Video recording

I'd like to welcome you to the planning board meeting. Um, we have about seven items on the agenda this evening. So hopefully we go through it and get along with it fairly well very soon. So would you join in the pledge of allegiance, please to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay, Katherine, you want to call the role, please? >> Sure. >> Mr. Anderson >> here. >> Mr. Kosani >> here. >> Mr. Jardino >> here. >> Mr. Better >> here. >> Mr. Malta >> here. >> Mr. Gassic >> here. >> Mr. Artuso, >> Miss Corsy >> here.

>> Yeah, I believe Josh is out. He's in the >> as Frank is. Okay, with that I guess we can get started. Mark, you want to start with the first item? >> Best Buy Auto Sales Edition located at 771 Ridge Road. The applicant, Alan Malleti, is requesting preliminary final site plan approval with a public hearing in association with the construction of approximately 2,826qt accessory structure for auto repair on a 1.73 acre parcel located in a medium intensity commercial district under [snorts] sections 269-11 and 350-18 of the code of the town of Webster. Gentlemen, >> good afternoon. >> Good evening.

>> Good evening, I should say. Um, my name is Ian Cookman. I'm with McMahon Laroo Associates, civil engineer, representing uh the applicant Best Buy Auto. Uh, looking to construct a 2800 square foot accessory structure outback. the primary structure at 771 Ridge Road. The intended use of the building is accessory to the main operations which is a used car dealership. And um the building would allow operations to um maintain and service vehicles that are sold through the dealership, elongating that uh full customer service that every auto dealership seeks to achieve with their with their clients and their customers.

Um we were before the board a couple of months ago for sketch review and we took a lot of that feedback uh updated our plans. We were supposed to come back last month uh but were dropped due to some miscommunication errors with the Webster Herald. So, we weren't able to get a a public hearing. Uh but we are here today uh in an attempt to combine preliminary final uh for your review tonight. Um, as I said, we did update the the site plans and we've included some elevations and grading uh to denote some of the drainage concern that um town engineering department had um primarily the pond, who owns the pond, um what we're going to do with the pond.

Ultimately, the pond um if you guys are looking at the screen, we can go to sheet three of five. shows. Yep, there you go. Shows approximately where that pond is out back the our proposed accessory structure there. You can see that pond straddles an existing property line. Half of it is on our applicant's property. The other half is on uh the neighbor uh who would be Thomas Landscaping. So, we're showing on our plans um the maintenance of that pond. Uh we're proposing a formalized um easement that would um provide some demarcation for uh some future maintenance agreement either a uh private maintenance agreement between the the two neighbors or [snorts] if the town were interested some sort of uh maintenance agreement with the town.

We're open to suggestions on that front. Either way, there is a short-term plan to maintain that pond and um rehabilitate or restore uh the intended capacity. Um also to um clean out the outlet pipe to make sure that there's um no potential for upstream flooding situations. >> Does that pond I'm sorry. Does that pond actually work now? I mean [snorts] obviously if you put a building there that's and what is there now currently either way it's impervious surface. >> Yeah. It's still functioning. >> Is it taking care of the water as it stands? >> Yeah. There's no flooded conditions. The the the the building that uh Best Buy Auto operates out of right now has a has a basement that you know doesn't flood.

It's got um walk out windows >> um that function that functions fine. Um but again, while we're while we have construction equipment there excavating for footings and and whatnot, >> there's an opportunity here to um maintain this pond and make sure that it's in good working condition. Um, from a storm water standpoint, we're not proposing to increase total imperous area of the site. So, we're not proposing to generate any new overall volume of runoff. So, the capacity of the pond if restored to its original dimensions and elevations should be adequate and um total site disturbance is less than an acre.

So, an erosion, sediment control and uh storm water pollution prevention plan shouldn't be required. The uh accessory structure is going to have floor drains. So, we're proposing an oil water separator that has been reviewed by the town sewer department. We've received their comments and uh have sized it according to our proposed use. Um Tony, we did take a look at some of the landscaping. That was one of your comments during sketch. We're showing on our site plan um the existing landscaping. We're showing where we're going to be removing one tree, but we're also going to be preserving another tree right next to it.

And then you had asked about property line location. If you were to go out to the site and look at the overhead power poles, those are right on the property line, which shows a pretty healthy vegetative strip between our parking lot and our neighbors parking lot. Um Best Buy Auto just invested pretty significantly in um improving the landscaping along the road frontage >> and the plan is to to maintain that and you know continue to >> uh promote that curbside appeal. >> Um I think those are really the highlights of of what we've what we've um what we're presenting here. Like I said, we received comments during sketch.

We received comments during preliminary application. Although we didn't have a public hearing, we still did receive town comments. We responded to those comments. We received comments last week or the week before. We've responded to those comments as well. So, you know, best faith effort to try to cooperate and respond to the town the best we can uh in an attempt to receive some sort of an approval uh with conditions of course to make sure that all stakeholders are coming out of this. >> And let me let me just run through some of the things that we did, you know, we did talk about at the meeting and then you can yes or no they're in there or they're not.

Um, you already hit and again I agree your landscaping your front that that's always looked fairly decent out there. So, u we put increase the vegetation buffer along the west side of the property. Uh, show the paving limits and parking striping on the plans. Is that on there? >> Yes, >> you can have that. Okay. Uh, include a dumpster enclosure details. Yep, you got that. >> All right. Include wallp pack lighting details on the building elevations. And on sheet C301, the lighting and paving details. >> Yep. >> So that's included. Site data table to include total overall number of parking spaces.

So ultimately at the end you want to stripe what is supposed to go in there and that be the maximum. >> Yes. >> Number of cars on the site. [clears throat] Um add distance measurement between the existing and proposed buildings. >> I guess that was something JS you I think you asked that. It's in there. >> Yeah. And uh let's see. A distance measure and [snorts] provide overall landscape plans, which you've you've done. So, you're good with that? Now, the only the only question I've got on it, you're putting you're going to run water in there. You're going to have a sink. And why aren't you putting a bathroom in there?

>> We are prop we are >> you are proposing one. >> Yeah. It was questionable at first one before. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I think that's common sense to do that once you know. >> Might as well while we're in. >> Sure. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Anybody any questions? I know engineering's got some questions and stuff. Board board members, any comments? It's those are the things we asked for to be included in the drawings. >> Well, the one thing that is new on here is the fact that the pond is being shown with work done on an adjacent parcel. >> It's what? >> There's work being shown on an adjacent parcel.

And right now we don't have any acknowledgement that there's actually an easement or an agreement to do that work on the adjacent parcel. >> Yeah. For sure how we could >> approve work on somebody else's land. >> Yeah, that that's a weird one because there was an intent there was an easement originally shown there. The easement was never filed. So, um I think we're going to have to get creative with maybe the town's help to figure out how to actually file that easement. Worst case scenario, there's >> What has Thomas Landscaping said? >> Yeah, we've we've had discussions with them and they we talked to them several months ago.

We talked to them today and they're on board with maintaining that. It's to their benefit as well. I think I think that the solution to that is simply get a document from them something stating that they're in agreement with it granting you the easement to come on and you know do the maintenance on it. >> Yes. >> Provide that to the town. >> Yes. >> You know prior to a co even though there's not a formal easement in place there is an um a byite uh implicit easement that exists on any parcel. If there's something on your parcel that like a utility or an egress ingress egress that allows me to get from my property to the rightway, there's an implicit easement that allows me to go and maintain whatever that utility is.

In this case, it would be storm water. So, there is an implicit easement, but of course, we're going to um make that as explicit um and formalized as possible. Uh again, either through private conversation or through the town if if necessary. >> That's something new to me. I've never heard of that. So, >> it was new to me until my surveyors told explained it to me. >> We just approve it subject to the filing of an easement with a neighboring property. >> We're happy with that. >> That probably makes it easier. >> Yeah, >> I'm with you. >> Um how do we make sure it gets filed? >> We can't do it unless they >> No.

So, how do we make sure it gets filed? Because >> and filed. >> This area has a history of this has the word proposed private easement for storm maintenance and then five years it comes back find out the easement was never filed because the word proposed is on there. >> Um, how about we just say um subject to the signing and filing of an easement. Does that work? If you put that subject to approval, I think that'll work. >> It should. >> Yeah, >> approval [clears throat] isn't completely >> signing and filing of an ement. [snorts] >> And [clears throat] I know Tua said the area is uh less than an acre, but you have a sign on here that says proposed total impervious area is an acre.

>> Yeah, that's total sight. So, the whole frontage of the site isn't going to be disturbed. >> Correct. So, you are putting in a pond that deals with a site that has been disturbed for over an acre. >> Active disturbance is going to be less than an acre. We're just putting up a pole barn. >> All the parking in the rear is existing gravel. We're just going to be putting down >> limits of proposed standard duty asphalt. So the drawing has shown that the site's being paved with asphalt. So that's disturbance. >> There's no there's not going to be any soil disturbance. There's not >> Yeah, but you're putting you're now putting in an impervious surface, the asphalt on the site, >> correct?

Yep. >> Do that. So now you now you have to have the swip and the storm water. >> We're including we're including the pavement as part of our disturbance calculations. We're not asphaltting the whole site, just >> the portion demarcated on our plan. >> Okay. But I'm I'm seeing a note that clearly says an acre. So it seems to me that this site is subject to having a swip, particularly since you are going over on the adjacent parcel, too. >> Yeah. The reason why we're showing the acre is to show that our total impervious is [cough and laughter] remaining the same. >> I guess does engineering accept that it's a >> [snorts] >> It's something we got to, you know, know before we do anything.

>> We've accepted the [cough] we've accept we've um requested and they've provided a what we call a modified SWIP. Essentially, they're fulfilling um components of the permit, SWIP permit as necessary. So, we're okay with that. Um what I would like to see as part of this is not only the easement um the drainage easement but we need to also have a maintenance agreement as well. So we need to have a you know so those have to go part and parcel with each other. Those are those are important >> and the two pipes coming in. There is a note on here saying that the one that's being jet cleaning there's a comment saying that it goes over to a soil and adjacent parcel.

Where does the other pipe start from? the one heading north out of the pond. I see it going up towards the landscaping area and just kind of ending. So, what's that actually tied into? >> That ties into the uh other um property owner's catch basin and it's coming into the pond. It's inleting into the pond. >> You make a >> Where is Where is that other catch basin? >> I was going to say make a note of that. Just Um I don't know who's controlling the mouse. Um you see behind the landscaping to the top of the page there, Josh. >> Yeah. Follow that up. >> Continue to follow that up. >> Oh, so the slur is underneath the trees.

>> Okay. >> The storm drainage pipe. >> Yeah. The the proposed trees that are on the front of landscaping, >> those are existing and that's an existing storm. >> Yeah. All of that is not it's not part of the project. It's existing. >> Does that line function too? >> What's that? >> And how much runoff is coming from the adjacent parcel into this pond? >> It's really just um a quarter of that parcel. So, the front part of the site that's closest to our property line. So, there's a ridge on the other side of the parcel heads to um uh west towards the right away. >> As long as engineering's fine with putting this off before they have a chance to review those calculations for the runoff and the volume on it.

>> Yeah, we Yep. Like I said, as long as we are we have the uh the easement, drainage easement and the maintenance agreement, however that's arrived at between the two property owners, [snorts] because we will identify this as a as a pond that needs a yearly inspection. >> So [clears throat] with that included as far as engineering, you're okay? All right. Okay. Anybody else? Board members, any questions or >> no >> concerns on this? It's pretty much the everything we've asked for preliminary. Okay. I'll open it then. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone here wishing to speak either for or against this project.

