it's a good idea to bring that forward to the next board meeting if that works out for the applicant and

properly notice and then the board can go through its normal steps in determining whether the applicant meets the requirements.

And board, do you have any questions?

The decision of law uh is a matter of real holding versus Lee High Junior, 3297, and matter of Detroit, D E T R O I A, 87 New York 2nd 331. That's the uh court authority for the opinion I just provided.

Thank you.

Yes. Are there any other any questions for the applicant or anything? [clears throat]

I have a couple comments. I'm assuming we'll see you back next month for um a variance, um would be my guess. Um building height. I wasn't able to determine what the overall height of the structure is going to be based on the documents that were provided. Please make sure that that is included uh with the submission that you provide next. Um Okay. I guess John, actually a question for you. Uh there are two accessory buildings on the site as of right now. Uh they have a variance for the second. The code only allows one. Um with 2,500 sq ft, which again variance will be able to be sought for. Would you Would that be per building? Would that be in totality? Or up for the zoning board to determine?

Well, I think you're limited by the statute, which here is that no such building unless Josh, you direct us to another code section. I can't think of another relevant one.

Yes. It's okay.

And you know, again, I don't know where we are in time versus the other applicant. If the board wants to uh you know, assist by pretending that this is a conceptual review and has any questions or concerns that are you know, economic uh in terms of time and not what they have again and notice what they're going to be looking for. Anything that ultimately would would help the applicant make a better presentation.

Right.

[clears throat]

Yes.

So, it's He's already He already said he's going to provide

color elevations.

Okay.

And you need more more information for just the building height. So, I need to match the existing building height.

Yeah.

So, we plan to match the existing building height.

Yeah, please provide the actual

Oh, oh, we will. Yeah, we'll have a a more complete application with like I said, with the justifications, colored elevations, and um I guess my other question is you did get a variance for um a structure closer to the front yard than the primary residence, which is

Which is the garage they used for the additional primary residence. This garage in 2021 is closer to I guess this private drive is considered a primary.

Yep. So now this this addition will protrude a little bit further closer. Does Does that Does the previous variance cover that

No, because usually the variance provides It doesn't provide the distance from the property line.

Okay. We got to incorporate that into our application.

Okay. I just I don't know how long the previous variance is how long ago. But there was nothing There's no language in the previous variances.

[clears throat]

And I'm not suggesting this would preclude or not, but was it limited to say this is the last variance on the property or that it could be no they weren't limited in any way. Not that I recall.

Yeah, it was

There was the size

size of the non-commercial use.

Well, the second building and yeah, no commercial use.

That's right. It's commercial use and there were no auto repair or anything like that.

Yep, of course.

Okay. All right. Um I guess if

[clears throat]

there are any other questions, I think we're all set and um you have to get in the the uh the application. Hopefully see you guys next month.

Okay.

See you See you all next Tuesday.

The submission deadline will be October 27th.

Is that right?

27th.

Okay. The The The one after that would be November 17th. Of when the when the The deadline is.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night.

[clears throat]

Uh, next, um, 680 Hills Pond Road, if, uh, Shane Metcalfe can come on up.

Good evening. Uh, Shane Metcalfe, 680 Hills Pond Road. Uh, as I said, good evening, Chairman Short, members of the board. My name is Shane Metcalfe, and my wife, Dana, and I own my home at 680 Hills Pond Road. Thank you for considering our area variance request. We're requesting permission to install approximately 138 linear feet of 6-ft high Woodstock gate privacy fencing, including one gate to enclose a portion of our side and rear yard. Our property is a corner lot, uh, with frontage on both Hills Pond and Brookville Drive. Although the area we want to enclose functions as our backyard, the secondary street frontage creates an additional front yard setback restriction. That's the reason I'm here before you tonight. Our goal is to create a safe, secure, private, and usable outdoor space for our family. We originally looked at a 4-ft chain link fence, but ultimately selected a 6-ft solid wood fence because it provides better separation and privacy. We tried to keep the design noted and

appropriate to the existing mail of our home, uh, shed, and neighboring fences. Uh, our proposed fence will remain on our property and will not extend into the primary front yard along Hills Pond Road, and will not change the residential use of the property. We're not proposing changes to grading or drainage, but we're just trying to make sensible use of the space we have. Uh, for those reasons, we respectfully request approval of the area variance as provided. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

One of the questions I have and it's really difficult to really tell, right? If you drive down Brookville Drive, um all those houses are set back a certain distance. Um the way it looks your the side of your garage is in line with all those houses along Brook- uh Brookville Drive.

[snorts]

Yes, sir.

Um by then putting your fence out 24 ft um from the garage, a 6-ft stockade going to your property line is then going to be roughly 24-30 some odd feet in front of your neighbor uh behind your backyard, if you if you will.

Okay.

Based on based on what the plans are showing and like I said, I was struggling trying to determine that when I was out there earlier today, but that's what it appeared to me. So, as I would be driving down Brookville, I would end up seeing that. Um have you ever considered from the corner of the shed angling it back, this way it is not coming forward of your neighbor to the rears um front of the house.

I hadn't. Um as you probably saw today, most of that side property on Brookville is occluded by trees, uh which was a similar conversation that we had back in 2023 when we uh granted our shed variance.

[snorts]

So, it's kind of a unique position. Uh obviously, we treat that section as our backyard. Um most of the fence will be occluded by those trees. Um the neighbor that you're referencing behind me also has a similar 6-ft stockade fence on both sides um abutting to my backyard on my own outside. Uh

[snorts]

so, I I don't see being an issue with that, but if you choose the board, is it?

Other questions from the board?

The only concern that I have that is I'm looking at this view, it doesn't appear that it's going to come

I don't think that would line is representative of the property. That's just one of the ways that

Okay.

based on Maybe I'm wrong.

That that looks pretty much in line. Now, I mean, I can't determine the the pure distance, but

Sure.

No, but based on the garage width it's about the same length as the garage is out from the main house and it's goes from there perpendicular. So, it might be a couple feet shorter than the scale drawing would be, but I think it's relatively accurate. But even if it is a Look closer to the house, closer to Rockville Drive than the neighbor right there is. It's It's minimal and there's at least approaching perpendicular along Rockville, it's maybe well in. You might see it as you drive by as neighbor to the north as you're coming up to the intersection of Rockville Hill property. I don't think it's significantly in front of it enough to make it a big deal.

I When I drove down there, it definitely did.

Would you be opposed to making the corner the north corner the I guess that would be the northeast corner in line with the front of your neighbors. And And maybe it is, right? And if it is, then it's a non-issue. But would you be opposed to making that a stipulation to make the northeast corner in line with the front of your neighbor's house?

No further forward.

No further forward than your neighbor's house.

Uh

So, it's not any closer to to the front of the house, I'm sorry.

Yep, to the front of the house.

