Planning Board Meeting
woman running Yeah. their own. Okay, it's 7:00. Addy, we can get started here. We've got everyone present. Um, would you join in a pledge of allegiance? Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Heather, you want to call the role, please?
Sure. Mr. Anderson
here.
Mr. Pashani
here.
Mr. Jordian
here.
Mr. Better
here.
Mrs. Mman
here.
Mr. Gassic
here.
Miss Corsy
here.
Mr. Artuso
here.
Miss Mr. Char here.
Okay. Uh the first item we have on the agenda is that seven brew coffee um operation they got coming in. Uh but that's been tabled. They've got to complete some more work before they do come in. So that particular one is stable. Anyone's here for that. Other than that, that's Mark. We'll get started. First scheduled matter on tonight's agenda, the public storage sign located at 665 Del Road. Applicants Kirk Wright and Melissa Driscoll are requesting sign approval associated with the installation of one 43.6 6 ft freestanding monument sign and two wall signs, one at 46.71 square ft and one at 6 square ft on a 5.6 acre parcel located in an industrial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster.
Yes, sir. Good evening. Kirk Bright, signing lighting services, 530 State Route 104, Ontario, New York. Yeah, I'm here with uh for public storage. Um basic uh sign package, everything complies with the town code. Uh we're doing a small monument sign out front. Um, we're doing a uh just a small 6 foot six square foot sign that to identify the office and then uh 47 square ft uh building mounted sign that'll face uh Philips Road. The building signs not illuminated. Just black cut letters on a aluminum panel. Uh the office sign is not illuminated and the monument sign I believe will have uplighting but it is not internally illuminated. Okay.
Will the monument sign have a numerical number on it?
Mhm.
And how big is that number going to be so you can see it from the road? Uh 665 is identified. Um
you have it on the drawing.
It is on the drawing. I just didn't see if it was a 6 in or an 8 in letter.
6 in.
6 in. Thank you.
Thank you. Is the uh is the the sign on the on the building necessary? 6 by8 sign.
You got the monument sign out in front. Do you need one on the building, too?
This is um actually way toned down from what corporate usually does at a public storage. Uh usually there's an orange stripe continuous around the building. Um this is uh again we're well below the square footage of what's allowed for us. So the owner of the building must have changed.
Yeah.
For the storage cuz this is uh when this thing originally came in.
Mhm.
We have a very specific facade on the outside with the fake windows and the arches. And this, you know, I agree with Tony. I'm not sure that the the sign on the building is necessary cuz it covers up one of the architectural features that was really put in as a condition of approval of the original storage buildings to make it look more attractive for the neighborhood. So, it's, you know, it's blocking one of those fake windows and that it was there for a purpose. I wouldn't think you actually meet the sign on the building itself with the monument sign right out by the road.
Uh I do have Cory here. He's with Public Storage and uh you can speak better to the corporate identifying uh criteria.
Good evening. My name is Cory Henen. I'm with Public Storage's asset management department. Uh I oversee all of New York State. Um the FCO sign here on the backer is prototypical of our brand standards. I heard one of the board members state that there was a concession with the previous owner about the arches as an architectural element. Um given the uh square footage requirements and your also your concern with the architectural if there was a compromise pertaining to placement um where we could find a happy medium um we would present that to the to the members of the board. Well, my opinion, I I don't think it's necessary. I mean, you've got the the sign right out in front, which is [clears throat] a good-looking sign. It serves the purpose over the door. I can see that sign. Okay. But the one on the building, as Derek just said, that was one of the things we went through when the gentleman came in for the site was to create that stone effect, the pillars and so on and so forth.
This doesn't need a variance either, does it?
No.
It conforms with the the signs of correct. Anybody have any thoughts on it?
The bondment sign by itself I think would u suffice. I don't know how the rest of you feel.
I agree.
Yeah.
Same thing. Yeah, just
Okay. [clears throat] Excuse me. All right. Um, [clears throat] the other signs I don't see an issue with, but again with the sign out by the road, the man monument sign says it all right there. I don't really believe the one on the building. It actually detracts from the building. Looking at the photograph here.
Okay. Well, uh, we'll make that revision. uh it just needs to resubmit
and we went through a little effort just I mean I know that's your logo but you know like I've said in other meetings also that you know McDonald's used to have an arch but they learned how to make hamburgers without the arch you know what I mean and they still sell them so I would prefer to see the sign taken off of the building off the face on east side
understood
okay thank you all right anybody any questions on it or other issues. You want to do a secret?
I just just for clarification if we move forward on are you willing to take the sign off the building?
Yes. That's a requirement to by the by your by your town. Absolutely.
Okay. I don't mind town of consider request by Kurt Wright and Melissa. She's not here tonight. Sorry. Trenky DSkill. Uh to install one 34.6 ft free freestanding monument sign and one 6 ft wall-mounted sign for public storage located at 665 Phillips Road on a 6.5 acre parcel having SPL number 065.01 sorry 03-1-38 in an industrial district. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under session 617.5C2 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.
Okay, I have a motion. Need a second.
Second.
Have a second. All in favor?