Not seeing anyone. Okay. In that case, then we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. Anybody? >> I don't know. >> You You're comfortable with you looked at it? I'm sure. >> Okay, then we can move forward with it. Everybody's all right with it. I guess they've been in How many times [clears throat] have you been in a few times? I guess. Um, >> somebody want to make a motion to this? Dave, you want to make >> Yeah, I'll make a motion. Best Buy auto sales. Do you need seeker beforehand? >> What's that? >> Probably do seeker first. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. [laughter] >> You're right.

My gun trying to push it here. Hurry up. >> So, the building's less than 4,000 square ft. So, the town of Wester Plan Board consider request by applicant Alan Mallet. Is that how you say it? Sorry. >> Okay. Thank you. for construction of an approximately 2,826q ft accessory structure for Best Buy Auto Sales located at 771 Ridge Road on a 1.73 acre parcel having SPL number 079.17-1- T1.11 located in MC medium intensity commercial district. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type 2 action under section 617 C 617.5C9 of the state's environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.

>> Okay, that being a motion need a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I Okay, we're good. All right, Dave, go ahead. I'm sorry. Okay, I'll make a motion for preliminary site plan approval for Best Buy Auto Sales Addition at 771 Ridge Road for the construction of approximately 2826qt accessory structured for auto repair on a 1.73 parcel and it's subject to PRC comments subject to a letter of credit posted with the town of Webster if applicable. uh subject to Monro County Water Authority comments subject to determination of ZBA if there's any v variances I don't believe there are um all improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the town of Webster all site work be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster comply with all requirements of any state county or town agency address drainage, lighting, signage, landscaping, buffering, burming and snow storage, uh landscape uh hardscape site accessories and associated finished grading design for the development [clears throat] approvals.

We also want to put in the um easement. >> Yeah, I'd like to make sure that the drainage easement is added. Let's put it. Let's use this here. >> And the private maintenance agreement >> assigned and filed maintenance and drainage easement with the neighboring property located at 775 Ridge Road to be included. >> Okay. >> Okay. Dave will put that in also. >> Y >> I think also put in uh just to reiterate the comments that were made that I just read off there before there's a list of them that we did when they were in for sketch plan >> that they they're included. I guess they've got them in there, but we'll we'll take and copy them.

Just have them in there so that make sure that when it's reviewed, we see them in there, you know. Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> Okay, Dave, go ahead. >> Approvals are subject to uh drawing number C00 >> C200. Yeah. So, you should probably just do the March 17th drawing set. >> March 17th drawing set. >> Okay. >> For project number 25-0166. >> Um, excuse me. We did receive a a more updated plan set with a a different date dated 4626. >> 4626. >> Correct. Great. >> Okay. And we'll proceed to final approval. Okay, that's a motion for preliminary approval. Need a second for it. >> Second. >> Call RO, please.

>> Mr. Malta. >> Hi, >> Mr. Jardino. >> Hi, >> Mr. Anderson. [clears throat] >> Hi, >> Mr. Betta. >> I >> Mr. Gassi, >> I. >> Mr. Kani, >> I >> All right. >> Okay. >> Uh, the application is actually they're in here for also for final approval. You're okay with it? >> Move forward. >> All right, Dave, you're on a roll. Why don't you go ahead? You want to make a motion for final approval? >> You'll make a motion for final approval for Best Buy Auto Sales Edition at 771 Ridge Road. Subject to project review committee comments. Uh, sub to any parks and recreation fees if applicable. Subject to preliminary approval conditions, subject to all applicable government fees, subject to Department of Public Works approvals.

Significant construction shall occur within one year is deemed by the planning board to expire on April 7, 2027. Conditions of the preliminary final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final design plans. Engineer for proposed project shall provide a letter of certification and all proposed work was completed as per planning board resolution of final approval before certificate of accum issued. Um are they going to have a letter of credit for this? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Letter of credit to the town for the project shall include the fee for the engineers final certification inspection of the site.

All storm water f water water facilities to be constructed first. Uh downspouts where are they going? >> No. >> You connected to the storm sore? >> No. >> Subject to resolution of final approved minutes approvals are subject to the drawing. Same as a preliminary. >> Reiterate the pond. >> What's that? >> Reiterate the easement. >> Yeah. The easement uh as cited in the preliminary approval >> needs to be done prior to search >> to me. The key part of this for final approval is subject to all appropriate governmental fees subject to engineering governmental approvals. Site work is in compliance with standards town so on so forth.

There's also a statement in there that money is held for final approval by the engineer for the project. So that's something I don't know if we're following very closely, but I think it's something we need to absolutely follow and that should be part of the monies set aside that pay for the engineer to go back review that everything that he did on his drawings are done adequately. Okay. So I just want to reiterate that just so that we stay on the same page. We we have that in there, but I don't know if it always gets followed. So anyways, put that in there too. You got it, Dave. Okay, that's your motion.

>> Second. >> I did. >> Oh, okay. >> I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> Mr. Malta. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gassic. >> Hi, >> Mr. Better. >> Hi, >> Mr. Anderson. >> Hi, >> Mr. Jardino. >> Hi, >> Mr. Kashan. >> Hi. >> Okay, you're all set. Good luck with your project. >> Thank you. Next item on tonight's agenda, Waterview Phase 3 located at zero Willowpoint Way. The applicant Legacy Development Company is requesting a one-year final site plan approval extension along with a public hearing associated with the proposed construction of six two-story townhouse style buildings consisting of a total of 56 residential units and one community center on a 13.5 acre parcel located in a medium high residential district under section 269-17 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> Yes, sir. >> Good evening. I'm Chris Nadler, general counsel for MarkV Enterprises. I'm here today with Ed Martin from Pasro and our friend Randy Jackson. Uh thank you for having us. It's been it's hard to believe it's been a year since uh I was last here. Uh we are here for uh extension or renewal of the site plan approval that you did grant us a year ago. Um we have one condition the jurisdictional determination from the DEEC uh that's outstanding. Um other than that all conditions uh have been satisfied or will be satisfied and uh no conditions or the conditions at the site have not changed.

So um we're here asking for a renewal. I'll turn it over to Ed Martin who can give you the background and where we are with the DEEC on getting that jurisdictional determination. Thanks, Chris. So, as you probably are aware, the DEEC changed their wetland uh regs in January of 20 uh 25. Um they're taking a much greater role in small wetlands, which historically have been uh under the control of the the Army Corps of Engineers. So, we have done a delineation. Uh the the wetlands are west of our development area. uh no proposed disturbance is included in these plans. We have received a verbal from the DEEC that uh they're going to issue a non-jurisdiction non-jurisdictional determination uh indicating that no permitting is required from them.

Um so they're they're overworked and understaffed. So we're just waiting for that. Uh Steve Miller from the DEC has indicated that they're granting the the JD stating that there's no permits required. So, we're just in a holding pattern. >> Okay. All right. Um, again, you're here just to continue the process basically for another another year. >> Um, now I know there are I think Keith, you had some concerns on it. There's some engineering details. You just you met with them. >> Whoever wants to address ahead. >> Yeah. Some additional information was recently brought to our attention by um a sewer department employee uh that we were not privy to um last year.

And that concern stems from a existing 30-in uh sanitary trunk line that runs north south through the site. Um it is owned by Monroe County and connects up to the Mchuan pump station. However, uh when it crosses the Penfield uh Webster town border, um the segment on this property, uh the town is responsible for repair and maintenance. Um so some concerns were expressed due to the condition of the pipe. Um it does uh take approximately 2 million gallons of flow per day uh primarily from Penfield. Uh it is 60 years old and it's about 20 feet down. Um so the concern was that um this project proposes to tap into that line.

Um and not sure that it with its age uh and material uh that it can withstand something like that without potentially creating an [clears throat] issue. So I guess that po poses the question. Now we know you already got final approval last year and you're coming back for um an extension on that, but if you could try to answer what type of assurance can the town have relative to that pipe um when you guys are actually doing uh the project? >> That's a good question, Mr. Chardy. And it the answer is the same asurances that the town had when this board granted uh final site plan approval last year.

Um there will be a letter of credit. Uh the engineer the town engineers signatures are required on the final plans. We can work out the the specific details as to what's needed um in a letter of credit prior to uh commencing construction. And uh I think we've worked well with Keith uh on this process uh so far and we're happy to continue doing so. >> Do you have to get permission from Pure Waters then? >> I think they need to sign sign or stamp the plans. Got it. >> So they they already signed off on part of the princip. >> Does that satisfy engineering? All right. Or >> so the only thing that we've also [clears throat] made aware of is that the um >> there there is an easement for this sanitary line.

Um and the storm chamber that's being installed is right against that easement. So, in the event that the county or the town ever had to get in there to do repair work on that um that line, there is a potential that there would be an impact to that storm water chamber. So, the town would like to be held be indemnified from any damages that would occur as a result of that repair work should it ever have to happen. Okay. >> And I think the easement language would would um would already include that, I would imagine. >> And again, we'll work with Keith prior to signatures on the plan to ensure that that easement already contains that indemnification language.

[snorts] [clears throat] >> Does that satisfy you guys engineering? I know this whole project has been very controversial. It's been through the loops, that's for sure. But and these are new things now that >> you know and it and it was it was controversial. It's been controversial for 15 years I've been coming here and it's been controversial. But um and and not to say the neighbors are thrilled about having new development, but the Mchuan Road neighbors uh you know, >> at our last meeting were not uh you know, they didn't egg my car. They did. We had nice chats. Um you know, I think I think with between this board, the zoning board, >> uh town staff, Josh and Keith, um we really were were able to bring it to a you know, a good project that the neighbors will will be able to tolerate and live with.

um and that this town and and uh the developer can be proud of. >> Okay. Um so >> so now you have to open the public hearing at and I'm hoping that there's not a bunch of neighbors with pitchforks after I just said that. >> Again, is there are there folks here in regard to this? All right. Again, it is a public hearing. We ask you both. We'll give you three minutes [cough] to explain what your situation is. And I'm going to ask you a favor. >> If one person says covers one topic, don't have to cover the topic three and four times. Go ahead. >> I understand. I'm Dave Guyer. I live at 400 Mchuan Drive.

>> And I do have a pitch mark. So, um, and I wish you would not put words in our mouths because um, of that we're satisfied with this project because that's not true. Um there was one open item from last year's u agenda that Mr. Anderson raised um and I would like to know if that's been resolved which was the dock permit was supposed to be cancelled and revoked and Mr. Nadler and Mr. Kasani and and Mr. Anderson all agreed that that would be done. Um, and I have the minutes from that uh meeting last from last year and I was wondering if that had been revoked uh and no longer applicable. >> I don't Chris >> I don't remember that but uh I don't I don't know.

>> Okay. >> Okay. That was supposed to be according to the minutes action taken by the town to uh to do that. So it seems to me the answer to that at the time was >> well the town was going to send a letter to PEC saying yeah >> part [snorts] of the approval >> but there was but I think their comment could be wrong was that at that time there was no application or anything to do that piece of the property had nothing to do with with the >> the whole dock thing and that that permit been renewed administratively for several years and they go through the process of making sure that it's a that it's >> been renewed.