Or if you look at what's on the screen now, if that red line was in line with the edge of the existing house just to the north of your property line there, correct? If you just drew it there.

Yeah, I would be okay with looking at that. Ideally, the curiosity I would have is Sorry, are you speaking You mentioned the the northeast. So my apologies, I think I was looking at the southeast corner.

So northeast based on this photo, right? So the the upper it would be the upper right side where the fence would hit the property line.

Got you. Yeah, I mean basically, the reason we chose that line was because of the location of the shed to line up with it visually. Um but if it pleases the board, then Yeah, actually.

And [clears throat] I would go to the back of the shed. So you graphic that that you you provided in your thing, right? I would go out the 24 ft uh up to the back of the shed and then from the back of the shed essentially, if you have to, angle it back to align with the the front of your neighbor's property or the house. This way it doesn't go any further forward.

Okay. What does What does that I don't understand what that accomplishes though because it doesn't put it any any further back from the road.

So as you're driving down Brookville,

I know it would make an alignment.

Well,

but what he's got, the way I look at it, is he's actually got a piece of land from the road more the way he has it than what you're suggesting. If you look at Well, I'm looking at the drawing now what I'm on the screen. It looks like it might be I'm going to just throw out a 2.5 out 2 or 3 ft.

Further Yeah, further away it's all

It scales a little more than a foot off. Right. If this is correct, then I don't have an issue with this.

Okay.

I

Okay.

When I was out there and I took a quick step using my feet, right? And it [clears throat] appears that it is going to be significantly further forward of the front of the house.

I It's It's okay.

And if I might be completely wrong, right? I am I'm not out there. I'm not the contractor. What I'm What I'm trying to avoid is as you're driving down Brookville is that there's a 6-ft stockade that you're

That is actually closer to Brookville.

Correct. That That That's all I'm trying to avoid.

Okay.

Um again, if I'm wrong and this is This is accurate, then then this is great. In fact, I just don't think that this is accurate.

What you're going to say to your neighbor is that the seed uh the front of the the neighbor's house.

Yeah.

It's not going to be any further forward than the

front quarter.

How are we going to look?

What we said was

the neighbors do do not

Come forward more.

not do any closer to Brookville Drive than the south east quarter

Yes.

of the neighbors to the north.

Do you want me Do you mind going up?

Not at all, sir.

Real quick. So this is again me sketching out the field. That black line is roughly where I think the your neighbor your backyard neighbor's house is. This is what I was talking about. This dashed blue line is what if you're not opposed to that cuz as you're driving down Brookville, you're going to end up seeing this 6-ft stockade that's going to come forward over your neighbor's house by 20 25 ft. Whatever Whatever the distance is, again, I was stepping it off, so it's not accurate. Would you be opposed to that uh is really what the question is.

Is it okay if I oppose it?

You can. It But then it's also okay for us to not grant variances as well, right? So, I'm not going to say we will or won't grant anything, but so yeah, you can definitely oppose it.

So, I I'm curious just because the black line you've drawn uh you're saying it's the front of their property.

Front of their house, not their property.

Okay. I understand. Um so, the start of our fence would begin where their 6-ft fence ended here.

Their 6-ft fence is actually behind their property. So, you'd be forward of their 6-ft fence because theirs is at the back of their house.

Just so the fence isn't closer to the front than the front face of their house.

So, I guess I'm not understanding the situation then.

Just so the So,

I mean, their house would be sitting over here, right? This is where their house is. Their fence is back here. That's their fence. So, your fence would be the dashed blue line and then and it just continues back.

So, our fence would be intended to start where their fence ends.

Oh.

So, my apologies. I didn't know.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. My My intent is to start That's why I was a little confused at first when I said that.

Okay.

It's that close to the road.

Well,

So, it's it's 32 ft off of where their fence ends. Which is not at the front of their house. It's obviously at the back of the house. This is the

So, can um yeah, you go out to the shed. You want to take a quick look up there?

Yep.

So, there's the shed.

Yep.

You see where where fence line is? Kind of so where So essentially our our fence would start

here.

Okay, at the back of the shed.

At the back of Well, no. My shed is this here.

So it would start at the corner of where their fence is.

Yes, sir.

Got it. Okay.

Yep. So that that

Got it.

I honestly I don't think that's 32 ft from where their fence ends to the front of the house. It's probably pretty close.

Sure.

But essentially, yeah, the line of the fence meets theirs so that we can just enclose it.

Essentially coming from a diagonal from the corner of the shed to there.

Yep. So out 32 ft and then down on the side of the garage to meet the shed.

No, so it's still going to be a right angle corner.

Yes.

So I'm asking you

But we just go ahead.

What's wrong?

So we just want to make sure that that that's the pool corner does not go further

Sorry.

than the front of the house. Than the front of the house.

So that's 20 ft.

I I could be wrong. I apologize, but I'm assuming that maybe my fence company made an inaccurate measurement because the intent was to have this This is the shed here. The intent was to have this meet here. It wasn't to go out 32 ft. So I'm I'm not sure they made an inaccurate measurement. I don't know.

Okay.

So the intent is Yeah, essentially somewhere in that 25-ft range would meet the back of the shed. And that's probably even a little bit longer than the shed. I got a shed that goes here. So probably a couple feet in off of this 27 ft in 25 ft right down the close to the back of the property to the back of the house.

So so as long as it doesn't come further forward than the house so that it You don't want to see the the What is it called? The pool equipment.

Yeah, no, that makes sense. Yeah. As you're describing it now, now I can see what you're saying. I'm envisioning a fence all the way out here.

Yeah.

That's not what I'm doing.

Okay.

But that wall of the shed is here, so this section meets the garage, this section comes up here and then it's nothing to do with the meter.

So, ultimately from the northeast corner of the shed to um the north property line, no further forward than your neighbor's

house.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I apologize, I think the measurement's inaccurate.

No, that's fine. Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board? No? Okay. Uh I'd like to open up to the public. Who Who wants to speak for or against the project? Please come on up. Okay. Back to the board. Any additional [laughter] comments from the board? Uh if there's no additional comments, I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under SEQR pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

John?

Uh two more shots.

Jim? Two more shots.

I don't have any thoughts on it.

No?

No.

Um

That's okay. I think

All right.

We can discuss this later. Um Yeah. It's It's not out of character with the neighborhood throughout North Pearl or even not even just that section of town. Um the corner The houses with the corner lots have wanted fences that because the house has two front yards end up in the front this fence ends up in the second front yard, so it requires a variance. Um it will not be a detriment to nearby properties as the applicant has agreed that the fence will not protrude any closer to Brookville than the front of the the home to the north, it will not be a detriment. It is not a cheap way than any other method, again, because it's two front yards. A variance is required and even the backyard is really part of the part of the front yard that's there.

It's challenging.