I and Okay. So, anyone make a motion for approval of the
I can make a motion. Okay. [clears throat] Where's the tunnel Webster Planning Board has received an application from Kirk Wright, Melissa Driscoll, seeking sign approval associated with installation of the following signage on the 5.6 acre parcel identified as 065.03-1-38 located in the industrial district uh at 665 Phillips Road, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant section 2657 of the code of the town of Webster. one freestanding monument sign with a sign area of 43.6 square ft, one wall sign uh with an area of 6 square feet respectively. Um now therefore be resolved at the time of user funding board hereby approves the applicant's request for sign approval for the public storage property
and you've eliminated the 6x8 sign. Correct?
Mhm.
Okay.
Okay. Would that be in a motion? Need a second.
Second. Okay.
Mr. Dassic,
hi.
Mr. Jardino.
Hi,
Mr. Bader.
Hi,
Mr. Anderson.
Hi,
Mr. Pashani.
Hi,
Miss Maltton.
Hi.
Okay, you're all set. Thanks for taking that off. I think that that keeps it looking nice in front of that building.
Absolutely.
And I think you're going to do just as much business.
Have a good night. Thank you, sir.
Thanks.
Next item on the agenda, Fingerlakes Federal Credit Union sign located at 1055 Hatch Road. Applicant Eric Baker is requesting sign approval associated with the installation of 166.8 square foot freestanding monument sign and two wall signs at 58.6 ft on a 2.26 acre parcel located in a medium intensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster.
Good evening. My name is Steve Stanley. I'm be here on behalf of Eric Baker working for Vital Signs. Vital signs is at 764 Ridge Road here in Webster. Um as uh gentleman stated, we are proposing um both two wall mount signs and the monument signs. Uh the wall mount the wall-mounted signs, excuse [clears throat] me, will be front lit illuminated channel letters uh that'll be mounted to an aluminum constructed shoe box cabinet mounted directly to the building. Uh the icon is to be pushed through acrylic on both of the building mounted signs. The freestanding signs or the freestanding sign will also be an aluminum constructed cabinet with routed faces for the text and pushed through acrylic for the icon. Okay. Anybody any This is pretty typical for for this type of an operation having the drive-thru signs and exit signs and so on. And that's the monument sign is it is a fixed sign.
I'm sorry.
The monument sign is a fixed sign. It doesn't scroll or anything.
Correct. Um the site plan, at least the version I have, doesn't show the setbacks from the road. Um we need to make sure it meets that minimum 25 ft.
Yeah.
From both both property lines since you're at the corner.
Also, you want you want to have the uh address on that sign also
uh for the designs that were provided to me. Yes. The the monument sign does not have uh the address on there. Is that is that going to be a requirement?
No, correct. Yeah, that would be a requirement.
Um I would imagine I'll have to get more details on if if that is a requirement where they will be placing that on the sign. What is your recommendation for that?
I my thinking is simple. down low would be probably snowed in or you got landscaping, you wouldn't see it anyways. But if you had just a small arch thing at the top of it, maybe. What about if the if the sign's perpend if the sign is perpendicular to the road? Uh having it on that front uh facing [clears throat] part here, if you're looking at the site plan on the part of the sign that's to the right,
the narrow wedge.
Correct. I' I'd just like to bring to the board's attention that this particular property was assigned a Hatch Road address.
So, I'm not quite sure how the numbers fit with the existing addresses along Ridge Road.
It has a Hatch Road address.
Yes. Really?
Oh, because the driveway goes out on Hatch Road.
Correct.
Yeah.
Right. That messes it up, doesn't it? [laughter] Any suggestions then? Just don't bother putting anything on it.
I think it will cause confusion.
How about how about on the building itself? Well, that wouldn't even show anyways.
Unfortunately, I can't speak if there are I can't speak to the fact if there are planning to have numbers on the building. Um, if that would be the board's concession, I can take that feedback back to um the client and see how they feel about that. I think that would be a easy concession.
There's a room on the the small EG 3.2 side
right at the entrance. It's one of the directional signs. the EG3.2.
Yeah, that's the directional side. Where do you come in off of Hatch Road?
I think that would also be a very easy concession.
Where are you talking, Derek? I'm sorry.
It's on the site plan. You'll see down off the driveway coming off a hatch road a sign that's designated as EG3.2. Mhm. If we It's on um You guys have the the sign package in front. It's It'd be the smaller directional signs.
Yeah.
They're here.
Again,
that that would be probably as good as it would get.
Yeah, cuz I I do believe if we were to put the address on the monument,
that's a great idea. It definitely would cause cause confusion which might uh cause some congestion with traffic, quick turnarounds and such.
Okay.
All right. Anybody else?
There's two 3.2s. You probably should clarify which one. Either the lobby drive through or the exit.
Well, it'd be the one that's right at the at the entrance going in there.
Oh, I see a ton. There's a side A and a side B. So you want we'd want it on side A obviously
because that's just
Yes, that would be the that that would be the best uh directional way finding placement for that for sure.
Okay, secret [clears throat and cough] um town planning board consider a request by applicant Eric Baker to install one 66.8 8 ft freestanding monument sign, 258.6 ft wall mounted signs for Fingerlakes Federal Credit Union located at 1055 Hatch Road on a 2.26 acre parcel having number 079.17-1-78.001 in a medium intensity commercial district. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type 2 action under section 617.5C2 the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.
Okay, we have a motion second.
Second and a second. All in favor?
I I Okay, we're good with that.