So that doc permit is still out there and it's been you know DEEC has it DEEC has made the comment that since there are certain covenants that were in the conditions of that permit with this development in the disturbance on the site as part of the conditions on it that they've actually violated the covenants of that permit. So therefore it would be no employee though we need to as a board we had agreed to not notify DEEC that okay you know this is being approved and the the permit you know you keep saying it's not part of the project but it actually is because it's part of the overall development that that permit is no employed >> who do you feel should be contacting DC the town or the >> the town I'm pretty sure that our office did contact them um I can double check and confirm that tomorrow when I get back into the office.

I I just can't recall uh right now. >> Well, okay. If you have that's good, but if not, that can be done. >> Correct. >> Okay. [snorts] All right. >> Appreciate that. Okay. Um, and I will continue to say that the number of precedents associated with this project with having roads that driveways that directly access a uh a residential road and also the poor utilization of property using using only four acres out of 13 for development really crams a lot of of housing onto a very small area and is that it does not meet the medium housing requirement. you're actually putting 14 units per acre onto the four acres they're going to develop.

And I just think it's not a good precedent. The the two presidents are not good for the town of Webster. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. You know, this is this is all stuff that we dealt with. >> I understand. I've been here right with you. So, so uh what it is, it got approved how whatever >> Yep. >> the comments were still at this stage now, but I appreciate you. The project the project's been long and I know you got frustrated last last session [laughter] because uh this has dragged down so long. I think that's just indicative that this is a bad project for Webster. >> Okay. >> Appreciate it. Thank you.

>> Anyone else wishing to >> uh Dorothy Fate planning board members, thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight. I'd like to express >> Dorothy just just one second. >> Coincidence you got a I'm holding your letter right in my hand here right now. [snorts] >> You sent us a letter just for the meeting. It was supposed to be on March 3rd. >> Yeah. >> Fine. >> So I got So anyways, what I'm going to do with it. >> I would express my opposition to granting a one-year extension on the Willowoint 2 project's final site plan review. The Webster Town Board is cons considering a vote on a development moratorum until such time as a comprehensive plan is completed and zoning regulations are updated in compliance with that plan.

The current site is covered by an EPOD for steep slopes. The comprehensive plan will be guiding new regulations regarding development of fragile environmental parcels and as such this project which failed to make any significant site developments to date should be required to present its plans when the new regulations are in place. I would also challenge the planning board's prior determination that will point expansion is an unlisted action and as such did not require a long EAF. The planning board has the authority to classify this project as a type one based on the steep slope that is being developed.

This project site plan has presented shows one of the buildings on property covered by the EPOD. Also, it appears that a retention pond may be relocated from its currently approved location to the parcel that is covered by the EPOD. Visiting the location shows a heavily wooded and very steep slope on the sandy slopes up down to Arandquoite Bay. I contend this property requires all the protections afforded a type one seeker review and that the planning board should review this development request again in the future when our regulatory framework, our zoning ordinances, our subdivision regulations and related land use laws have been updated.

Currently, they have not kept pace with the evolving needs of our community or with the modern leading edge practices in environmental protection and sustainable planning. Following the most recent heavy rains in the town of Rand quoite experienced the erosion of steep slopes on the Rand quoite bay watershed at Carlson Road south of 104. The steep slopes near quite bay need to be protected. The planning board should, as it authority allows, deny the requested extension. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. There was another gentleman. Oh, there you are. I didn't see you. There we go. Hi. How are you, folks?

I'm Charlie. I'm also on Mchuan Drive. Uh really my question is more about the actual jurisdiction [snorts] uh that they think you said you have word that that's approved. What I'm asking the board to ask is for a timeline. When was the jurisdictional determination filed? What's the process? Was it approved originally? Was it denied? As you all know, this project's been going back and forth for years. Years before I even moved there. Part of the original approach was to kind of piggyback on a approval that was I think 1985. Right? So really what I'm getting at here is these extensions, these projects, they keep coming back for this particular piece of land.

I'm asking the board to put more restrictions, dates, specific dates, timelines in terms of when uh they should be required to get the actual jurisdictional determination from the DEC as a condition of any extension that you grant today. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Is there anyone else wishing to speak the arguments for? >> None. Then we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. Um, >> is there any thought to how long this is going to take, Chris, with as far as your uh >> deal with the DEC? The hold up on this whole thing has been the completion of the environmental issues with the DEC.

>> Yeah, >> like you said, there's they're lacking their own help. I guess >> uh Mark is uh as impatient as the town. Um and we've we've leaned on Pasro, who's leaned on the DEC. They do have a verbal uh approval is my understanding and beyond that I don't think we can predict. I I can't imagine it's going to be much longer, but I can't predict uh or force the DEC to act. Um well, you know, within the one-year renewal, we'll absolutely you you better get it done within that one year. >> So, can we do this? Would this work for you guys if we extended it a year, but this would be the last year that it gets an extension?

Well, no. I I mean >> we don't you know >> No, I'd ask that we we be allowed to have, you know, what's allowed by code. Um because of the unpredictability of uh you know, so many factors when you're planning construction like this. Um uh you know, I understand that uh previous projects have dragged on, but this is a new project and I think we're entitled to what's allowed by code. Um, you know, we're we're leaning on Passro and Passro is leaning on the DEC and we hope to have an answer as soon as possible. >> And and just for the board's knowledge, um, there were several variances granted associated with this project that have since expired.

So, they actually have to go back to the zoning board to apply reapply for those. Yes. So just to factor that into any timing considerations that the board might be thinking of. >> Okay. Well, gentlemen, ladies, what do you want to do? >> Well, I know I know from experience that dealing with the DEC in today's world >> is a nightmare. Uh I've I've dealt with several projects and you can't communicate with them. uh you can't get any timeline from them and when they get it done they get it done and that's their attitude and that's the way it is. >> Very difficult to put a timeline on DEEC. >> We've had [clears throat] other projects that have been similar situations but this one I guess at the time right now they're having issues with their department even.

So that compounds it even more. So Sven or Derek, anybody any down that? >> No, I know well I know full well that the issues of dealing with PEC and the time time frame it's taken him to do approvals. >> Yeah. >> You know, particularly with the white line regulations. >> Yeah. >> The fact he got something verbal to me is kind of surprising, [laughter] but >> we've [cough] been leaning on [clears throat] them. They've been leaning. They're they're doing good. >> I I guess I have two questions. one, if the extension is rejected, what would be the next step? It would be a whole new application coming before us.

>> They have to start from scratch all over again with the whole thing. >> Okay. And then should we be holding off until zoning grants the variances again prior to >> I don't believe we have to do that. I think we can approve it. It's then they do what they want. amendments. And quite honestly, I don't know why they put limitations on it at the zoning board because the planning board is that's the final plan. That's where it gets approved. So, where did they come into doing it? I don't know. >> I mean, it's approved within the one year period. So, now they're asking for an extension just like the variance needs technically an extension.

>> Yeah, but it's I question that part. That's another whole issue that question for several years. But anyways, Mark, >> all I can think of when I think of the state of New York is hurry up and wait. >> And it [clears throat] appears that you're at the mercy, as Dave said, of the uh DEC. Not much you can do about it. All right. Bas based on that, I'm going to make a motion that we grant. We grant [snorts] a one-year extension for the uh Waterview project uh to commence on what's the date today? The 7th. >> April 7th. >> 7th. >> April 7th to April 7th. Uh 2027. >> I'll second. Doesn't Doesn't our approval need to be contingent upon the zoning board's >> What's that?

>> Doesn't our approval need to be contingent upon the zoning board's approval of the variances? >> I don't know. Does it? >> I think it would automatically be contingent there. We can't build it without those variances, right? >> But we'd be happy to sub we'd be happy to have a subjectivity of that. >> Whatever makes you guys comfortable. >> Suggesting we make our approval subject to the zoning boards. >> Yeah, we can do that. All right. All right. So, we'll make that motion subject to the ZBA's approval. All right. Need a second. >> Second. >> Have a second. Better call. >> Mr. Kosani. >> Hi, >> Mr.

M. >> I'm sorry. One thing I guess this letter that's supposed to go to DC. correspondence to DC checking on it to make sure that you know the dock thing has been >> okay we want to include that in there >> include that in there subject to that letter >> and that was the comment we made dealing with the DC you were going to check on them and >> yes okay we'll all right >> sent if it hasn't already been sent I don't want you to send two letters right mean >> well yeah subject to ver subject to verification that the dock permit has been revoked by DEEC >> no subject of verification that Josh sent the letter.

I I can't control the DEC and what they're going to do >> and I don't think that was what was discussed at the previous meet at the last year's meeting. >> Well, that was part of the >> It was that Josh was going to send a letter of some sort. Right. You'll send a letter saying that the permit has to be revoked because they didn't meet the conditions of the permit >> and I think that should be put into this resolution for the extension. Do we get verification [snorts] that they have revoked that permit? >> Yeah. Plus it can be entered in now since this is granting of the extension. So irregardless of what was approved previously, you're asking for an extension right now.

So this is the condition condition of this extension. Yeah. But so and I don't want to be argumentative. I'm h I you know my understanding at the at the last you know we Josh was going to send a letter and that was what this board agreed to a year ago. Um under New York State law and Webster town code. This board isn't allowed to uh impose new conditions on a renewal unless they relate to the renewal. Uh, but it does relate to the renewal because that was something that was supposed to be done and we're just verifying that it was done and that the permit has been pulled. If that's something but I think what was supposed to be done >> it's something that you're not agreeing to then I don't know that we could extend this.

>> But what was supposed to be done at the last meeting was Josh was going to send a letter not I I you can't impose a condition >> on me that that the DEEC is going to do something. Uh I don't have control over that. Right. The permit's set to expire at some point. I don't know in the near future. The problem with the permit is that it's continuously being re renewed administratively. >> Okay? >> Which simply means that the applicant sends in and says, "Hey, could you renew this?" And DEEC says, "Okay." >> Okay. >> They're not really taking a close look at it because of their process. >> That's based on the discussions I had with the person at DEEC.

>> And and I do recall having verbal conversations directly with the DC about this matter. I can't recall if I sent a formal letter, but I do recall them saying that because of the condition associated with that permit and the resubdivision of land that that took place to facilitate this project that since they can't meet the spirit of that condition that it would null and void the permit. So they wouldn't entertain another extension because they are aware of the change that has occurred. But I will circle back with them and verify the status of that permit and ensure that they're aware that what the town's position is in regards to that >> work.

Okay. >> Yeah. So subject to verification. >> Yeah. Okay. So Josh Okay. So, we'll put that in there to make sure it's clear that Josh will contact the New York State DEEC to verify the status of the docks. And um probably should add in there too that we're [clears throat] granting the one-year extension and part of that is subject to you negotiating with I guess negotiating with the DA DEEC for the approval through their office. >> Understood. >> Which is the key to the whole thing. Yes, sir. >> All right, we'll put that in there, too. >> All right, that was a motion and Dave, you second it. >> Yeah.

>> So, yeah, Miss Mr. Kashani. >> Hi, >> Mr. Malta. >> Hi, >> Mr. Garina. Hi, >> Mr. Anderson. >> Hi, >> Mr. Better. >> Hi, >> Mr. Cassic. >> Hi. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> We'll be in touch. Thank you guys. First scheduled item on tonight's agenda, United Buffet sign located at 941 Hard Road. The applicant, Jenny Z, is requesting sign approval [snorts] associated with the installation of two 51.33 square ft front lit channel letter wallmounted signs on a 1.2 2 acre parcel located in a highintensity commercial district under section 2657 of the code of the town of Webster. >> Yes, sir.