Yeah. Um I I'll The request is I'll say semi-substantial. Um it's really not that close to Burkeville Drive. It's certainly not going to be a line of sight. There is a fairly significant row of trees that'll be on the outside of where this fence is, so um it it will be it it's not going to stand out. It's just going to be a wooden wall there. It's going to be broken up by quite a bit of the vegetation. Um the difficulty is not self-created in that the corner lot was established. You just happen to be lucky enough to buy that one. Um but you are requesting to be able to use more of your yard, so it is semi-self-created. And um it looks like it'll be an attractive fence, so I'll say it's not going to be an undesirable change. And um that's it. If you'd like to do so.

Yeah, roll votes.

All right, I will make a variance at 680 Hills Pi- I will make a motion to grant a variance to allow at 680 Hills Park Road in a variance for a 6-ft privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.38 acre parcel in the SBL number 063.16-1-60, located in an R3 single-family residential district under section 350-12 and 350-79 of the code of the town of Webster, conditioned that the northeast corner of that shall not exceed any further to the east than the front face of the neighbor to the north on Brookville.

Second. Is that north relative to you standing in the front of the house and we're calling it north or is it actually north?

Yeah, they are actually north.

Or do you say 657 Brookville?

Okay, 657 Brookville. Okay, Mrs. Boland.

Aye.

Mrs. Boland.

Aye.

Mr. Corso.

Aye.

Mrs. Boland. Mr. Schwartz.

Aye.

Mr. Brennan.

Aye.

You have your area variance with the condition that you come from the north east corner of your shed to no further forward of your neighbor at 657. No further forward than the front of their house. You still have to get a permit for the fence. You have one year to complete your project.

Okay, thank you very much. Have a good day.

Go back to 440 Lake Road. Is applicant Emmett here? No wait, no wait.

Or representing 440 Lake?

Okay. Um Yeah, we'll uh I guess I make a motion to table 440 Lake Road for special use permit for chickens.

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye. What?

You're not looking for any comments regarding that?

Not a They're not here. So, at this point we're not looking for pellets.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um yes, sir. You can check with staff um prior to October 27th because if the applicant uh decides that they want it to be heard at the November meeting, you'll have the heads-up and you can be here at that time. If they're after that point in time, then they'll either table it to the December meeting or perhaps the board will vote to discontinue the application.

I just concerned that we have between the two of us spent almost $7,500 in repairs for our vehicle because of the vermin coming from that property to ours.

I I I I don't want to be rude, okay? But the board will be happy to hear that in the due course of the application. Since the application is not being heard, it would be inappropriate for them to listen to that tonight. Okay? On the other hand, if there are code violations occurring, you can bring that to the attention of the town staff and then they can investigate that if in fact you're making a claim that appears to be a violation. We'll take that up with

so people would know that.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh now over to our tabled matters, uh Verizon cell tower, uh Lake Road. If um you have any questions come up.

And to confirm, we did request Lake Road to continue to be tabled off evening.

Okay.

We would like to proceed with the Western North application.

Okay. Uh Lake Road is being tabled. Okay. Um it's Wildflower Drive.

Correct. Yes, Wildflower Drive.

Okay. Thank you. And so the request to put that on for the next meeting.

Correct. Yes, there was additional information that the planning board requested for the Lake Road application, but the planning board did move forward with the preliminary site plan uh for the Wildflower location.

Okay. Um I I guess I'll make motion for tabling the Verizon cell tower Lake Road application to the November 17th zoning board meeting.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Um we'll start with Verizon cell tower Western North.

And just so that I'm clear, um the matter that we're going to take up is the public hearing closed?

Yes.

Yep. Just wanted to let all of my hearing with respect to that so they know that I'm not

I did announce it at the beginning.

We weren't here

Sorry. So, uh at the last meeting we had done the public comment period. We had closed the public comment period, so during this meeting we will not be hearing public comments anymore for the cell tower um application. Um and that is the same that would be the same also for the November 17th meeting when we uh presumably will be hearing these Verizon cell tower on Lake Road as well or Wildflower Wildflower site.

So, have you not taken into consideration any letters that were sent to you?

I personally read them all. So, I mean I we received them. We received any the uh any anything that was submitted online. I gave I gave review. Assuming the board did as well. They were all sent to us.

Okay.

Excellent. Thank you. My name is Laura Smith. I'm here representing this application. Uh I'll also note at the planning board the planning board noted that they were taking a single agency review and lead agency under seeker. So, Josh, was that a coordinated review?

I don't remember if it was.

Okay. Thank you. Uh so, we're here before the board for a seeker determination as well as consideration of an area variance. Uh if you might recall from our last meeting uh that this self this wireless telecommunications facilities, they are treated as public utilities for land use and zoning purposes under New York law, which entitles them to a diminished standard of review rather than the standard criteria applicable to typical special permits and in area variances. I will note in related in our application we do meet the requirements for an area variance set forth under town code and state law, but when uh a telecommunications facility is before a land use board, land use boards must first apply the public necessity standard. In order to avail ourselves of the public necessity standard, we have to demonstrate that there's one, there is a gap in wireless service, two, that the location of the proposed facility will remedy those gaps, and three, that the proposed facility presents a minimal intrusion intrusion on the community and is more feasible than other options. We we went over at our last meeting, but just to recap, uh we did demonstrate

there are gaps in wireless service. That's demonstrated on page 14 of exhibit F and Q. The Webster North cell existing low band is akin to a rural highway coverage and subject to variable conditions such as fading and seasonality gaps. It's also shown on page 18 of exhibit F that there's no reliable mid-band coverage. And both of those reports have been analyzed by the town's consultant and found that Verizon demonstrated the need for RF coverage and additional traffic capacity in the Webster North cell. So, the second criteria, the location of the proposed facility will remedy those gaps. That's shown on page 15 of exhibit F and Q, as well as page 19 of exhibit F and Q, both show that with the project, the area will have a will have service appropriate for suburban single-family residence. Third, that the proposed facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community and is more feasible than other options. As we discussed at the last meeting, there we did a thorough site selection analysis for both for any additional or alternative sites. Identified this location as the only available location that meets the technical requirements for RF as well as is available for leasing.

Uh thoroughly evaluated all viable sites within the search area and we proceeded with the only viable only feasible location. If you recall at our last meeting, we had a a generous offer from the Webster Presbyterian Church to locate a uh tower on that property. That was reviewed in the first instance when looking for a potential site, but uh with the with the um the board's review of that site, we did go back and looked at an RF analysis of whether or not that site could be feasible for a location. If you recall from that site selection analysis, that search area, the Webster Presbyterian Church was outside of the search area, but still ran an we still ran an RF analysis and determined that the West Presbyterian Church uh what it displayed its coverage footprint displays to the east which would fail to provide adequate coverage for the western and central corridors of the project area and would not deliver the capacity relief that the project is designed to provide. So, that is not a viable source and I believe your your town consultant also had an opportunity to review that RF material.