All right. So, make motion regarding the signs for the bank.
I can do it.
Sure. Uh whereas the town of Webster planning board has received an application from Eric Baker requesting sign approval for 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster associated with the installation of signage on a 2.26 acre parcel identified at as SBL number 079.17-1-78.001 001 located in the medium intensity commercial district, New York for the following signage. One freestanding monument sign with a sign area of 66.8 square ft and two wall signs each with a sign area of 58.6 ft. And where the planning board reviewed the application material and plan submitted by the applicant, including the signed drawings and associated supporting information as presented to the planning board. And whereas the planning board conducted its review of the proposed signage for compliance with applicable provisions of the code of town Webster, including but not limited to 26.5-7 and evaluate proposal with respect to
compatibility with the site and surrounding area, traffic safety, and overall community character. Now therefore, be it resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board hereby approves the applicant's request for sign approval for the Fingerlakes Federal Credit Union property subject to the following condition. Building numbers added to sign EG-3.2 side A.
Okay, that being a motion, need a second.
Second.
Uh,
Mr. Gassic.
I,
Mr. Dardina.
Hi,
Miss Maltton.
I,
Mr. Better.
Hi,
Mr. Anderson.
Hi,
Mr. Kashani. Hi.
Okay, I guess you're all set. Thank you much. Have a nice night. Yeah, you too. Excuse [clears throat] me. Next item on the agenda, Bloom and Blend sign located at 790 Ridge Road. The applicant, Alyssa Connors, is requesting sign approval associated with the installation of a 32 square ft wall sign on a 1.2 acre parcel located in a commercial outdoor storage district under sections 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster. Is there anyone here for this application? Not seeing anyone. Okay, I guess just table it.
I'll make a motion to table the Bloom and Blood Blend sign located at 790 Ridge Road.
Second to the June.
We tableing it to June. Yeah.
Yeah. To the next meeting. Yeah. I'm sorry. to June.
June.
June 2nd.
June.
Okay, we have a motion. Have a second.
All in favor?
I fifth item on tonight's agenda. Bellator phase 3 located at a new road extended south of Delaware Way. The applicant Tom Thomas is representing agent Michael Mont Talo of Costage Engineering and requesting final site plan and subdivision approval in association with the development of the 66 single family residential lots on a 21.2 2acre parcel located in a low medium residential district under sections 269-10 296-18 and 350-17 under the code of the town of Webster.
Good evening. Mike Montala with Cassage Engineering here this evening on behalf of Tom Thomas and 800 Phillips Road LLC. Um, as mentioned, we are here this evening requesting final uh site plan subdivision application uh approval for uh section three of the Bellotera subdivision. [snorts] Um, this is the final section of Bellotera, a residential subdivision. This project received preliminary oversight plan uh preliminary site plan approval in December of 2018 for approximately 83 acre parcel um with 102 unit town homes. The full environmental assess in uh assessment form was submitted and a negative declaration issued under seeker in September of 2018. Final site plan uh approval was granted for section one of in April of 2019 and final site plan approval was granted for section two in May of 2024. Uh section two is currently under construction. Uh similar to the previous sections, the roads are to be private. So is water
water sanitary and storm. They're all to be built to uh town standards uh as they were in previous sections so that should uh they ever want to be or need to be dedicated, they could be. Um Army Corps of Engineer permits were obtained for uh the culverts for the stream crossings. Those were installed as part of uh section two. There's a current Speedies permit active for the project and weekly SWIP inspections are currently being performed for section two. There have been no changes to the utility alignment, roadway geometries or lot configurations uh during the course of the project from uh the preliminary overall approval uh when it was initially granted. The final plans uh incorporate the actual building footprints that'll be put on the individual lots and the earth work has been minorly tweaked to represent um any of the earth work that was done in previous sections. mass earthwork and any uh extra soils from utility built uh construction and basement um installations at this point. Uh I'd like to and our map does show what section what section three we call in red.
Section one been completed. Section 2 A and 2B are under construction. What's depicted in red is section three. It's the final section of the subdivision. All internal road connections, all internal utility connections, all storm water management has been uh built at this point.
Last piece of the puzzle.
What's that?
Last piece of the puzzle.
Last piece of last piece of the puzzle. Uh at this point, I conclude my formal presentation and turn it over for any questions the board may have.
Well, I think the only issue we would have is engineering was all okay with us. Erica or Josh? Yes.
So that's all they're they're fine with it.
They are completely up to date with everything else in there.
Yeah, there were a few minor things that can be dealt with at the premyar review stage.
Okay. That being the case, it really is this did receive preliminary overall approval when 2018 or something?
18.
2018, right?
Yeah.
Bas December of 2018. These are all private roads in there too, aren't they?
Correct.
I thought so. Yeah,
they're town. They're private roads, but were they built to town standard when they built them?
Yeah, the road roadways, utility, everything has been has been built to town standards. They're all town details on the plans.
Okay.
But it is all private.
Okay. Um, we don't need to do a seeker on this one, do we? All right. plan. Huh?
It was completed.
Yeah. Was initial. Okay. All right. Then if anyone have any questions or concerns, someone want to make a motion for approval?
I can do this one, too.