>> Good evening. I am not Jenny. I am filling in for Jenny. >> Okay. >> Chris McCarthy. >> Your name was Jenny. So, go ahead. >> Thank you. So, I'm just here to see if what Jenny submitted for her restaurant is acceptable. If not, I'm just here to collect the information. What needs to happen? Because you'd really like to open this. May 1st. >> When does you want to open? >> May 1st. >> May 1st. Oh, that's good. >> Yeah. I see they've been working over there and stuff. So, yeah, looks good. Says sign meets all the requirements, Josh. >> Yes, it fits within the allowable square footage. And we're honoring a past variance that had been granted to Bill Grace for having two signs on the building cuz they're >> they got they're going to get a variance for that.

>> No, we're honoring the previous variance where they got it. >> Correct. >> All right. I see. >> For anybody that's interested what what this is, the China buffet, that's the old Bill Grace building. So if you're right on Facebook, get it right. Don't put some crazy thing in there. This This has been out in the books here for a little bit now and it's a I guess a oriental buffet restaurant. >> She sent me the menu so I can explain this. >> Go ahead. We'll give you some. So it's going to be uh featuring spectacular selection of foods. The Habachi Grill dessert collection, vegetarian and jumbo buffet, including largest restaurant, Webster surrounding area have good selection of Asian Asian-American buffet uh alternatives for healthy lifestyle compared to the area with fresh vegetables and toppings, dressings made fresh daily, habachi, meats, mixed vegetables And we just say fresh fruit and pastries for dessert.

>> We gave her her first commercial already. See that? >> Okay, that's that's good. I guess everybody okay with the sign? >> Yep. >> It's pretty simple. Okay, you guys okay with this? >> Yeah. >> All right, somebody want to make a motion for the sign? >> I'll go to seeker. >> Yeah, that's a good idea. Townzer Planning Board considered a request by applicant Jenny Zade to install two 51.33 foot front width channel letter wall-mounted signs for United Buffet located a 941 Hard Road on a 1.2 acre parcel having SPL number 079.15-1-1.2. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under 617.5C2 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.

>> Okay. Have a motion. Need a second. >> Second. >> A second. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. We're good. All right. Motion for the approval of the sign. I'll make a motion that we approve the sign for United Buffet located at 941 Hard Road uh with the installation of two 51.33 square foot front lit channels letter wall mounted signs wall-mounted signs on a 1.2 acre parcel uh located in the HC highintensity commercial district as presented. as presented. >> Okay, that's a motion. I need a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay, we're good, I guess. Okay, good luck with it. >> Thank you.

>> Next item on tonight's agenda, State Farm sign located at 1065 Ridge Road. The applicant, Chris Ross, is requesting sign approval associated with the installation of a 23.3 square ft internally illuminated channel letter wall-mounted sign on a 1.83 83 acre parcel located in a highintensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster. >> Yes, sir. Is this a sign you want to put up, I guess? >> Yes, please. >> Okay, that was simple. Where are we going from here? We're deadlock. >> Okay, what are you putting up? You're putting up what is it? Insurance company, right?

Yeah. State Farm. >> Yes. And you're proposing a sign on the on the monument sign in the front and the sign on the building. Correct. >> That's right. >> Two different signs. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And they meet the requirements, Josh, for size and >> correct. Yes. >> The other one is already set back on the existing the existing monument there. Um Okay. Have any issues with it? How's this? Is it going to be lit? >> Yes. >> Well, you talk a lot, too, don't you? [laughter] >> How do you Are you lighting this from the back? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Is that lit from the back? >> Mhm. >> Okay. And these are the colors.

It actually is this red color. >> Yes. >> Okay. That conforms. Okay. Anybody have any issues? >> No. >> I do a secret in it. The town of Wester Planning Board considered a request by Chris Ross to install a 23.33 square foot internally illuminated channel letter wall-mounted sign for State Farm located at 1065 Ridge Road on a 1.83 acre parcel having SPL number 079.16-1-24-21. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under section 617.5C2 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. Motion need a second. >> Second it >> second.

All in favor? >> I copy. We're good. >> Front lit. >> So you want to make a motion for >> No, I was just going to sorry mention just the drawing says front lit. You asked specifically if it was back lit. The drawings are saying front lit LED >> on the building. >> Yeah. Next to the A in the circle there. Oh yeah. You see front lit plexi face channel letters. >> Down below it it says illuminate internally. >> When you look at the drawing though you look at the drawing lit from the back. >> Yeah it is. It >> just say the drawings are saying front lit. So >> LED. No, you're right. It does say that.

I don't think that's correct though. >> What's >> if you look at the drawing there's the drawing of it right there. I had vital signs design this. So I ideally it's supposed to be lit so that it's uh back. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I believe >> inside other right? Yeah. That's >> just make that part of the approval >> that the sign is back lit. >> Yeah. >> Internally illuminated. >> Internally eliminated. >> Okay. >> Okay. It's got to be lit from inside because there's no light shining on it. So, it can't be front lit. >> Yeah, it says that at the top, too. >> Internally lit. >> It says what it is. >> It says above the sign, Tony.

It says front lit channel letters with LED illumination raceway mounted. See it? >> Yeah, I see it. >> Okay. So, it's on there twice. >> All right. It it conforms to what the what the code called the zoning the code is. So, I think we're all right with it. >> Yeah, it's it's right in there. Request it. >> Yeah. Right. >> All right. >> Okay. Make a motion motion. >> Make a motion that we approve the sign for State Farm sign located at 1065 Ridge Road. Uh the installation of a 23.3 square foot internally illuminated channel letter wall-mounted sign on a 1.83 83 acre parcel u having SPL number 079.16-1-24.2121 located in the HC highintensity commercial district.

>> And you're including the monument sign also, correct? >> Then yeah, it does include the monument sign as well. >> The two sides and the address is the 1065. You've got that on there already. >> Yep. >> Where they're putting it at. That's good. Okay, that's a motion. Second. >> Second. >> Have a second. All in favor? >> I I >> Okay, we're good. >> Okay, you're all set. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next item on tonight's agenda, the RG& station 73 located at 891 Clem Road. Applicant Eric Thorne is requesting preliminary site plan approval and a public hearing in association with a modernization of an existing RG& electrical substation on a 0.77 acre parcel located in an R2 single family residential district under sections 269-11 and 350-11 under the code of the town of Webster.

>> Hello. Yes, >> I'm Mary Stline from Lebella Associates and we are assisting RG& with permitting on this project. I have with me here Eric Thorne of RG&. He's a manager of environmental programs and projects. So, we're here tonight in support of uh station 73. So, it's a modernization project on Clem Road. As you can see from the aerial image there, um this is an existing electrical substation, uh consisting of a yard, fence, a transformer, a small switch gear building, driveway, and some grass lawn in a triangular shaped uh parcel. We propose uh to construct the new uh expanded substation around the uh existing substation which must remain operational during construction in order to minimize any service uh disruptions.

So this planned modernization and expansion of the existing substation will support upgrades to transmission and distribution lines in the region. provide backup circuits which will reduce customer outages and support the growing electrical demand in the Penfield and Webster areas. The proposed substation will include um two pre-engineered metal buildings or metal-sided buildings which are the gas insulated switch gear buildings. an additional third building which is a control building, a transformer with a oil containment foundation that also is surrounded by a firewall on three sides. uh new asphalt access to the substation yard and then the associated electrical vaults, hand holes, duct banks, conduit trenches, uh the new stone substation yard, security fencing with vehicle gates um and associated lighting that are necessary for substation operation.

Uh lighting will consist of building uh mounted wall packs along with perimeter security lighting which is uh on from dusk till dawn and then task lighting which is only used if they need to respond to um work uh in the nondaylight hours. Substations uh such as this are unmanned. So there's no need for any sanitary service, any water service or any trash um disposal outside of uh that which is necessary during construction. We know that screening will be an important component of this project. Uh, RG& generally prefers not to have vegetation around substations for safety and security purposes, but based on feedback that was provided when we appeared before this board um in October of 2024 for sketch plan, a landscape plan has been provided uh in response to those comments.

Additionally, the fence was swapped out. Initially, we came in with a chain link fence. Um, and the feedback was provided was indicated to provide something maybe more decorative. So, that's been swapped out for a highsecurity uh steel palisade fence, which is shown in the renderings. Ardini also used input from the October and December 2024 sketch plan meetings that we attended uh to revise the materials used on the facade of the pre-engineered buildings to try to uh blend in with the um residential nature of the area. And again, the uh renderings uh reflect [clears throat] the implementation of that input received.

The current design when compared to that 2024 sketch plan also um features a modified basement in the building uh which allows the buildings in general to be um not as tall as what was presented previously and still include gabled roofs uh without increasing the overall building profile. Uh we are requesting variances from the ZBA. to have an application in with them. Uh it is an existing uh non-conforming lot in terms of minimum lot area. We would also need variances for the front yard setback, the rear yard setback. Um and some of that is based on the unique shape of the parcel as it's triangular.

Um also fence height and setback. Um, according to the National Electrical Safety Code, substations uh should have uh fences that are at least uh 7 ft tall. Um, which would exceed most most codes. Um, and that's for safety purposes to keep people out um and and keep people safe. Uh as this site is less than an acre, it's a 77 acres, it won't trigger the need for coverage under the Speedy's uh construction general permit. Though we do recognize that it um triggers requirement from the town of Webster. So we provided a erosion and sentiment control storm water pollution prevention plan. Uh we have received comments from Monroe County's review.

Um, one of the comments was related to the a parcel that's at the corner of um, Whiting Road and Clem Road because that's within um, certain distance of the proposed uh, uh, substation expansion parcel. And we also received uh, their input about uh, considering the relationship with the Hojac Trail. I just wanted to follow up on that comment in particular that we do not anticipate impacting uh vegetation along the trail. Um that existing natural buffer would be maintained to the uh extent possible the trees that are that are already there and the lower vegetation that's already there. Um, we did not receive any specific feedback from the PRC, but we look forward to uh the comments, which I understand are intended to be speaking to the uh aesthetics of uh what was proposed.

So, that's our summary. We look forward to your feedback. >> Did you say that the facility is going to be unmanned? >> Yes, >> correct. That means that there's going to be no one there in case of vandalism or attempted vandalism or anything like that. >> That's correct. >> I'm sorry, what was the answer? >> Yes, that's correct. It's it's an unmanned station. Um uh I can't speak to the, you know, the technical aspects of, you know, the security. Um you know, as that's not my my forte, but it is an unmanned station. Um but uh the there there is um you know a relative amount of um due diligence uh by RG to make sure that uh um you know impacts to the the stations don't occur and if they do um you know those those will be can be flagged um you know through systems that I'm not fully fully aware of but Um it it will be an unmanned station, but you know being that we have the uh the security fence uh around the station um you know it's it's not anticipated that um you know we would uh be receiving you much uh impact at this time.

So >> what what concerns me is that what if a fire breaks out inside the building? Do you have proper uh >> buildings do uh provide uh fire systems within the buildings themselves? Um and to my knowledge, there is a is our standard practice, we do typically uh provide the um the the local fire departments the u the ability to understand what those those systems are. And uh I I do believe there are call uh alarms that go to those uh those fire services as well. >> Other questions? The buildings have done a nice improvement on the project from what you first shared on it on the buildings. They they look kind of boxy.