Sorry, if I could apologize. Uh if you wouldn't mind going back a couple of pages

[snorts]

uh cuz I think the the circle with the town town was on it or the area was on it. Yeah, right there. This is what you're talking about, right? The cuz I think that's the project location. Um that's the the circle is kind of the ideal location, correct?

Correct.

And uh Webster Presbyterian and I think it's just to the I'm going to call it the south of this image if I'm if I'm reading this correctly.

Yes, I believe that's that is correct.

it's rotated.

Yes.

Like yeah. Okay.

Um and then in the additional material on the RF specific review, that was in the new exhibit S so just that a continuation of of that same RF justification. Um it's now as exhibit F and that's pages 41 to 45 of that new exhibit S dated on September 29th. Um also to address neighbors' concerns, Verizon undertook an additional drone fly. Uh that was on Friday, September 11th to demonstrate what the height of the tower would appear um to it as a visual demonstration. Uh the drone was reported to be not visible from neighboring properties and further confirms that the the project will have limited visual impact. Um with that I'm I can pause and take questions or I can uh yield the floor to the town consultant.

Questions from the board? The um the additional drone um flight to demonstrate the height. Are there photos of the Are those photos of the drone in the air or are those photos from

Those pictures So those actually those pictures are pictures from the drone that's showing the height of the tree line. Um so yeah, that's that's a great question. And And if you recall from our last meeting, we did go over um why the the height is necessary and looking at both the RF justification and the potential going lower down in height. Um but yes, that the tree height is is really the the hurdle here. So the those are pictures from a prior drone flight to demonstrate the height of the trees.

Yeah, I'm just trying to reference the photos with the the line the drone is reported down and visible from the neighboring property, but when you flew it, you didn't have anyone to give you ground shots of the drone in the air on September 11th.

We didn't. It was for the neighbors to to be able to to see it.

Okay. Can we So Let me Let me just say this to everybody, including council. The way that we should be doing that not trying to handicap whether anything's ultimately going to be appealed here as so much cuz this is a full contested matter. If If we could reference pictures with some identification, so if we have to go back and look at the record, you know, when the board member says those pictures and you say pictures and we [clears throat] want to make sure that we're referring because I know staff is showing pictures on our monitors. The public is seeing pictures on the public monitor and I just want to make sure I know at one point you did reference exhibit such and such but I just it it you need to be articulate just in case so our record is clear. Um the the photographs that that you were just questioning the applicant's counsel about. Or counsel commission, which photographs are we referencing?

If they are these photos

These?

I'm sorry. The photos that are currently being shown on the screen. Those both pictures currently being shown on the screen are uh begin on page 25 of exhibit S.

Okay.

They are also on a uh page beginning on page 25 of exhibit F and Q. Uh as previously stated, every time additional information was provided in the RF justification, um that additional information became an amendment to the RF justification. So the information in in S that information is also included in Q and that information is also included in F.

Okay. S Q S is in Sam, correct? Q is in Queen and

F is in Frank.

F is in Frank. And those are are those all September 11th drone shots?

No, to be clear, the drone shots that are shown beginning on page 25, those are drone shots that were taken I I think probably over the summer to demonstrate the height of the trees. So there was a the the drone flight that was done [clears throat] on September 11th was an additional drone flight requested by the neighbors and and performed by by Verizon to demonstrate the visual the potential for visual impact.

And the drone shots that reflect September 11th are which exhibit?

The pic There are no pictures of the September 11th drone flight. That was specifically for the neighbors to be able to view the drone

are not referenced on the monitor.

Correct. Those are not the September 11th drone flights. That was earlier this summer to demonstrate the height of the foliage in this location.

And so the questions that the board asked about the height and whether there were photos of the drone shot shooting those you realize that you don't have those photos.

But that's what She I understood what you said, but I just wanted to make sure those Like I said, these are not These are taken from the drone, not of the drone, which is why I asked.

My my concern is some third party trying to read this record and understanding what the board actually observed and what it did and what it not. So I think we're a [snorts] little more clear about that.

So Josh, I believe we had received photos from some some of the neighbors. Are we able to bring those up on the screen?

Yes, I can I can look for them in my email.

So that would be photos from the neighbors for the You said September 11th is when they did the drone flight?

Correct, yes.

So I believe that's what these these photos that Josh will be pulling up are going to be about.

And these photos, the the photos that are within the package now 25 through This is the drone flying to a height of 115 or 120 or 130 ft. And that's the line of sight from the drone at that position above ground level. Correct, yes. That's correct. It It was clear enough to demonstrate that um both the height of the trees and to supplement the RF justification that the additional heights were reviewed to determine whether or not a a reduced height of 111 ft or 91 ft for that antenna center line for for the Verizon antenna if that was sufficient to meet the RF needs. So, both the drone flight pictures as well as RF propagation maps which I should be able find. Yeah, yes, it's page 23 and 24 of

exhibit Q as in queen. Those and and also confirmed by the town's consultant that the supplemental propagation plots compare coverage of the proposed 130 ft antenna center line. Again, that's the center line of the antenna. Against reduced heights of 111 ft and 91 ft. In each scenario, both the low band and the mid band coverage are are materially compromised due to area clutter from the dense old growth forest in those neighborhoods which is that is what's shown from the drone flights in page 25 of that It's also in page 25 of exhibit Q.

Were you present at the drone flight?

What I was not, no.

So

So, you were present at Were these your photos shots or these are neighbor's photos?

No, these were sent from a a neighbor.

Okay. Uh is this Are we zoomed in right now or is this the actual photo?

That's the actual photo.

Okay. So, is counselor Have you seen these yet?

I have not, no.

Well, my my thought is without the presentation there's no record as to whether it was en route to its height I mean, down or or what I mean they're they're good indication of it and they're good visual reference but there's nothing to tie them into any specific height or location.

Yeah, the the correspondence that came along with the photos essentially said that it was only visible from one particular area which I believe is E Green Drive.

Okay. Even if it's a rather large drone. It's maybe 4 or 5 ft but the tower itself is larger than that.

Sure.

Well, I mean let's just let's just say without real reference to it much like the photo simulations that Rising um provided. At least they can say yeah, oh yeah, I can see it. The drone in addition to just being difficult to spot on its own. Without real reference there, it makes no difference but maybe how much we got. Um Okay.

And I guess it depends on when they were taken cuz the drone was up in the air for approximately an hour and so I guess it depends on if they were taken as the drone was initially rising or if it had been up there for a while.

Like Rising was going traveling the short distance on the initial stand. The opportunity to see how it looks like so it's kind of like they're doing this in a vacuum. It's just for me it's difficult to assign any value to that and there's no reference or or scale. Well, I mean that's just my opinion.