Yeah. Go ahead. You're on a roll. was the tunnel Webster planning board has received an application from Tom Thomas with Michael Montalto of Kasus Engineering as representing agent requesting final site plan approval and subdivision approval for the development of 66 single family residential lots on a 21.2 acre parcel identified at SPL 065.02-1-40.225 225 located in the low medium residential district town of Webster, New York, pursuant to section 269-10-18 and 350-17 of the code of the town of Webster. And whereas the planning board reviewed the application material, plans, and supporting documents submitted by the applicant representing agent as presented to the planning board. And whereas the planning board conducted its review of the proposal final site plan and subdivision for compliance with the code of town Webster uh and considered the layout and design of subdivision proposed lots, roads, utilities, drainage and storm water management site improvements as applicable. Uh now therefore be it resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board hereby grants final site plan approval and subdivision approval for Bellera phase 3 subject to the following conditions conditions of
approval. Conformance to approved plans, all required agency approvals. Um, so shall obtain all required permits and approvals from the town and any other agencies having jurisdiction, storm water drainage compliance, public improvements and inspections as build record drawings and subdivision plot uh plat filings.
Okay. What some [clears throat] of those give Catherine a copy of of it the way you just did that one there cuz it it's off from the other the normal.
It's it's a little different than our normal one.
Okay.
That way she can use what you said on that.
And you I think you did include subdivision approval in there also already, didn't you? So we don't need to make a separate resolution. Okay. That being a motion, we need a second.
Second.
Call. Yes.
Are there a little from the other than the standard list we usually have?
What's that?
From the standard list that we usually have. That's a little different. And the other ones that you want to add into the parks and recreation fees and the
information that should be incorporated into it, too.
All right. Let's let's make it simple. Let's include the standard requirements that we have for a final approval in there. And that way it includes parks and rec fees and yeah, good point.
Okay, we have a motion.
All right, Mr. Gass,
I
Mr. Gerardina.
Hi,
Miss Maltton.
Hi,
Mr.
Hi,
Mr. Anderson.
Hi,
Mr. Hi.
Okay, thank you for your time.
Have a great evening.
Thanks. Next item on the agenda tonight, Vorizon Wireless Cell Tower, Webster North, located at 1222 Wildflower Drive. Applicant Robert Robert Burgdoff for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems DBA Verizon is requesting sketch plan review in association with the 125 ft telecommunications tower of a 4ft lightning rod in associated ground mounted equipment on a 14.2 2 acre parcel located in an R3 single family residential district under sections 265-5 through 69, excuse me,-5 and 350-12 of the code of the town of Webster.
Hello.
Good evening.
Good evening. My name is Laura Smith. I'm with Nixon Peabody and I'm joined by Facy of NBNC and Kathy Pomponio of Verizon. and together we're representing this application. As noted in the intro, the the action before the planning board is sketch plan and site plan. There are a number of approvals this project will need, including from the town board and the zoning board of appeals, but I did uh want to introduce the entire project to you so that you had a full scope of what the project will entail. As we've noted in previous meetings, Verizon is a public utility for zoning purposes and it's licensed and regulated by the FCC and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The area uh that this this antenna will serve is known as the Webster North area. It is uh located in a single family residential zoning district where telecommunications are per permitted. And if I could, I'd like to draw your attention to exhibit F of the application. That first page of the engineering necessity case.
Josh, I'm going to keep you on your toes.
Yes, you are. So again, just as some background for the project, this area uh shown on that page, that first page um of exhibit F shows the current towers that are serving the Webster North area as well as that sur uh shown in red. Yeah, you're you're very close. Just a couple pages up. [snorts] Yes. Yep. That's it. Exactly. Thank you. So, you'll note here there are three towers predominantly serving this Webster North area. The Webster North area is outlined uh circled in red. And there is a Webster Park site, a fourmile creek site, and a Webster site all kind of triangulated around that that red circle. This Webster North search area. This is the area that it has a significant gap in coverage. This is the area that we're trying to serve. I do want to draw your attention the all of the area within this red circle is a residential neighborhood. You know, so to the extent that there is a conversation of is there another district we could go into, is
there a a higher intensity use in the area? That answer is no. We are trying to serve this residential area. The only properties within this residential area are residential is uh a residential neighborhood save for a town property that we first attempted to lease uh from the town in order to place a tenna in this area. The town board has full discretion whether or not to lease to any applicant as well including telecommunications. And if you recall last summer the town declined to lease to Verizon. So, that has put us back into a the search area ring to look for an appropriate site. Uh, and brings us to the zoning application that's before the planning board today. And then if we could go four pages down, um, I'm sorry, one page out. This shows the existing low band coverage. Uh you'll see again I want to draw your attention to the Webster Park antenna, the four mile creek antenna and that Webster antenna as well as the Xerox antenna down to the to to the southeast. And you'll see here in that residential neighborhood, uh we're
lacking coverage from the other antennas that are serving this area and it is a very low strength signal. And then Josh, if we could go down one page. With the construction of this Webster North Tower, we would increase the capacity and coverage for this residential neighborhood, really closing that gap in the coverage. And then if we could go down one more, this is the existing mid midband coverage and is showing the kind of the shading that you could get from the existing coverage and again demonstrating that there is significant coverage gaps within that Webster North area. And the next page again is showing us uh with the Webster North tower online. Uh now we'll go down one more. This is the existing midband coverage again showing uh significant orange areas to the southwest of the site and no coverage to the northwest portion of the site. I'm sorry, northeast portion of the site. So again showing that there is a significant gap in coverage within this Webster North area. And if we go down to the next page, it's the proposed binband coverage. Again, that same coverage area showing with the Webster North Tower online.