What look more residential? >> It's just a a minor change, but >> Sure. So um when we were when we met with the board back in October 20 Argentine standards uh the request from the board was to investigate um installing a gabled roof onto the buildings. Uh so we did work with our engineer here of the pre-manufactured buildings and design it in such a way that we could incorporate the the gabled roofs um to the possible um you know without uh without impacting the you know the overall structural integrity of the buildings themselves. >> Anything to kind of was basically make them look residential.

>> Correct. Yes. >> And it's so boxy. It looks more residential because they're they're quite tall. They're setting up what what are they setting up about three or four feet off the ground even? Right. The wall [snorts] around the actual building. >> Yes. It's uh the the basement is elevated about 3 feet above ground. Yes. [snorts] >> Anyway, something I think if you can consider doing that. >> Okay. We can take note of >> to me that was the biggest thing. The fence I think you've done a great job. and landscaping [clears throat] on the front. I think there were some questions. Did Did you have some, Alex?

These are from these are from [clears throat] the people from the friends of Webster Trails. >> They had some comments there that they sent me today. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. I just I want to take the time to read these into record. Um trying to have them addressed. Uh this is directly from them. Um the plans do not appear to account for the adjacent Hojack Trail, which is a heavily used trail. The town and friends of Webster Trail just spent nearly $400,000 improving to which RG&E actually wrote a letter of uh recommendation for this grant that we did for it. So uh we would like the following issues to be addressed by the planning board to avoid significant adverse impacts to the trail.

One encroachment on Hojac Trail Hojac Trail during construction and operation. Will construction or operation of the substation require closure of the Hojac Trail even temporarily? to ground uh runoff and groundwater issues. The grade will be significantly increased elevated on the site and it appears that the water will be able to run south directly into the newly resurfaced trail which already has drainage issues due to inadequate ditch maintenance over the years. Please ensure adequate storm water infrastructure is installed sufficient to divert all runoff away from the Hojack Trail. A flooding trail would be a bad outcome.

Uh visual screening. The site plan show visual screening from the road but not from the adjacent trail. Uh, please add a robust visual screening to shield the substation from the trail and parking. To mitigate the adverse impacts caused by proximity of an industrial facility next to the trail, as a condition to the permit, RG& should be required to expand the proposed asphalt driveway apron to create a public parking area and trail head for the Hojack trail. Uh this individual from the Friends Webster Trail request the matter be tabled and record remain open for additional written submissions for consideration at the next planning board meeting.

But that is >> you like to I'll give you this. You can if you want to address them there's just >> I'm sure they would be happy to sit down with you guys as well >> to discuss these. >> Sure. As far as the last comment, tableabling it u to address those I think they can be addressed and put in for final approval or something. I I wouldn't want to table us for something like that. >> I would agree. I was just reading directly to me. >> I think one of the things to also note that you know that portion of HJ Trail based on the boundary survey it's Roster Gas and Electric's property there. So I think a more defined drainage ditch between the substation and the trail to mitigate any um impact to the drainage of the trail, you know, would be helpful too.

On the on the drawing though, it's uh drainage plan uh sheet five of the eight >> on that corner that does get wet cuz I drove by the property today. >> That's the lower part of the property. It does look like you have a reinforced concrete pipe there that that that would help to uh increase the flow over to a DI. Uh as Keith raised earlier with another project, I think you need a maintenance plan to assure that that's inspected. on a regular basis to prevent flooding. That way you ensure that you have a conduit to remove that water. >> Yeah, just to to speak to the the drainage. Thanks for pointing that out.

Um you we have considered the uh the drainage in in the you know overall design of the project. Um we are including a uh a drainage culvert that goes underneath the proposed driveway um pitched towards uh Clem Road and uh an intent to you know with approval from the um the ownership of the existing 8 in culvert that's that's there on the property. uh upgrade that um that inlet, storm inlet to receive uh the surface drainage um as as it uh comes off of the proposed development of the property, >> but I think the maintenance plan is important. It's forgotten how to sprinkle out here, so it rains really hard, >> covers are going to going to back up and get clogged and I think they need to inspect it on some regular basis.

If I might, I'll just add one more thing. storm water perspective. Um, while you have a storm water and a dewatering plan, it's unclear as to where when you dewater where that water goes. So during your construction phase, how are you going to manage water if it builds up in your excavations or in anything else where you're where you're currently constructing? Just one one additional item along that same track. It's a small plot of land. you have a relatively large construction on that site and you're entering right onto Clem Road. So to avoid having mud and other debris uh build up on the road, it would be nice to have some type of plan to assure that the trucks entering and leaving the site go onto a dry pad so they're not getting into those areas of excavation.

>> Sure. Um yeah, regarding that that last item, um the proposed driveway would also be utilized as a construction entrance during the construction of the project. Um and it is our intent that um all of the construction traffic would be uh maintained within the Argene parcel um you know on that uh construction entrance and you know onto the site development as the projects uh move move forward. So, um I I don't believe that there's an intent to uh uh utilize the existing roadway for uh you know construction, parking and traffic. >> So, one of the questions I had was I understand you're trying to keep maintenance down.

Does the yard really have to go right up to the property lines? Uh especially, you know, the neighbors to the east, you are I mean the yard is literally going right up to the property line and the existing drainage pattern again goes west. Your proposed drainage pattern is pushing some of the yard east. And I'm concerned, you know, similar to what I mentioned, just like your drainage that's coming off of your yard into the neighbor's property now to the east, how are you addressing addressing that? Um, since you're putting the yard right up to the property line. >> Um, so, [clears throat] uh, I guess two things.

Um the proposed upgrades to the station um are intended to be constructed while the existing uh substation is um is energized. um the existing substation. Um understanding that the uh the existing fence is um you know right on the property line or or near to the the property line on the east um in order to maintain the necessary clearances that uh you know we would need for the electrical equipment. Um it was oriented in such a way to uh and in also due to the unique um lot being a a a triangular lot. Um it was proposed in such a way to um you know maximize the space while allowing for the uh the clearances to be be met for the infrastructure.

um you know if it was uh uh tight or compact um it wouldn't need it wouldn't be it wouldn't facilitate the expansion while the existing substation is is energized and uh we would have to look at uh at you know taking out that existing substation you know which could have an impact on the uh you know the services that are are fed by that station. So um it was maximized in such a way to facilitate the upgrades but uh but not um you know impact the you know the service that that's fed from the station. >> Yeah. I mean based on the aerial you can see that you have roughly 20 or so feet between the property line and that existing fence of the substation that's grass.

>> Mhm. Is there a reason that that can't retain or stay grass? And then you put in uh a diversion soil for your yard to make sure that your proposed yard, which is currently sheeting to the east, is not impacting that neighbor. Um so we um we can certainly you look at the uh the drainage you know towards the east um to make sure that our um you know our swailes intended to to capture you know that uh that runoff as well. Um understanding you know we we certainly don't want to to flood out an an adjacent neighbor. Um, we also um are utilizing the uh the space to the east of the the buildings um as a uh a turnaround area.

We originally had proposed with the uh the substation having two driveways utilizing the existing driveway and the the the newly proposed driveway. In reaching out to Monro County DOT, um they advised that we um only utilize one driveway for the the parcel. Um and to facilitate the uh impact the infrastructure necessary to complete the the substation uh we're proposing that driveway on the um on the side of the parcel but in equipment around also if they're on the you know the off chance that there is a have the room to that comes on a essentially on a you know a large trailer. Um, we need to be able to have the room to uh get that infrastructure in to uh bring the customers of the yard um is is designed for to allow that that turnaround area.

>> Yeah. I mean, I I'll be honest with you, it's a very tight fit. Like you said, I don't think you're turning around a mobile substation within this yard. I think you're backing that in. So, if you wouldn't mind just looking at my concern is really to the neighbor to the east on their property. So, if we could evaluate that. >> What is What is the base material in there? Is that gravel? >> What's that? >> It's 18 in of uh gravel. >> Gravel. Gravel. >> Okay. >> Um [snorts] if you could include signage onto your gates uh for contact information in case of an emergency. >> That's standard practice.

>> Okay. I didn't see it on the detail, but you could have that on the details as well. Um, I would love to see some screening on the east side. I'll be honest with you, to that neighbor, but >> I I I know you did a great job with the frontage, >> but again, you're just just becoming basically a lot, a p a per impervious lot, and if you can do anything for that neighbor to the east, I think you'll be appreciated. >> We can look into that. That's all I had. >> That's it. >> All right. Um, were there Keith or Josh? Were there any Were you okay with things on there? >> Your concern? So my [clears throat] only comment regarding drainage is you know essentially it's a table if you will right so right now there is a there is a grade to the property I kind of forget in which direction but now it's kind of tabled off so and then that table is made up of 18 inches of gravel >> and another six inches of a fill gravel soil mix.

So >> infiltration is going to probably improve with that kind of a a situation over draining [snorts] to the approp the adjacent neighbors. So that's why we >> but they're lifting it. It's not as in it's being lowered into the ground. This is being built up. Correct. So you're still going to be seeping out into the neighbor. >> Well, I you know, >> I can't see. I believe it'll be more of an infiltration through and and not necessarily across to the neighbors in my in my professional opinion. Um the only question I did have is there's a couple locations where you have splash blocks. Um so how is the water like how much water are we talking about at those splash block locations and is it constant?

What is the I you don't have to answer it here but we will want some better understanding of of of what what's occurring there. Uh the other thing I'll mention about this property, if I was looking at the contours appropriately, it all this whole property sits about a foot below and maybe two feet below the Hojack trail itself. >> So, you know, again, it's lower than the trail itself as well. And I think with the the the features that they're showing here on their plan, I think they there there is going to be some help migrating water to the to the catch basins and things where it needs to go to help dry that out potentially.

[snorts] >> Okay. Um, anybody? That's it. >> When you went through the letter, I think there was a comment in there about trying to provide public parking on here for the trailer. >> Um, you could comment about that. Personally, I would say no. I don't think it's something that >> you don't want to make this thing into an attractive nuisance. >> Correct. >> You You don't want people to start poking around inside the station. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Actually, it functions the way it is right now. I think they've got a few parking spaces along the road periodically. You see a few cars parked along there.

I think that's adequate, isn't it? >> There there may be some cars parking up there, but I wouldn't I wouldn't designate any public parking on this spot. No, I No, I agree. No, I agree. >> Private property that has a high voltage electrical. >> Yeah. No question. No, what I'm referring to is along the shoulder of the road. They have a few spots for parking. >> It's on the north side across from this. >> Yeah. >> The liability alone would be >> Yeah. >> It goes. [clears throat] >> All right. Um, you know what? Let me do this. Again, this is a public hearing. So, if there's any neighbors or anyone here wishing to speak either for or against this project, we invite you to go ahead up and comment.

>> If if there's no one if there's no [clears throat] one here, uh we did receive a comment from the adjacent neighbor to the east. if you'd like me to read that. >> Uh this is from John Sals Giver uh at 897 Clem Road. Uh he states, "The design looks much better than the last renderings that were shown. We still have concerns about the amount of light that the installation will emit into our neighborhood. Second, we consider the following things to also be positive as compared to the existing site. One, the access drive will be much further from our house. Two, the transformer will be mostly hidden from view and also further from our house, lowering the electric field strength and probably reducing the audible hum that exists now.