[snorts]

Yeah. here? These are all the ones that you sent over to us. Is that right, Josh?

Yes.

So, the the upper three photos, I believe it's called Scenic. Is it Scenic Scenic Circle. Scenic Circle.

Let's Let's leave these. These are the photographs provided by Mr. Assistant and what was the name of the road? At Crown Point. Those are the photographs that the board's going to comment about now. Correct?

Yes.

Please put the photos back up.

The question were all these photos taken from Crown Point or were they taken at different different locations?

I don't think anyone's going to be able to answer that because the photographer is not here.

[cough] [clears throat]

So, there's the photos of the and images of Yes, the simulation model.

Questions from the board?

Thank you. I I that is showing where the top of the wind looking at this it is the top of the flag will be the top of the tower.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[clears throat]

Was there other things that you want to I don't know.

Hey, you know, I I'm I'm happy to to go through the other materials as well. You know, we we did discuss at the last meeting. We went over this There was a significant gap in coverage. We went over it the last meeting the alternative site analysis, which we then supplemented with the Webster Presbyterian Church. Um the project will have no adverse environmental or community impacts. It's a [clears throat] stationary item. It doesn't create traffic, it doesn't create noise. Um but I you know, I I certainly don't want to to take the board's time to go over what we reviewed in the last meeting unless you have specific questions.

Other questions for for Bill?

Thank you, Bill.

It's very helpful.

John, can you name that decision uh FCC? Ultimately they want He's only four heads, you know, we're looking at the heights. What um All right, I think we were talking about a sunset clause on the uh last slide.

If we If we vote no, what are the next steps we go? Yes, obviously they get their revenues. What what are the

If we vote no, I said we if the board votes no, then it's nothing. Then Verizon has an opportunity to challenge that.

Yeah.

And then um we find ourselves in a in an action, legal action. And the board ultimately determines whether or not we have legal basis not to do that. There's a big secret here that it's it's highly unlikely the board would be successful.

Okay.

And if I could speak briefly on this the small cells and the multiple sites, um you know, for the extensive multiple sites, that is you know, to to Professor Johnson's example, that's four more neighborhoods and and four more neighborhoods, right? This is That is the the the goal of that public utility standard is an understanding that in order to solve a coverage gap, infrastructure has to be located in a certain place. Um and if that was by multiple towers that, you know, I can't speak to the RF efficiency of that, it but this site when you're looking at the coverage gaps, it is a significant coverage gap that this is looking looking to fill. And the trees are at 110 ft. So, again, with I can't speak to the exact height, but we are looking at even if it's multiple towers, several multiple towers serving a a residential neighborhood in in various several residential neighborhoods at a height that is still getting over that foliage cover. So, from a visual impact point of view, the singular tower at the antenna center line to meet the the line of sight with Webster Park um

and the the two other servers on this location, that, you know, from from my perspective, then I think speaks to the record. That is a lower visual impact than having multiple towers that are still above that that tree line. I'll also speak quickly to to spoke you have this

Stop it a little bit. So, from an application standpoint, and and when you went over the the the three criteria, the gap, the location, and the minimal intrusion, is an applicant ever required to demonstrate um that a multi uh a multi a smaller tower will not provide will not meet the same criteria. Because I'm I'm just learning this I think for the for the first time tonight. Um and I understand as you pointed out as the expert pointed out that you don't get anything for free. Potentially more more visual problems, fiber optics

apparently they can't be buried. It can It can break down so there's going to be more connectivity issues. But is there Is there I'm assuming there's not because you would have told us definitely long by now. But there's no requirement that you shall look this is a This is a circumstance where multiple locations will not be sufficient.

So that That's a great question. The The requirements under the Telecommunications Act and the public utility standards is that we have to take a good faith effort to demonstrate that we have looked at all alternative sites, all alternative locations, and any additional ways to fill this coverage gap that we have identified. Should the board ask us to look at multiple sites, and I will tell you we can't be lower than that tree line. So if the board said, "Well, gee, I I do want to see an RF model of four 110-ft towers." Um you know, that that is part of our our good faith effort to ensure that we're getting the board the information it needs to make a decision. If that is an item that the board's decision hinges on, you know, of course we we would we would welcome an opportunity to address specific questions rather than encourage a denial, right? It's It's in everyone's interest to make sure that we're getting you the information you need. Um certainly it's my interest to get to an approval. Uh, so you know, to the extent if the board said, "Well, gee, you know, I would I would deny unless I saw that the the four towers at 110 ft wouldn't work." You

know, we're we're certainly happy to provide that. We can also speak to small cells. The small cells and and certainly can provide uh, from from our RF engineer. Small cells are essentially a a band-aid to boost a signal in a network that already has coverage. So, for example, the small cells go on Wegmans because if you've ever been to a Wegmans, I'm always trying to go. You know, my husband's always trying to call me. It's fine. You can do a list. Uh, but you know, it's it's in areas that have high traffic that need that that signal boost. There's one um, you know, on at the at the baseball stadium. There's one on Wegmans. There's ones that in areas and the on college campuses where they're trying to boost the signal that's already there. That is not what the issue is here. This needs a backbone of coverage in order to then really serve this area in in in totality.

The small cells won't help. Um, how should I say this? The small cells the smaller towers, they alleviate that. Would that alleviate some of the traffic that you're trying to like what tower here is overloaded? Would those smaller ones help that?

Uh, if I if I can elaborate since I'm not the RF RF engineer, I only go so far in in

No, I I appreciate it. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Tim Zwicky. I'm an RF engineer with a Verizon Wireless. And now when you say small towers or small cells? Cells. So, small cells are a small cell utility pole, limited Um I'm sorry. We can we have a limited amount of our frequencies on it. So, if we did small cell utility poles, we generally do not put like our low low band 700 850. We lose a lot of our in-building coverage for businesses or anything that's directly directly like that. They're targeted supplemental coverage that where we have a ton of gas offload. I'll be asked uh to answer your question simply, yes, it does help offload. But, it's very targeted. These small cells only hit maybe half mile radiuses. So, if you're thinking about what we're dealing with this map right now, which is 5 square miles, I'm in here with 10 small cells easily.

All right. Try to see if you think reasonable. A million dollars? I think the the terms are interchangeable. I think small cells, the way I understand it, are more for densification of your network, not necessarily to expand. Is that it?

They're not for gas. We don't use them to expand. They're targeted.

You're more to densify and make sure everyone has their connectivity as they're going under a bridge or something like that, more than they are to expand a network.