So, with that understanding of where the coverage gap is, we then went through a pretty rigorous site selection analysis, as we do with all of our sites. the uh only site that both met our RF needs and they were willing to lease to us uh was the site that's before you today, the 120 the 122 Wildflower Lane. That site uh if I may next draw your attention to our site plan which is exhibit P. It shows that it's a a relatively large parcel within this residential neighborhood and it allows for significant setback from other residential properties as well as from the road uh and shielding the property to the extent possible with existing tree coverage. So we in addition to it being the most appropriate site for our RF needs, the most appropriate site to meet town requirements, it also uh it works well from uh an aesthetic point of view to help hide the equipment and to shield the uh tower to the extent that's possible.
On that note, also I'm sorry Josh, keep switching back and forth. Um for I'm going to bring us to the um viewshed map that is Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, exhibit K, the viewshed map. So, here you'll see a map of the areas shaded in yellow that for that cross-hatching. Those are the areas that are anticipated to have a view of the tower. So, again, although we're in a residential neighborhood, the areas that will actually be able to see the tower is quite limited. Um certainly that will be affected when leaves are not on the trees but when leaves are on the trees when looking from a residential neighborhood up you know for the most part it will be covered in the foliage. We also prevented provided some photo
simulations of what the tower would look uh look like in the next following slides. So again, we're we're here before you uh for this application to cover that significant significant coverage gap demonstrated in the Webster North neighborhoods. Uh this area will this remedy will serve and solve that rem that gap and again we went through that very extensive site analysis. We began discussions with the town to use the town parcel about two years ago. went through that process with the town. Again, the town has full full um just they're full they're fully within their right to decide not to lease to us as a tenant. Um but now back before you, we're here with a zoning application for the site as selected uh to solve that coverage gap. So with that, I'll pause and and see if there's any questions.
Well, initially you handed it 125 ft. I think it was the first tower.
I'm sorry,
the first tower that you proposed on the town site. I think that was 125 ft.
That could be correct. When we're looking at installing towers, it's the uh antenna center line that we're trying to solve for here. Uh I would I would assume and I I will look at Nico Facy, but I assume that we're about 10 ft further down um in elevation which requires 135 ft so that we can reach that same antenna center line
cuz the code our town code actually calls for maximum height of 100 ft.
That's correct.
Put in in the first towers that's that's the range they all worked in. What happened? The trees get taller.
The actually the trees did get taller. That's absolutely right.
Make the cell towers. Is that right? That's absolutely right. I remember we had the other cell tower, the one proposed down on Lake Road come in. I asked a question. I still don't understand how that works, but could there not be two lower towers somewhere, you know, out of the residential area? I mean, that's a dense ag residential area there.
I guess I'll push back, right? Anywhere within that area that needs coverage is a residential neighborhood. So, you know, we we're not trying to hide the ball on you or or um pretend that, you know, we're not acknowledging that it isn't a residential neighborhood.
So, would two cell towers work?
It would not work.
Lower ones.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
No, I'm sorry. You know, like maybe by the park or somewhere or whatever. That's a great question. So, if you'll see uh again on when I was showing you where the towers are located, there is already a tower in the park. There is already a tower at our four mile creek site and there is already a tower at the Webster site and the Xerox site. [clears throat] So, if you recall from our prior application, the way that the cell phone towers work, it's almost as if you have a flashlight and where the light shines, that is where the cell coverage goes. very rudimentary obviously but uh it's a good kind of analysis for it. If you start crossing beams with other towers then that interferes with the with the um how that other tower is working and how that other tower is serving the facilities. So it really needs to be kind of juxtaposed in between the existing towers to ensure that we're both ex co closing the existing coverage gap as well as not interfering with the the the towers that are currently serving the area.
It'd be interesting to know what um like AT&T or T-Mobile or whatever some of the other carriers, do they get reception in that area?
Yes. Yeah.
Hold on. Got the podium. Sorry.
And candidly,
the Telecommunications Act looks at carrier by carrier. So, while there might be coverage by another carrier is candidly irrelevant in in the analysis of our zoning application before you. Well, the reason I'm thinking is whatever they're coming off of, whatever tower they're coming off of, could Verizon colllocate on their tower?
Our our very first place is always collocation. We we always look to collate. It is what is required in your code. It is what is makes the most business sense for Verizon. [clears throat] There is no existing tall structure or no existing tower within the search area we're trying to serve. I guess uh just just a quick question to kind of piggy back on the code and the 100 foot I guess maximum that we already have. Can this be done at 100 foot? Is it it uh you know I don't know?
Yeah, it can that 135 is the minimum height that's necessary to fill the coverage gap and that is you know played with quite a bit with our RF engineers. Again, to be candid with you, if we could have a site that didn't require a variance, that is a more straightforward zoning application, the 135 is the minimum that's necessary to to close this coverage gap.