In general, it will look slightly less industrial than what's there today. We notice that there will be plantings along all along Clem Road, but nothing along our shared property line. We would certainly appreciate it if we could have the same sort of plantings along the east perimeter. Anything that could possibly be done to reduce light pollution here would be appreciated. >> Okay. Now, that fence along that east line, is that on the line, the fence, or you >> in like a few feet or what? I believe uh this it's set back is it five five feet from the property? >> Yes, 5.8T. >> So it is >> it's not directly on the property line itself.

So >> So then you do have an area so that would be appreciated I'm sure by the neighbor with some landscaping in there some include some of that maybe. And then to reiterate earlier you had said that the only time the lighting is on at the station was if somebody was there doing work. It's not continuous. >> Uh so there is um the >> perimeter lighting I guess it's security lighting. I guess I wouldn't call it perimeter lighting. Um and that would be at that end of the project uh located on the transformer wall on the outside of the transformer wall. But according to the um photoometric that we provided, we're near at nearly zero at the east property line.

>> And and I I will elaborate on the the lighting. Um it it does have an automatic um dust to dawn function, but there's also uh a manual function as well. Um and it's it's our current intent to um set set it as the uh the manual function. So, um, at this point in time, it's not intended that the lighting would be on through the the dust to dawn duration. [snorts] >> Okay. Any other comments or concerns? >> That's definitely approved from >> Oh, yeah. the initials >> showing. >> All right, then we close the public hearing. So, move on with it. And what are we going to do, folks? >> I'm good with it.

>> I kind of agree with Keith with 15 inches of gravel. That's almost like a leech bed there. >> Big one. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Yeah. I think that's adequate for taking care of the water in that area that you know for drainage. Um, as far as that letter that came, I gave it to you there. You want to just go you have you read it? >> Yes. >> If you had a chance [snorts] to look at it. >> Yep. Any comments on it? [clears throat] >> Um, I think you know nothing that we we haven't you know covered already. >> Okay. Um in terms of the uh the screening, just want to reiterate, you know, we've definitely understand um the you know, concerns about the the public usage um of the the Hojack Trail.

Um we've designed it in such a way that the uh the fence actually follows the the existing tree line um inside of the tree line. Uh so as as it's intended right now um we're not anticipating needing to remove any of the existing vegetation. Uh we certainly you know would would keep the all the low growing ve vegetation. you know, upon, you know, any such approval of the, you know, the orientation, uh, we can certainly look to, uh, stake out some of the critical infrastructure and just do an assessment of some of the, you know, the tallest maybe mature trees to make sure that there's not a, uh, um, you know, a hazard that we would, you know, have to to do some sort of tree trimming to or something like that.

But it's it's not our intention to remove uh the woody vegetation through there. um you know we we'd like to keep it uh to a minimum you know as po as as much as possible. >> So I think I haven't I haven't actually walked the trail myself so I I don't know really what you can see. >> Yeah. One of the concerns they had was disruption of the trail >> during the construction. I'm sure >> the trail will um as best of my knowledge right now from a construction standpoint uh we would not be impacting the trail uh during construction so it can remain open >> um because all of our work is going to be confined to that triangular parcel.

>> Okay. >> All right. There were u few things that were brought up that we if we do move forward uh for resolution recall what you had. Everybody had some good points they brought up. I didn't get a chance to write them all down. So, we just remember them. So, with that, if you want to move forward, you want to do a secret on it, Derek? >> Yeah. Ready? [clears throat] So towner planning board considered a request by applicant Eric Thorne to modernize an existing RG& electrical substation located [clears throat] at 8 to91 CLM road on a 0.77 acre parcel having SPL number 064.14-2-17 located in an R2 single family residential district.

The planning board determines that the proposed action is an unlisted action. The planning board determined that the action is subject to single agency review pursuant to part 6176B4 of seeker and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination of significance. The planning board therefore designates itself lead agency for the proposed action. The planning board has considered the criteria for determining significance as set forth in section 617.7C1 of Seeker and has one considered the information contained in the short environmental assessment form. Part one dated March 16th, 2026.

Two considered public comments directed to the planning board during the public hearing on April 7th, 2026. And three completed parts two and three of the environmental assessment form. Now therefore, it be resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board hereby determines that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached notice of determination of non-significance. Be it further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board is authorized to take all actions reasonable if necessary to file the negative declaration and discharge the town of Webster Planning Board's responsibility as lead agency for this action.

Be it further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board based on the information analysis above the reference supporting documentation and discussions of the action by the town of Webster Planning Board as documented by [clears throat] the minutes for this meeting that the proposed action will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Be it further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board therefore makes a determination of non-significance. Be it further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board based on the above reasons issues a negative declaration as evidence of his determination.

That's the resolution. >> Okay, I have a motion and I need a second. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I now a motion for this. This is only in for preliminary approval. Yeah. >> Um, engineering, everybody's okay with moving. All right, we're good. All right, Mark or I mean, uh, >> want to make a motion for it? Go ahead. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion. uh for uh preliminary approval, site plan approval for RG& station 73 located 891 Clem Road and association with the modernization of an existing RG electrical substation on a 77 acre parcel having SBL number 064-14-2-17 located in the R2 single family residential district in town Webster, I'll make the uh regular approval comments and and then we can add on whatever we talked about.

>> Oh, we'll put we'll let get your got your main ones in. >> Yeah, let's do the main ones and then we'll >> Yeah, do that and then we'll we'll [snorts] just >> Right. >> S had some Derek did. Right. So, subject to PRC comments, subject to letter of credit posted with the town of Webster if applicable. Uh, subject to Mon County Water uh, authority comments if applicable. >> Yeah. >> Um, I don't know. There there were no variances required for this or were there? >> They're scheduled to appear before the ZBA next. >> Okay. Subject to determination of the ZBA for requested variances. Um, all improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the town of Webster.

All site work is to be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster. Preserve all mature trees on a site where possible. Um, comply with all requirements of any state, county, or town agency. address drainage, lighting, signage, landscaping, buffering, burning, and snow storage. Landscape hardscape site accessories, associated finished uh grading design for the development must be prepared by New York State Licensed Landscape Architect. Final landscape plan shall bear the seal of signature of landscape architect and um the approvals will be subject to we got a bunch of drawings here.

So, do we have just a project number? >> They're different numbers on every >> What's your What's your project number? >> Labella's project number. >> Is that the 73-003-08? Start. >> No, we wouldn't want to do that. It's all >> different 865. >> 2110865. We'll use that one. Okay. >> Okay. So, now add on discussed. >> You got that right. Well, one of the things I mentioned earlier on put into the motion is consider the hip roof versus the gable ends. and your roof. From the looks of the roof, the way it's designed, you have gutters on there. They look like they're almost flush with the outside of the building, the end of the roof.

>> Uh, right. Right now, the design >> I'm sorry. >> Right. I said I'm sorry. Uh, right now um I don't think, you know, gutters are shown in in a detail um on there, but we can bring that back to our our engineer. >> All right. They may not need them. I don't know. Maybe they're just proposing 11 sheet down or what that that could be. But [clears throat] anyways, biggest thing is I'm suggesting is the uh hip roofs on there. Um mentioned about landscaping to the adjoining neighbor to the east. Somebody brought that. Any anybody has anything that you did bring up? Bring it up. We didn't we didn't write any of it down or anything.

And there's it's on recorded but we don't have the recording right now. >> Derek, you had a couple comments. [cough] The mine was really just about making sure that it's not public parking. >> Yeah. Okay. [laughter] >> I agree. >> Sven, were you good with it? >> So, the maintenance plan for storm water that culver doesn't get blocked up and water does flow properly >> and then some type of plan for how you manage the construction vehicles so front road doesn't get filled with water in the event that you working in there and vehicles to leave. And then how's the dewatered? >> Wait a minute. We want [snorts] that's why I want to put this into a motion.

So this is not a question type. What do you want to put into it? >> So those are the things I want to put into it. >> You want just give me short short version of so she can get it. You know storm water. >> So so a m a maintenance plan for storm water. >> Okay. >> A management plan during construction to asssure that construction vehicles don't drag a lot of mud and debris out into the road. and then a plan for managing water that's dewatered out of the uh excavations or other areas of construction. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> Did you have any anything on that? >> Just what I mentioned earlier about any other comments.

>> Excuse me. [snorts and clears throat] >> We're good. >> I think that's it. Any com you're good? Yeah, I'm good. That's a motion. >> Okay, I guess that's it. So, that would be the motion. We need a second. >> Second. >> All right, we have a second. No, >> Mr. Malta. >> Hi, >> Mr. Jordina. >> Hi, >> Mr. Anderson. >> Hi, >> Mr. Better. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gassic. >> I >> Mr. Pashan. >> Hi. >> All right, we're good for preliminary approval. We've got some information to deal with there and hopefully come back for final and we're all set. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Have a good night. >> Okay.

Uh the last item on the agenda tonight, Webster Solar Farm located at 139 Caracus Drive. The applicant, Katie Sosia, is requesting >> What happened to seven >> Seven Bluesman table to the map [snorts] >> All right. Where was I? Read it again. Webster Solar Farm located at 139 Karacus Drive. The applicant Katie Sosia is requesting site plan amendments in the association with a revised 5.2 2 MW solar generation facility, including approximately 8,800 solar panels and 16 inverts on a 19 acre portion of a 120 acre lot owned by Xerox Corporation located in an industrial district under sections 155D 4, 26910, and 35022 of the code of the town of Webster.

Hi. Uh, thank you guys uh for having me here tonight. Um, I'm here uh seeking a site plan amendment um for the uh solar uh farm that's proposed on the Xerox campus. Um uh the only um site plan amendment that we are um changing or that we are requesting to be approved um is that we are removing the solar panels off of the um asphalt cap. Um that is a deduction of about uh a little over 2,000 panels um and a loss of about 1.4 megawws um to the project. Um means and methods are staying the same. Construction um construction wise uh landscaping plan is not changing. Um that that is really the only change.

Um there's also going to be a deduction of the number of inverters. Originally there were 18, now there are um 16 proposed. I'm happy to answer uh any questions that the the board has. Okay, anybody any questions? I know this was at the town board the other night. It received a approval. We had sent them the information. They approved it. Um it's back here with a modification to what was originally approved by this board. So if >> there's any comments on it. >> So the modification is just a reduction off of the cap. >> Correct. Yes. And the number of inverters. >> Anybody? >> Nope. >> They don't want to take it.

We're all okay with it. >> Y >> I do have uh one question. Um, one of the requirements that the planning board had issued as part of the um, project approval was a 1.5 in of asphalt on top of the cap. Since the project is removing it off of the cap, we were wondering if that um, requirement could be removed as well. >> Good question. >> If there's nothing going on it is that was the reason the ashvault was put on there was to accommodate the additional work that was going to be done on there. Well, that wasn't >> if that work isn't going to be done. What's the sensing cap? >> Well, I think more importantly is the condition of the existing cap.

I >> mean, if I mean, the cap is intended to keep moisture out from the landfill below >> so that if it's necessary to repave it to maintain the seal on it, then you know that requirement would still need to be there. >> Yeah. So I'm Wendy Latco from environment health health and safety at Xerox. So that entire site is under a part 373 permit by the DEEC and maintenance of that cap is part of that that permit. So you know in the absence of the solar project impacting it all you know jurisdiction over that will revert to the DEEC and we of course will continue to follow their requirements for maintenance of the cap.