Or like Laura was saying, let's say if we have a ton of coverage at residences, a ton of people there, we can offload the macro with just a small cell by just taking that little spot of coverage and

Right. Just trying to to make sure that we all understand that the small cells are not necessarily interchangeable for for a tower for a

Yes.

monopole for a

we don't have our small cells.

tower or a small cell. So, they're shares They're not necessarily interchangeable um words. I mean, they have have very different meaning because like you said, it's the trees are the issue. So, where is a a small a small tower, 110-ft tower, right? Because we have to get above the trees. If we were to put in multiple small towers, I'm going to use um Bill's example of four, four for one, right? Um sounds like we got a bargain here. Um that would expand coverage, that would help take off take off um additional load from the surrounding, right? And you know, ultimately that's what what the lower towers would do. And again, four is a picture number. Maybe it needs to be seven. Who knows what what it is, but it's the model has not been brought up at this point. Um but if I'm misspelling, please correct me, but so Jim, I guess that's what it comes down to, right? If we do shorter towers, we would need more shorter towers. They would do the same thing as the one larger tower. But now you have more Now you have four.

So, from a town standpoint, the visual impact ultimately is greater. Um albeit, you know, it's it's it's the greatest right now for for a select set of neighbors that it's going to be in you know, maybe in their backyard, but for the community as a whole, it would be more more impactful having multiple towers and a shorter tower.

And and even I think that's the problem.

These are according to the building

are life safety boards. It's the height that's required because even if the um the location that they looked at worked, you still have the height requirement there. So, it's it's not like we would just be moving it from this neighborhood to another neighborhood.

Unless you Unless you did multiple, right?

Right, so but it's it's really I think the the height that the thing that is keeping us here discussing it what the variance is for. So, no no I I get that, but it's it's one of those things where uh if you're you're not comfortable with the height that you know likelihood that isn't going to necessarily change as they're still going to be a variance.

Right.

And then we need Well, I think we need to stop using four. You don't multiple.

Oh, okay.

No, no, I'm saying it it Yeah, it likelihood it

might be more.

It might be more. Yeah. Yeah. More much more than that.

There's nothing in this record at this point that that demonstrates that this this these shorter cells, if you will, are technically sufficient to meet the need.

That is I don't think that is accurate. Uh they I believe and let me ask Bill, um the previous reports did look at varying heights of I think 115, 120, 1 125, 130 um to the center of the tower and those lower heights did not one not multiple but one did not sufficiently cover the area necessary. So, um based on my reading of the report based on my recollection from the the last meeting, the 135 was necessitated for the coverage needed. And anything less than that just wasn't cutting it.

But that's what I said. It's It's 135 is the app, right?

Yes.

Right.

Well, I thought you were saying that there's nothing in here that demonstrates

No, no, no, no, no. I I apologize. But when you start talking about and and I think we're incorrectly interchanging towers with cells. The concept being multiple locations of a shorter height to meet the needs of what the applicant has demonstrated. I don't believe that there's anything in the record that speaks to that. And I'm saying that because if the board ultimately denies it, that's what needs to be present in the record for the board to hang their hat. Yes.

Almost Yes. And I'll just say my comments were really in regard to answering the question what other mitigation techniques could possibly use. It's all speculative because we don't have any substantial evidence in the application to show that any of those solutions might work. But those are things that have been tried in other places, but different characteristics than the current Webster Road location. I'll add to getting site acquisition for four additional sites. I believe in pulling air out, which has its ways. Things are trying to find alternative possibilities, and it keeps coming back to this one particular of the site. We have not been successful As I we uh you know, the town and the applicant, the applicant has not been successful in finding any other viable alternate sites where we have land owner agreement and in a location that actually would provide the service. So, that's a that's the complication, but I just want to clarify. My comments were not that those things can be done, it's those things could be tried. It's all speculative.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Uh So, I guess I'm going to pose the question to the board. Uh we have the application in front of us for I think it's 135 ft. Uh does the board want to see from Verizon uh of an RF model that that is showing multiple locations at at lower heights. Um again, if you do that, you have more sites, more uh ultimately more property owners getting to be involved, um and potentially, in my opinion, a greater impact to the community. What do we want to Well, you know, um continue the dialogue on on ultimately this.

If the board decided to go in that direction, is that I mean, since the planning board didn't ask for anything like that, are we beholden to take what the planning board has done? Just, you know, they had the opportunity to ask for it, they didn't, we're not beholden for it.

Okay. So.

It doesn't seem practical to me. I mean, all we're going to do is create four or multiple

Not four.

Right. Multiple sites.

Right. Agreed.

of our visual impact.

Agreed.

So, it doesn't seem practical that we would want multiple as opposed to one.

Right. Well, and we're also just potentially just postponing it because once again, it's it's not just finding we're sticking multiple towers somewhere, it's finding real sites.

Right.

It's not just saying here, here, here. You know, if you you have 110 ft of tower, you need like 150 ft of width for it to fall in.

Right.

And those red circles that are now going to be in multiple locations.

Right. I mean, it it it's it I don't think it's something that necessarily can be done within 4 weeks. Um and that that I'm not really concerned about the commission's timeline as much as it's one of those things where this is not a change the color of your siding and come back.

Sure.

This is a let us know when you've investigated this, and like I said, I don't really care, but they we wanted it in the horizon. Three months to do it. We're we're doing this to in theory to not in theory to protect the town and its residents. And we what's what we feel is best for them. So, I think uh you know, it it I got real happy with the 135, but uh I their presentation has convinced me that that's what they need to to have. Uh I'm a little concerned that some other carrier could come in and just build another 20 ft on top without any type of approval.

Now, how often does that happen?

Mhm.

That's a huge concern.

Yeah, but but that's it. But that's

135 We're we're already almost 40% above what the town code permits. And then somebody could arbitrarily, without this board having any opinion in it whatsoever, just like another 20 ft on top of it. Now, I'm 60% more than the code allows. That it just

Well, that's that's what I'm saying. I I I thought both of them I'm not opposed on the 135 at any at this point in time.

Uh Mr. Johnson, do you know how new that or Bill, do you know how new that FCC ruling is?

Since July I understand.

No, the height the the uh I forget what you call it the um

Could the eligible facility request

Yeah. How's How new is that? And

Um that was I think in 20 It was one of the last five or six years, I honestly but I I in my first report uh I shouldn't have uh that citation, but now I can get that to you. Uh but it it's a it's a fairly uh it's kind of a maze of of going through, you know, what constitutes an eligible facility request. And if you make it through all the checkpoints, which is it can't disrupt uh any uh mitigation effects, like stealth type technology. If it's going to bypass that, it's no longer an eligible facility request. Uh, if it is going to be something that's too wide compared to uh they they give a parameter for that, it's no longer an eligible facility request. So, there's there's many type of things that could shut that down, but another set of antennas similar to what Verizon is planning to put on the tower, uh if that was proposed by another carrier, uh assuming it was Verizon, but but uh they they won't be cuz they don't even know what they need at this particular point, but another carrier could come in and make that eligible facility request. But I I I can get you more information about that. It's really

not something that should change your decision today because you uh and I'd defer to your attorney on this one, but uh you know, saying a denial because it might someday be a eligible facility request is probably not very good.