Okay. All right. Is we we're noviceses at this. We don't fully understand other than what we're being told and understandable. I think we've discussed this with the town. I think what we need to do is to have our code allows for this is to have an outside consultant come in and review your numbers, your calculations on everything and pass that information to us because you're saying yes, it needs to be 135 ft. I of all the towers we've had, I don't know any we've had to make 135 ft. But there's one question. I think that's what we're going to need to do. Would you guys agree to that? I I have a twoprong question if I might.
I know you mentioned that you've looked at other properties in the area. When I look at this this photo view and considering it's a half mile radius, right on the edge of that is the village wastewater treatment plant. Has that been considered? Not only is it less than a half mile from where you're proposing, it's a higher elevation which may not require you to have uh as tall an antenna. The other thing I'd like you to consider or at least better understand is that cell towers are aren't the only solution. There's smaller utility pole uh mounted antennas. There's roof mounted antennas. There's utilization of satellite communications and I don't know if Verizon has considered any of those things in the process of locating this.
Thank you. Those are both both great questions. I will note under exhibit G is our site selection analysis. We did look at the wastewater treatment plan. Again, to be fully transparent with the board, if we can't find collocation, we do look for property in order to um enter more into a partnership with the municipality as we were trying to do with the other site. Um in this location, the wastewater treatment plant declined to to contract with us. And if you look at Josh, page 11 of 13 of that site selection analysis.
Yeah, it's just the next Yeah, the next exhibit down. Yep, that one. And then page 11 of that. So this shows the candidates that we approached and either were had to be rejected due to RF. So for example, K, J, and H were not close enough in the search range to solve the RF uh coverage gap. And then our candidate before you, that's that's candidate C. I believe A is the town property. Uh, and then yeah, I'm sorry. Candidate A is the um the sewer property at the near the town of Palm Station.
So, excuse me. This what you're showing here does not align with with this drawing.
It's I'm sorry. I I jumped to exhibit G.
I agree. But the the circle is is more to the north and the west on this. At least that's how it appears. I
you you did approach the the waste monitoring plan.
Correct. Yes.
And the village decline.
Yes. Yeah. All All of the items all of the the properties shown there on page 11 of exhibit F. Those are the properties that that we approached and either declined to contract with us or uh did not meet the RF needs.
So then regarding the alternate technologies,
thank you. Yeah. So the the small cell technology, what is needed here is a backbone. It needs to support a larger uh geographical area than the small cell is meant to design. Small cells have a radius of about 50 yards or 50 ft of service. They're really band-aids for areas in a in in an existing network that just need to be patched over. For example, they're often on Wegman's because when you're at Wegman's, there's too much there's too much capacity going on at Wegman's and there needs to be a booster there. The area that we are looking to serve is much much too large to be to be served with small cells. This needs a macro backbone to help really bring that coverage gap to a close. And then if there are those small those small spots that then need to be filled in with small cells, that is what the small cell technology is meant to do. It's meant to fill in the gaps um fill in small gaps uh that need that booster or have capacity issues because of high volume use.
I appreciate that. I I think of it more like a mesh router system where one router in your house is broadcasting. It has it has spots that are that are that are blank or or don't have perception. Where a mesh allows you to distribute it in a much more effective manner with smaller nodes. So I'm not an expert in telecommunications. I was just using that as an analogy. But I would like to at least better understand that.
I think those are some good points and that is precisely why I feel Josh we all felt that an outside consultant is the way to go because those are things that we've talked about, we've read about, people in the neighborhood have read the same things we've read, but we don't know what works and what doesn't work, you know. So I think we you guys feel the same about
yeah I mean especially with this being the third one it's like there's an influx of it. So it would be best in our part too to have the secondary resource evaluated uh from our perspective to just to educate us even further. One of the things that you just mentioned out of curiosity is age which is the sewer plant was taken out of consideration because of RF need parameters. What does the RF need? Is it just a spectrum, a a range?
Oh, I you're right. I apologize. I did mislabel uh the sewer plant that is too far out of the search ring. So, we do look, especially when it's municipal properties, we will run some properties outside of the search ring to see if it is viable from an RF perspective to fill that coverage gap. And candidly, this is my own ignorance of of why it's yes or why it's no, but RF is the final decider of whether or not putting a tower at that location will will solve the coverage gap.
So even if we were to place a tower there and it addresses half of the concern of that RF need, you still wouldn't place it in that location, for example, since it doesn't address the entire gap.
That's correct. And to the extent I also want to note again uh to recall that there is a tower the Xerox Tower that's to the souththeast of of that location. And when we're looking at the network, it is both filling the coverage gap that's existing and then also looking at non-inference. So when RF is evaluating a site, um they're looking at both. Does that fill the coverage gap um or and or does it interfere with the neighboring site? I I can't speak to which one of those or or both of those items is the reason RF rejected it. uh we can certainly get that information but when when when RF is reviewing this they are the final say on on what is sufficient for the network in order uh to protect its integrity and also to ensure that the coverage gap is filled.
One of my last question was just something that Tony mentioned. I don't know if you meant it jokingly or not, but when he said, you know, initially the towers were 100 ft and now they're up to 135 and it's because the tree heights have increased. Repurposing the existing towers by increasing the height of those towers, would that potentially address and cover the areas that have gaps now?