So, just making sure no construction activity. We'll utilize the cap. >> No construction activity, no staging, no nothing being set on top of the cap. We're actually um going to let the the fence remain in place there as well because there's no sense of taking it out. >> Okay. >> All right. [clears throat] Anyone I'll make a motion to grant the uh >> uh I'm sorry, chairman. I have one more thing. Um, the other uh request that I was going to make is um if we could update um the one-year approval from the final site plan um to today to the site plan amendment date um for uh >> Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah. Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> That makes sense. Okay. I make a motion that we grant the uh approval to the Webster Solar Garden based on the revisions presented to the town board. Um, and I would I would say eliminating the ashvault cap on there and that's to be name that is under the jurisdiction of DEC approval through Xerox. >> We're not going to you got to clarify that we're not going to eliminate the cap. >> No, we're going to eliminate Yeah. eliminate the [snorts] inch and a half topping that was proposed. Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Okay. That would be a motion, I guess. >> I'll second it.

>> Okay. Mr. Rashani, Mr. Malta. >> Hi, >> Mr. Anderson. >> Well, I was not here in January. I was out of country at that point. And as an overall project, I would say no. >> Yeah, that's right. You were gone at the time. >> Okay. >> Mr. Better. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gassic. >> I Mr. Jardine. He's probably abstaining just because he had to excuse himself. >> And I'll also make a motion that we extend the uh meaningful constru significant construction to commence within one year from this date which would be April 7th, 2027. Okay. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate your time tonight. >> Have a good day.

>> You too. >> All right. That's it. What uh >> was the last one on? That was the last one. >> It's an under administrative meetings. Um, administrative matters. >> Verizon wireless communication. >> We have one more update from the Verizon. >> There's nothing to communication. >> Okay. All right. >> All right. We have just one item more. That's the uh update for the communication code. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> My name is Laura Smith. I'm with Nixon Peabody. I'm joined by Jeff Skolnick of NBNC, Tim Zarnki of Verizon, and Kathy Pomponi of Verizon. And together we're representing this application.

As noted, we were before this planning board on March 3rd at your previous March meeting where we discussed the proposal for a 125 monopole tower to be constructed at the corner essentially of Lake AB and uh County Line Road. The site is located in the town's large lot single family residential zoning district and uh is permitted by a special permit and site plan approval from this planning board. At the March 3rd meeting, uh my colleague Bob Berg Burgdorf, he he noted that Verizon um is able to be located anywhere within the search ring that was presented uh to the planning board in exhibit apologies exhibit G of our original application.

upon the planning board's request. Uh however, we did look into two additional locations. Uh one is a location H that was um shown on a map that was submitted on March 31st submission to the planning board. Um that's exhibit uh I'm sorry, location H was it was in the southwest corner of the map. it is uh butdding up against that uh forest area on on on the um on the border of the agricultural use as well as exhibit I which is essentially mirroring that location on the other side of County Line Road. With the planning board's request to look into it, uh we did in fact reach back out to the landlord.

The landlord uh declined allowing us to move the leased premises. I'll note uh as a baseline, we can't force a landlord to to lease to us. So, a sheer uh declining to lease to us is sufficient to rule that out as an a possible alternative site. Um, however, I will note that the landlord provided a letter to the planning board explaining his his reasoning, which we very much appreciate. Usually, usually we just get no. So, it's nice to get the reasoning from the landlord. And as noted in that reasoning from the landlord, the area that is actively farmed agricultural are under private and public conservation restrictions uh as well as the realities of a working farm don't make it uh hospitable to having a cell phone tower back in the trees.

So after going again uh back to the landlord to ask if we could move the sites to the two sites identified by the planning board, we also pushed our RF consultant who's here, Tim Zarnaki, to confirm that there were no sites located outside the search ring that would work from an RF perspective. He again scrubbed the site from an RF perspective and confirmed that the search area that was presented to the planning board and presented as part of this application is the tightest platting tightest search area that would meet his RF needs. uh in that in in with that we we um presented that information in the March 31st supplement that was provided to the planning board.

In the interim between that supplement and tonight's meeting, uh we asked NBNC to do another scrub of neighboring properties to confirm although RF said we cannot be one property out of the search ring or I'm sorry, the search area um to confirm were there other viable sites from a site acquisition perspective. With that, it was noted that um the majority of the properties along Lake A, I'm sorry, Lake Road, uh along Lake Road are smaller residential properties or residential properties uh and are not available for for a cell phone tower lease. and the um and then also noted on the map that was presented, I think quite clearly in the March 31st presentation, there's quite a bit of wetlands and uh creek area around that area.

So, it's it's really impeding where a cell phone tower can go within that search area. And then poor Tim as he'll present we we asked him to check again. Uh and and with that he was able to present a a visual presentation that uh once I once I um turn it over to Tim he'll walk you through the visual presentation to help really set the tone or set this set this uh scene that we really cannot be outside of that search area. The reason why the search area is so important and why Tim is going to walk you through this presentation is because Verizon is a is considered a public utility for zoning purposes in New York State.

So in order to demonstrate that we meet the public necessity standard, we have to demonstrate that there is a gap in a significant gap in coverage that this proposal remedies that gap in coverage and that it's the most feasible solution to remedy the gap in coverage. I'll note for the first two items the uh that there are gaps in service. That information is provided to you in exhibit F. That is the RF analysis. uh that was that was first proposed and or first presented by Bob. Um if you have the application in front of you, I'll note, you know, page 18 and page 19 really tell a compelling story to show the existing midband network within the search area and the surrounding areas that we are attempting to serve.

And then the next page, page 19, that then demonstrates that this remedy, this tower is the remedy that will will serve that that coverage gap. to demonstrate the facility is the most feasible. We do we are always happy to look at alternative sites. That is the the process that we did going back to the landlord. This process that we did scrubbing the site, you know, we really we really pushed everyone quite hard to see are there any alternative sites that Verizon may locate this tower and the answer that has been coming back is no. I'll also note when looking at this specific site, while we're very mindful and cognizant of the the the public input that we heard on March 3rd and the public input that we anticipate hearing at the May meeting, this site is is is a a good location to be to locate the cell phone the cell tower within the search area.

There's no residential houses on it. It's uh a a clean space that is um already already has um significant amounts of utility wires and utility poles. It's it is visually cluttered currently. It's not a an open field or an open vista. Uh as noted in the visual environmental assessment addendum that is provided in the packet, there are no significant natural resources in the surrounding area. and the um the the top of the tower will be visible from other locations in the search area. So the concept of being able [clears throat] to move the tower to uh avoid the aesthetic impacts of having a tall tower uh it you know cannot be remedied.

So we ask uh the board to consider those and then I'm going to invite Tim off to give a presentation um regarding the Oh, thank you. and we'll be providing this in a letter to supplement the record. >> Good evening. My name is Tim Zarnicki. I'm an RF engineer with Verizon Wireless. Um just here to explain kind of how a search area works and how we come about them. Uh what happens is we have either propagation studies that we run that show coverage holes or we have traffic problems that arise where sites are getting overloaded with traffic that can no longer withstand you know the amount of people getting on them.

So then we're asked hey you need a site what can you do for us? We take that uh existing propagations and we'll get into that I guess but we'll take the existing propagations and find an area where can we go? We'll look at uh AMSLS, sea levels. We'll look at uh kind of hills, mountain, whatever is in the area. Where do we need to find and target the area where we're going to get the best coverage to either offload or add service. Uh we'll do that by our propagation studies or we have a tool that we use called ATL that we dig through. we, you know, run these propagation studies, find where we need to go, find out what heights we can do because AMSL will matter.

If we have a 50 foot, AML for 100 foot, that can make a difference in how far we go need to go up on our tower. Um, we'll take that and we go into the design of that site and once we create an area where we know we can go to based on those, we'll hand it off to our site acquisition company say this is a search area. This is where the general area we need to go in based on AMSL and a 120 excuse me 125 ft tower. At that point they go they scrub the ring they come back to us with property owners that are interested not interested where we can go and we'll take that and then now we'll design the site.

will design the site say you know if we get 50 foot AMSL we know we need 75 or 100 foot or 125 foot tower to meet those AMSL plus center lines um going through those um sorry let me get organized [snorts] here with this thought so we developed the search ring we added the areas we don't look at wetlands we don't look at a lot of stuff we just look at I need a site in this area. So unfortunately site act gets caught up with finding the feasible landscapes that we can go into and they when we look through these we make our design we try and fit them into our network system and make that work. Um, so in this area, as you can see here, we ended up on the far west side of our search area.

We're basing the search area on the coverage of our existing site to the west, which is four mile creek. And then to our the east, we have Guinea. Um, we if you look at the search area in this, and I think this is up here before here. Um, if you look at our search area here, we're basically right in the mi in the middle of those two sites. We're focusing on the middle of these two sites. We're trying to find that area, weakest coverage the and where we're getting some traffic. U the weak area actually causes a heavy heavily burden heavier burden on the sites. When it's weaker, they have to work harder.

Your phone has to work harder. The site has to work harder to uh work with each other. So, we're looking to fill those holes right in the middle and you can see we're pretty much in the center of that area. Um, we did look at the extra sites. Um, we had, you know, landlords said no to a couple of them. So, we looked at them, but they were rejected or declined at that point. Anyways, I know we looked at another one that was just to the northeast. Yeah, northeast of of our area. Looking at that, we came across and found that it's just in not far far enough east. It's incro encroaching on the coverage of our four mile creek road.

We're not getting what we need out of it. We'll be back for another tower if we go to that northeast site or northwest site. So, you know, we're always looking to stay in the center of where we're covering and going after those areas. Um, I guess we can kind of go into some of the supplemental. If you look at page four, it kind of shows this is our propagation study of um, the two sites, Gana and for Malik Peak. You can see there's our search area basically centrally located between those two sites. Uh, we're on the west side of it, so we, you know, definitely went as far west about as we can really go in those.

We're open obviously for areas we can find, but that's what we had a landlord. That's where we lurked and that's what we got. Um, if you go to page five or five's not in here, page six and page seven, this is kind of a unique view of kind of how we look at these things sometimes as well. You can see um on page six that's coverage from Four Mile Creek extending across the area. And you can see if we went to the northeast, we'd be really encroaching on that coverage. We wouldn't be getting central area and get taking care of both the sites that we need that we're trying to offload slash add coverage onto.

And then if you look at page seven, that's the opposite. That's gonna you can see that GANA is kind of barely reaching to the search area, which again, this is why we made the search area where it is. We're trying to find that center point of the two sites and uh equally offload the two sites. I think that's all I've got for now. Are there any questions? >> Yeah, I've got a couple of them. >> I spoke with with Mr. Burgdoff the other day. >> Yes. >> Quite the lengthy conversation I had with him. I suggested maybe his firm or you you folks, whoever, could possibly contact the association that Mr.

going is involved with because he's not talking in his letter. [clears throat] Apparently, he gets grants or there's soil bank or whatever he puts the money, you know, he's getting money for the property by not allowing building and so on and so forth. Whatever the program is, I don't know and I don't care. However, my guess is if somebody contacted this outfit, this firm or this organization, I think I think Cornell Cooperative is part of it also, but whatever. Contacting them and trying to make an arrangement to say, "Look, we're not going to put a building. We're not putting a barn. We're not putting anything on this property.