No, we understood. What what what I'm reading in very quickly is that if there were to be such a request, that it it's handled administratively.

Right.

It it doesn't come before the board. And there's a 60-day shot clock. If it's not approved, it's deemed approved unless it significantly changes the existing tower. And it sounds like obviously because the statute allows it, it would have to be something beyond that to to effectuate a denial.

Yeah, but they they say that a transheight change is by by definition not substantial.

Correct.

So, in the last 5 years when it's come out, how many are you aware of that you've come up with yes?

I I've I've run across at least one that I can think of right now in the town of Livonia.

Okay.

Uh where that where that did come from. Um and then that's you administratively according to that resolution. And I I presume there are others, so I I don't usually hear about them.

Sure.

Because since they're being handled administratively and there's really no technical analysis that's required, you know, they don't draw me into those.

You mentioned also if there was any stealth carrier that going above it be allowed where you draw the line on this as well, but man, it almost seems like a way to mitigate having it go above is to ask for a stealth bill for the additional 5 10 ft whatever it is to to put stealth on it and then it can't go any higher. Is What what I heard, right? I mean, I don't know if that's

Yeah, that's a legitimate

Yeah, the way the way the regulation stated that if it did if it disrupts or I'm trying to think of the word that he uses. But but but basically if it disturbs the stealth nature even though it's within the definitions of minimal intrusion and acceptable change, that no longer is an eligible facility request. So so that'll be a kind of a gray area for a specific application for eligible facility request to be to be like that. I I usually advise my clients to do that. So they're likely to look at it. Only a couple of times have they asked me to do that, but they're likely to look at it, but usually it it is an administrative decision at that point.

Okay. But also with Well, in the case of a monopole, it's designed for a certain load at 135 ft. Um would a carrier necessarily design the monopole for 135 ft knowing that they might be tasked with putting the fourth load on another carrier or their own on top of it like how over-designed do you think the monopole

Yeah, I can't I can't speak to the specific on that, but yes, towers are designed the case size is designed for Well, the case structure is structure is designed for for a particular load, but it wouldn't be the first time that somebody wanted to come in and make a modification to the tower that exceeded the wind load or weight load of the structure and it would then be reinforced so that it could accommodate the load.

But that would take even if it was immediately, I would assume structural concerns and wind loads would be considered or they just I say, you know, you got you got 10 ft and don't worry about it.

Yeah, I think I I think normally that would be deferred to the app to the owner of the tower. You know, that they're not going to do something to their own tower that would put it in jeopardy. I don't know if you usually review the structural reports or things like that, but you probably get a structural report that says it can handle the additional but you know, beyond that that's probably where it is.

No, that and that's my my concern is that a this is the first time I heard about it, so it's it's a big new information for all of us. It's just kind of something that that looks going over it and say, "Wait a second, you know."

Yeah, so sometimes we embed these things into our previous reports there and then nobody sees this.

I just wanted to share that up to you when we were talking before the council.

Oh, thank you. It just it just it's new information and we're trying to process it as we're asking for more information.

Can I ask one last Well, probably won't be the last question. And that for you, Bill. Short of poles, whether you have multiple or one, is there any other way to accomplish the the objective that the Verizon needs to to cover the area that you're aware of?

Not that I'm aware of. You know, except except the one I described as as other mitigation uh solutions. And and I kind of make sense that they would propose the minimally intrusive cuz that is the requirement, the minimally intrusive way to do this, but yeah, I'm not aware of any other way to do this at this point in time.

All right. I think what we're looking at here is a necessary evil. We have an issue that needs to be addressed. And I don't know that we we actually have much choice in the matter.

Well, especially considering the utility.

Right.

Where at the bottom line they can justify and like just say 911 needs this tower to be here because they that have the communication ability to contact them and that's the bottom line justification for it, whether or not your your videos download faster is secondary to the you know, 911 aspect services.

Right. So, I I guess I'll go back to Do we have all the information to make a motion and vote on this or is there more information that the board wants to see?

Yeah, everything that I've heard, we have everything that we need. Yeah, I think I got to have it or else I'll have to

I guess I'll just say it's an evil to a certain extent.

Is there no way we can limit additional height?

I I just asked her all that.

Well,

I believe the statute that Mr. Johnson is referencing has a 10% height limit. And they talk about a 20-ft um Sounds like some type of an offshoot.

I think it's the greater of 10% or 20 ft. I will note that the the law that the regulations are promulgated under, so it is, you know, the the clarification of what is meant eligible facility means, it means that, you know, a a tower that can be modified to allow the 10% or or 10% or 20 ft. The law itself that that has the concept of an eligible facility, that's the middle class Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012. So, this this has been a a concept for some time. Um in terms of stealthing, my argument would be uh you know, one to the structural concern, the additional weight of of putting in a tree, additional weight and and would have a bulkier bottom pole. Uh I would, you know, I would argue against Professor Johnson of of what stealthing here in in in to clarify the the eligible facility does not cover when a change would um impact the stealthing. Here, my argument would be you have a

an evergreen sticking up that far above the tree line, right? That's not stealth. That's a That's a pole with with some some brushes on top. So, to the extent of well, if we made it a tree, would that make it not eligible as an eligible facility request? My argument now would be no, because right now it is currently above the tree line. If it was right at the tree line and you really had to stand there and like which tree which you know, which one's the tree, which one's which one's the pole, I you know, that likely is appropriate stealthing, but here it's just stealthing. And again, if if there's more information that we are happy to provide that information, but here when you're looking at this pole plus at least additional 10 ft for the cone, that won't be stealth.

Thank you. Other questions from the board? Comments? So, Jonathan, my chair mean, can I can I ask you on this question from earlier? Jonathan, if we deny this, what what comes of it and how does it play out?

Nothing happens unless Verizon decides that they want to challenge the board's decision on the basis that the record is insufficient uh in terms of its factual, technical, uh content uh to support the basis for the board's denial, which would make it arbitrary and capricious. If there is technical evidence in the record that you believe demonstrates that there are broadly alternatives to the location and height of this cell tower that will adequately address the need shortage that uh Ms. Smith has spoken about the gap, uh the um coverage gap and the minimal intrusions, uh then you you you as a board have met its burden to show that it's not arbitrary

But by opening a meeting taking Verizon

We're here looking at the height. We can't look at it and say it's ugly. And this is a question, all right? You can't look at it and say it's ugly. So, therefore, no. It's more of did Verizon provide evidence that the tower is needed? Did they provide evidence that anything shorter than what is being provided will not work? Did they provide alternative options if if they were there? That is my

application of objective measures. Um in this case, the town took the additional safeguard, if you will, by hiring its own Verizon objective findings. And my opinion your opinion is the one that counts. I have not heard anything substantive that shakes Verizon's objective findings and presentations to meet the needs that the FCC, I believe, actually requires and Verizon by their fact they have their licensing to do what they do to to correct.