They they would not address this coverage gap. This coverage gap is is really too far from those existing towers. Again, going back to that flashlight idea, the higher you get up, the weaker the signal is. Uh the the weaker that light is. There's also foliage and uh topography that can interrupt that flow of of the cell coverage. Um which is why you know again I we were somewhat joking but candidly it is the foliage on the tree. This is such the the RF that is emitted from these towers is such a low frequency that it is it is very low power. It it candidly can't travel that far. So when we're looking at um filling that coverage gap, there is uh there is a distance that that just can't be overcome by the radio frequency. It's a very low power and the higher frequency you go up, the shorter amount of distance it can go. Yes, it okay. Um, just for the record, a lot of the neighbors in the area, we have received letters. I did have them. I've read them. It won't do us any good to read
them out loud here tonight, but we do have them and appreciate it. I think the way to move this thing forward is to simply request that the town hire a consulting firm that the town's choice, not their choice.
Mhm.
Obviously. Right. And that it gets reviewed by an independent RF specialist, engineers, whoever they are, and give us their results before we move on with this. Does that sound fair to you folks, too? That's we There's nothing else we can do at this point. And tonight is not a public hearing. It's just a
I just have a few question about
I'll tell you what. It's not a public hearing, but if you've got something you want, why don't you go ahead on up and let
No, no, you have to go up there and talk. Just give us your name. My name is Barb Robbins and I live at 1205 Wildflower Drive. Um, just just a question as to why none of the other cell carriers are having this issue and it is only Verizon that we're hearing about. I know one of the gentlemen who lives by me and wrote the letter into the editor of the Webster Herald. He's actually driven around our neighborhood and sees that there are additional boosters for other cell providers that are on some of the lines. and all of the people that are dealing with these other providers do not seem to have any of the issues that the Verizon customers have had.
Mhm.
I've been going around the neighborhood for the last 5 days with a petition and so I've been speaking one on-one with a lot of my neighbors to find out who they have that wasn't part of the petition to ask them, but they've been very open about that. And the only ones who have said that they have any type of cell phone coverage issues are Verizon customers. And they have stated that, you know, the few people that have Wi-Fi in their house, they just make sure that they connect into that and going in. Once they get outside of their homes and they get onto the main roadways, they go up to three bars. Why is that? the within the house there's a problem but outside on the road there's no issue. So these other boosters that these other companies are using must be working in the neighborhood and they're not put up you know 135 ft 139 with the antenna that you you got some good points there. I think that's something that we'll know. I have a lot of them that I'll be providing.
That is something that we can Okay, that would be great. That would be great. That's something we don't again, we don't understand it. You know, we can turn that over to the people that do end up al ultimately reviewing this and have them address that.
Okay. Thank you.
Fair enough. If you've got that, you want to hand it up? Okay,
I'm going to finish putting together because as we've been sitting here and I've been getting more information, I have been putting together more questions. The road that needs to be created to get back to where this cell tower, is it going to be a double lane? Is it going to be a single lane? How is it going to be maintained? Is it going to be maintained as if it was on an individual's property or is somebody from the town or from Verizon going to maintain it? Those are all questions, you know, as far as easements. How far back is this road going to be in relationship to everybody's property?
If you can if you can once you
I certainly will and I am going to send in what I have.
Those are some good points.
Signatures and and I'll put it all together.
Okay.
Who should I send it specifically to?
Give it to Josh or Erica right there. Right at the town.
Okay. Can I come up after and get your email addresses? Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Appreciate what you have.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Kathy Pomponio and I'm the project manager with Verizon Wireless. I can answer at least some of your questions right now. The reason that AT&T and T-Mobile are not having the same issues as Verizon are are are there's there's more than one answer to that. Number one, our networks are different. Where, you know, AT&T's network is not exactly the same as Verizon's network or T-Mobile's network. Uh the other biggest difference is the fact that Verizon owns a majority of the market share across upstate New York. And so there's a capacity issue. So if you saw some of the exhibits that Laura and and Josh were putting up earlier, the surrounding sites have sectors that are at capacity because we have 70% of the market share in this area and the remaining 30% is split between AT&T and T-Mobile. So we have a very large capacity of network usage on our system that is draining the system. So this part of the reason is coverage and part of the reason is capacity but we have to
solve that problem because we have so many users on our system and that is the biggest reason right there. Um as far as the height is concerned um the surrounding uh towers in Webster are larger than they're higher than 100 feet. So um and and the height of the tower is driven by um what we're trying to solve within the coverage gap and the capacity issues. It's also driven by the height and the height of the trees. Um we have to see we have to see through the trees and the foliage in order for the signal to penetrate. And as far as the questions regarding site plan and roaded, I mean that's that's something that the planning board is all going to review. the site plan is within our application. All of those questions are currently within our [clears throat] site plan application before the planning board. Can I just ask one more question? Sorry, cuz it came up as capacity. Is the capacity maxed out on cell phone use as in calling or does the towers also provide capacity or usage for like residential home, commercial home data usage as well?
It's both. So
it's both
by advertising then internet services like the new internet service that you have you've maxed out your capacity.
I I can't answer that question uh on internet service but as far as coverage and capacity um this tower is going to solve both of those problems for both data and phone usage
right but I guess you know from an emergency response concern everything which again is the real service from a utility scale of these towers
e responses and public safety is of utmost importance.
Correct. But that's call, cell phone, not necessarily.