That's correct.

Take over. Go ahead, Frank. Sorry, I didn't see you.

So, this is essentially 40% beyond what the town allows. We're in the middle of rewriting the comprehensive plan and then potentially rewriting the town code based on that comprehensive plan. It It's not logical to me that we could even add that in right now except that the shot clock says that if we don't, they're going to do it anyway. So,

Again, I don't mean to insult anybody, but let's say drinking water for example, there's a federal standard.

Yes.

Municipalities, although I know there's areas in the country where it's problematic, but there's a minimum level that you have to meet. And in this day and age, whether it's communications in general, emergency communications, etc., Verizon has the obligation that they're going to be licensed to provide that service, they have to meet it. And that just trumps any municipalities concerns that they don't want to adhere to those federal means because they think less is more. So, therefore, more is too much. And it's just not an option that we possess. Unless there's alternative locations and alternative means, which again, my opinion, I haven't heard them.

Mr. Jordan,

Something to add?

my thought is as much as I would like to vote on this this evening, I don't know if we're doing our co-residents a favor for not asking them to at least look at what what look at multiple sites. I personally think it's more intrusive to have multiple sites at 100, let's say 110. At least have that's where we're going to put the tree. And we have a site at that is one at 135. That's an opinion. But if the board would feel more comfortable saying at least we have looked over every possible circumstance, and I I don't necessarily I don't feel we need to do it, but if the board would feel more comfortable about as Verizon actually has already offered to do, I'm not so sure that multiple sites are going to be better. I I don't believe they are, but if other board members are more comfortable we do have the ability to ask them. I like I said, I don't need that information. I I feel comfortable with the information [clears throat] right now. Although I don't like it, but it it is what it is.

Yeah, I I kind of I was going back and forth in my head. Do we ask for it or is that all right?

I I look at and I have Our job here is what the what the code states. Tree Tree line is at 110, which means it's going to be over 110 anyway. Um so you're looking at 120. I mean it's still going to be above the tree line regardless. They have multiple locations. What What [clears throat] kind of service are we doing for the community by creating more sites?

I agree I don't For me I I'm ready to I'm ready to to act. Not again. Not happy about it, but

I agree I I agree I

So let's put it out there then.

Yep.

We We can't just make them go one one one more group.

Sure.

It [clears throat] may not even be possible. It won't precise the work, but we can ask them to do that. I'm not so sure it's the right way to go. I agree with that. Rather vote on it

And let's Let me just add if indeed we like the multiple sites, we've got them at 110 or whatever it is. That rule, whatever somebody else can come in and add to that and now we've got four of them or multiple.

That's right.

Whether we're at 130

Yeah.

Everything's multiple.

That's right.

So I guess I'm going to ask the board are we ready to act with the information that we have in front of us?

Yes.

Corrine?

You ready to act?

Yep.

I'm going to make them uh make a motion for a type two action under seeker and it's a second action.

It's It's an unlisted

It's an unlisted. Thank you. Make a motion for an unlisted action under seeker with a negative declaration pursuant to the NYCRR.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

[snorts]

So, um going through the findings um may Unfortunately, I I being what it is, the the request um this is this will be a cell tower that sticks up above uh the tree line as evident in photo four of uh view east from Ethan Drive. That was provided to us um as a simulation. So, it it does um it does have an impact within the character of the neighborhood. Um it does It It is the best alternative um versus having multiple sites with towers extending above the tree line. So, this is the least intrusive option to make the coverage that is necessary for uh cell coverage within the Webster area and providing um not just coverage, but also capacity requirements within the within the uh this particular area of of Wildflower. Um This benefit is not achieved by any other method. Uh

Verizon has looked at multiple sites within this area. Uh They've looked at multiple heights of towers starting I think it was at 115 ft working their way up in multiple increments up to the current overall height of 139 ft at the top of the uh and um the lightning I think it was the lightning rod for a total of 139 ft. Is that right?

Okay. That's the right one, right?

Correct. Um So, this is not achievable by any other method. Verizon did do their due diligence. We were able to confirm that through a third-party expert that has been able to verify Verizon's methodology, their calculations, and confirm that it really is not achievable without multiple potential multiple sites. Um which would then have a an impact on more of what's there. Um The physical impact is is limited. The footprint of the site is small. The impact the visual impact is is quite extensive for the location at off of APN Drive, but it is minimal. Um The town town staff was able to drive through the neighborhood while a drone was being flown to I think verify the top of the tower. Um So, it is minimized to a very small select neighborhood. Um so,

the the impact to the neighbor neighborhoods is is limited. Um The the difficulty um not self-created. The world community everybody continues to use cell phones, technology continues to increase, and this this is just another utility that is necessary to improve life. Does anybody want to add anything else to that? No? Okay. Let's make sure we're doing the right one. I'd like to um make a motion for an area variance located at 1222 Wild Our Drive um for the height of a communication tower of 135 ft with a 4-ft lightning rod for a total of 139 ft where the maximum height allowed is 100 ft on a 14.2 acre parcel having FPL 065.05-

1-48 located in the R3 single-family residential district under uh sections 130-10 and 1350-12 of the code of the town of Webster. Before I get a second, can I have a quick question? We're giving a a height variance. Is it specific to this tower or could multiple It's specific to this tower.

It's specific to this

Well, to this address. But, to this tower.

Correct.

So, because this is 14 acres could this owner put another tower on their site?

No, no. It would have to come before the board.

Okay. That's That's I just want to confirm that

that we can't limit that if this is the only tower permitted on this address.

Well, this is limited to the proposed location. We have a proposed location.

Right, we do. But but what about Like

The the height variance is

It's for this exact tower in this location.

Okay.

But can somebody else come along and want to put another tower in this city?

yes.

And it would just have to come through the board all over again.

And then I don't

I'm not sure I understand the question.

For me, the question is we're not providing the address

the address is

That is correct. It is specific to this tower.

For me, that that's all all it is. Uh

Second.

Yeah.

Who was that?

That was Is that Chris?

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. Mr. Shore.

Aye.

Mr. Centola.

Aye.

Mr. Porcello.

Aye.

Mr. Spagnola

Aye.

Mrs. Walton. Aye.

You have your height area variance.

Thank you. Uh You have minutes?

Yes. Yes. Um minutes for the September 8th zoning board meeting. I have a copy of the minutes. Yes. If everyone has had an opportunity to review them, I'd make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye. All right.

Um Is that it? We're good? I'd make a motion to adjourn this meeting.

Second.

All those

second?

Thank you. Have a good night, everyone.

Good night.

Thank you very much.

All right.