It's also data. I mean, if you're ambulance and you've got a medical emergency at your home and and and and the provider, the emergency service provider is trying to transmit telemetry to the hospital, that is also a data issue.
Okay.
Um and and we welcome you uh hiring a third party consultant. I mean, we're all for it. As long as that person is qualified and they're not gouging, you know, from a from a cost perspective, then we welcome it. And for the record, by getting an outside consultant, our code allows this board to hire someone and the bill goes back to the applicant. So, the town, your tax dollars are not involved in this. Okay. Just just for the record, that's all. Um, I think that's the way we've got to travel with this. Anybody else? Any any Derek, you feel comfortable with that?
Yeah, I actually looking at the doc, sorry, back too far. Looking at the documents, not only from this application, the previous application. I fully understand the coverage and the data issues that they have and why this tower is actually at its 135 ft. But you're trying to maintain a level from a sight line from tower to tower that's pretty much level. I know this site here on the map it shows that stream going by it. And if it's anything like that stream that's up by the villages wastewater plant. This is one of the lower parts on the town. So you wind up with a higher tower elevation to be able to see the towers on either side. So having a fixed tower of 100 ft, but you're on ground elevation that goes from elevation 300, elevation 400, that center line changes wherever you are in the in the town. So this thing has to have the site to be able to see and talk to other towers.
That's exactly right. It's a it is the antenna center line that is the solution kind of regardless regardless of the elevation of the ground where we need to be is where the center line will be at this elevation at 135 ft that you're exactly right. It's the antenna center line.
Frankly, all these applications we have have made 100% sense on why it's been located where it's at. And while it's nice to have the outside consultant come into the RF, I'm not sure that that's money well spent by the town and passed on to the applicant.
No, I mean these diagrams
again the gap exists because of the usage. So they're capped out. They're capped out as because they have the market capability. They have the larger usage and they need to introduce a tower so they can meet that demand. But why isn't the demand being capped as in you're allocating like you know a percentage of
so you're allowed to select a cell phone company right not allowed to have Verizon in this particular area because they don't have the coverage
you can't have that kind of a cap so it's
but the diagram that they have to me personally makes 100% sense on what you're trying to do
in again let's Josh has been doing research on And we've got what was it 150 days or something that you have to have some sort of an accomplishment or whatever.
Are you referring to the I think you're referring to the shot clock.
Yes.
Um would you be able to speak a little bit to that?
Yeah, I would be happy to.
So you're exactly right. There is a shot clock that municipalities are required to make a determination based on when the application was submitted. Uh this application was submitted March 10th which means that a full decision so that means both site plan approval uh the height variance that's that's required as well as a telecommunication special permit from the town board would all have to be issued on or before August 7th. Um candidly, you know, if we get to a situation that it's just a few days over, we often extend the shot clock. It's not meant to be punitive, but it is meant to um allow a project to move forward and and serve the area. And you know, again, we have been working on this particular site for a number of years. So to the fullest extent that we can move forward and serve this area and serve this community is is exactly what the shock clock is meant meant to provide.
Okay. All right. With that, I guess we'll leave it up to the engineering department to come up with an a firm that can do the research on this and report along with what you've presented and give us some numbers that we can work with then.
Excellent.
Get us back before the July of July.
Yeah,
or even earlier at least before the July.
We're happy to do June. Yeah, actually I think you put that in your comment there, Josh, too. I think you got you you you wanted something by a certain date from recalling.
Yes, we're looking to like few weeks. Yeah.
Right.
Okay. With that,
thank you.
All right. With that, I guess we're going to have to call it anything, folks. I appreciate you all coming. We got two items.
Thanks and links and then the
Oh, d Oh, yeah. That's right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're right.
The one administrative item before the board is Dinks and Lakes, the intent to declare lead agency for Seeker.
Mhm.
And I think Derek had prepared a resolution for that.
Yeah. Motion for intent to establish lead agency whereas the tenure planning board. The planning board consider request by applicant Joe Catalani to construct a 41,000 ft indoor outdoor recreation facility for Dinson Links located next to 900 5m line road on a proposed 10.4 acre parcel consisting of SPL numbers 079.10-1-2.3 10-1-2.3 38 is it which is 9.38 acres and a 1.08 acre portion of SPL number 079.10-1-1.11 10-1-1.11 in a highintensity commercial district. Now therefore be resolved that the town of Wester planning board determine that the action is an unlisted action and now therefore be resolved that the town of Webster planning board determined that the action is subject to coordinated review pursuant to part 617.6B of seeker and that it is the most appropriate
agency for making determination of significance. The planning board therefore does intends to designates itself. I'm sorry. Therefore, the planning board designates itself as the agency for the proposed action.
Okay, that being a motion, we need a second.
Second,
Mr. Anderson.
Hi,
Mr. Jardino.
Hi,
Miss Maltman.
I
Mr. Gass.
Hi,
Mr. Ber.
Hi,
Mr. Shy.
Hi. Okay, I guess that's all we got is the minutes.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the April 7th meeting minutes.
And I'll second those.
All in favor? I.
Anyone opposed?
And I have to say too that Katherine does one hell of a job on those minutes. You sit there with your phone out there trying to type down word for word that comes. Thank you. Okay, with that folks, I guess we're all set for the evening.