It's a simple uh cell tower going back there." And my suggestion at that meeting, the last meeting, was to put it not into the woods, but by the woods as close as possible to it. Get it back where that roadway that the owner of the property has his driveway comes right off of County Line Road. It goes right back to that area. Now, I understand you're saying, "Well, it might be a little bit too far and it doesn't receive." And I'm looking at if you put a straight line from where four mile creek is to gana it's almost straight line with it. There's no jog. I think what happened here I think they picked a spot and said look we got that corner drew the circle and said this is where it fits.

That's my opinion. I mean I think this I am not happy with it going there. I don't think anyone is and I still think somebody needs to investigate a better uh location for that cell car. my opinion. >> I'll I'll give a quick comment um and and appreciated the conversation with with Bob. We did go back to the landlord. We asked if he would be open to have that discussion with the agencies with with whom he's contracted. He has declined. Um I'll note I I don't know the type of agreement nor have I reviewed the agreement but I am familiar with conservation easements and similar similar language and they are meant to be um prohibitive of development.

So I, you know, candidly again, I I don't have experience with a particular uh contract or a or or program that he's under, but it it is not surprising to me that a conservation easement or or a similar type of contractual conservation um uh obligations and protocol would prohibit the type of development uh that we're seeking here. >> Well, I don't have a solution for it then. And I'll tell you right now, it comes in. I'm not going to vote in favor of it. And I know what the situation is. The government says we can do it one way or the other. Then you're going to have to meet in my regard. You'd have to take that route.

It's up to the board though because I will definitely not support it going on a corner like that. I've been here from the first cell tower that came into Webster >> years ago and we have been able to manipulate, maneuver, and change locations of them. get them somewhere where they're at least conspicuous or concealed to protect anybody in the neighborhood. And this this is this this couldn't get any worse. My opinion. >> Yeah, I agree. you know, according to the the code, um, you know, the we can [clears throat] impose some reasonable restrictions relative to where you're putting this property, but you you seem to be limiting us just to where you've already put it.

Um, so I don't know if you could talk to the owner, but giving us one particular area rather than giving us an area that is, you know, the least adverse to to the visual effect. [snorts] So I believe probably some of the people that are here on on the lake and, you know, it kind of limits what potentially this board would be willing to do. I mean, the code allows us to at least, we're not saying we can't have the project, but at least have us have options, >> and it doesn't appear there are any other options than putting it where you put it on your plan. And I don't think that um >> that's necessarily um positive for the project, but potentially >> Mr.

Co in Mr. Cohen's letter just right here. Finally, the location of the tower on active farm property will create operational inefficiencies. A commercial apple farm is a very busy place to work to work and live. People, equipment, and harvested produce all need to be able to move. What the hell is a cell tower going to infringe on that? Can you tell me? >> I I can't. And I >> this frustrates. >> No. and and I hear you, but I I think, you know, candidly from from us as a tenants perspective, we can only go where the landlord allows us to go if if we were allowed to to pick where we were going to go.

I I you know, I'm not sure where in this circle would be the most ideal, but you know, certainly we are receptive to the board's responses. We want to be in a location that works well for the town and works well for Verizon's RF needs. Um, we share your frustration that this is the only location that is available within our search area that will remedy the coverage gap. If there was another alternative site, we would welcome it. Again, as as Bob pointed out in the prior meeting, we don't care where we are within the search ring. We just need to be within the search ring in a location that works.

We can get our height. Uh, there's no unreasonable delay and no unreasonable cost. We want to be in the search ring. And the other thing when I spoke with him, I I mentioned, you know, by putting it back into that area where I was referring to >> um he said it might be too far away would would work. I said I don't know that much about the towers, but maybe you have to get an extra five or 10 foot because if it's back there, I don't think anybody's going to know five or 10 foot higher on a tower. So, and I'm I'm seeing this as the owner of the property. and he's he'll get the revenue from it but not willing to cooperate with it.

And I have an issue with it. [clears throat] >> It's a busy road. It's a it's one of the most It is probably one of the most attractive routes through Monroe County along Lake Road. And to see that cell tower there, I I just I'm opposed to it. Bottom line. I think I think they said the farmer said, "Well, you know, I'll give you that spot there." And they drew the circle there. >> End of story. I'm done. >> Okay. And and and and I don't mean to be contrary or or to push back, but you know, as as Tim described, it's it's almost a a blind choosing of uh of where the search area will be, and it's based solely on the RF coverage.

if I may ask um to pull up that supplemental material. I think two pages above I find very digestible as as a non-engineer um you know that's the search area that Verizon is trying to solve. You see the four mile creek coverage to the west, you see the Gana coverage to the east. That area in the middle is where the coverage gap is. It is not based on what the parcels look like. And in fact, it is not until after Tim and his team identify where the coverage gap is that the site selection analyst goes out and even asks people. So, you know, I I will push back on the concept that we had this site and and found a problem to solve.

Um, instead the the the process is we locate this or identify the gap in coverage. We identify the appropriate remedy to remedy that gap in coverage. And then we scrub the site to look for potential landlorders, landlords that would host us in that area. Here, that is the only landlord that was uh willing to enter into a lease with us. That is the only location the landlord is was willing to lease to us on his property. you know, I I appreciate the the concerns or push backs or what the landlord should or should not be considering, but but you know, candidly, it's it's his property. He can decide where we're going to go with >> and you know, to the extent of he he's limited us to a he's provided actually very good reasons to limit us to A when when candidly no reasons are needed.

Um, you know, we share your frustration that we can't be somewhere else in the site, but that is that there are no alternative sites that are within the search area that will remedy the the coverage gap. >> So, I I just had some couple quick question. I agree with Tony and Tony's frustration on seems like we're almost boxed in right now and I'm just proposing some out ofthebox thinking. You can let me know if that's something that we cannot do. So it seems like the limitation is really the search ring and there's parameters that go into defining the search ring. One of the things that Tony mentioned was what if we were to consider tall tower?

Does the search ring now widen potentially giving you more opportunity to locate different is that something you could look into if we were to increase it by another 10 feet or what to give you the flexibility to maybe consider other parcels and modify the search ring. Well, we designed the sorry we designed the uh size of the tower based on the existing coverage around. So you've got the you know gana and four mile creek. So we've designed something that kind of fits in there. We keep going taller. What's going end up happening is we're going to cause interference to those sites. Now >> t tall taller you get farther the site propagates >> cause gets in stronger and then we're going to just cause interference.

going to have to do a lot of strange things to optimize the system that may or may not work right. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> The other thing um you know in your initial application you had identified candidate E last name Roberts candidate C last name Smith which are in Wayne County um as no interest. Personally, I'm just curious. Is that no interest based on a lease dollar amount that you were offering? If you were to increase it, there would be interest potentially. You know, I'm just curious if it is something that is negotiable with the landowner. And then um you know, again, out of the box thinking with the Johnson's with their concerns there, do they have relationship with the Smith family or the Roberts family there?

because those both are wooded lots unoccupied that maybe they could build that rapport relationship for them to reconsider relocating the project onto those properties because again they're more in wooded areas away from their land too because there's a concern that it's currently right in front of their house. So >> that's that's site acquisition stuff that >> just throwing it out there as out of the box thinking because >> anybody else any questions or whatever you what do you fellas think >> uh to so [clears throat] my name is Jeff Sknick. I'm with Network Building Consulting. where the real estate >> consulting.

Um, >> as these guys said, I mean, we don't start our work on the ground until they define an area that we need to be in. We looked at those candidates. Um, there's a lot of ways to talk with a land owner and and try to get them on board. None of that. I mean, some people just don't want a cell tower on their property. um we can have a lot of conversations with them. We can have a lot of conversations with you, but um [snorts] some people just don't want it. Uh we engage, we discuss, we go back and forth, we answer questions with these land owners, and and at the end of the day, they just aren't interested.

Um that that's pretty much all we can do. Suppose, just suppose the distance between four mile creek and out in Ontario and suppose you put two low two smaller towers in on other properties. In other words, instead of a putting 125 foot or 30 foot tower, you put two 100 foot towers, 90 foot, whatever, I don't know, someplace in between >> to stretch the signal. >> I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just >> out of the box thinking. It's out of the box thinking. So, >> what's that? >> It's out of the box thinking. >> Yeah, that's that's what I'm trying to do here. >> It wouldn't be two towers.

>> What's that? It wouldn't be two towers by the way this gap is drawn in here. >> It would be probably four to provide that same coverage. >> Yeah. And I certainly don't um want to want to speak for Tim from an RF perspective, but correctly noted right where we're looking at these towers, it is it is solving a problem between two towers. So to expand that area or move a tower closer to the towers that um we're trying to solve the cover gap coverage gap from would bring interference with the with the neighboring towers. I'll also note you know while we do uh appreciate uh alternative sites or alternative locations you know we we are limited to uh finding solutions without unreasonable costs and unreasonable delay.

So to the extent of uh building two towers to solve a solution that uh from a technological point of view having one tower in the middle is ideal. You know we would we would have to consider that from a cost perspective. >> I can I can understand that and I'm looking at it for residents in the neighborhood. If I live there I wouldn't want it either. So you know cost is one thing and aesthetics in a neighborhood is another. And and one thing I'll note to the board, we see this time and time and again with with planning boards is discussion about landscaping or are there ways that we could mitigate the visual impact of the equipment on the ground.

You know, we'll note that the tower will be the height that it is, but there are landscaping choices or fencing choices that can be done to help um alleviate the the the visuals on the ground. >> Please don't don't come up with 125 foot phony tree on You know, people have asked that in the middle of the field. They say, "Well, can it be a monopine?" You say, "It can be, of course, but to have a single uh cell phone tower looking like a tree in the middle of the field might not be the aesthetic." >> I don't know. But I I just feel there's got to be a solution to make this work in >> everybody's best interest.

So, >> hi, I'm Kathy Pompon. I'm the project manager. I just wanted to kind of tell you I I can appreciate you were here for the first cell to cell cell phone towers in the town of Webster. Just wanted to explain that back then I mean I've been doing this for 33 years so I was involved with some of that as well. Um back then we had more flexibility as to where we could put because we didn't have existing infrastructure in place. So now that there is existing infrastructure around where these coverage needs are, the search areas are becoming smaller, tighter, right? That that is the reason why I don't I don't want you to think that we're appearing to be unreasonable.

We're we're trying to work with you. We're we're frustrated, too. Um but that is the reason why back then there was more flexibility. The search areas were larger. We had more flexibility as we could put where we could put our initial infrastructure. Now that that infrastructure is in place, it's much more limited as to where we can be to solve the problem because that infrastructure exists around it. Does that does that make sense? >> It does. But on the other side of the coin, since those days back there in ancient history, there's new developments have come in too. >> Understood. >> That's making it more.

>> But those are the communities that we're trying to serve. Those are exactly the communities that we're trying to serve. >> I'm not a telecommunications expert by any stretch, folks. >> But it seems like [snorts] there's a a proliferation of new towers. Like we have a couple of that were being considered for this town already. >> Yes. >> And the owners shouldn't be on us to always find new locations. You should accept some of the responsibility to modify your equipment to increase your coverage. And I think that there should be a balance. >> Well, we always try to modify the equipment on existing infrastructure first.

I mean, of course, we would do that. We know that these are not popular. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't needed. >> If there was another way to solve this, we would do it >> even with height. >> Yeah. >> It was suggested to increase the height of this one, but it would interfere with the other two. >> If you increase the height of the other two, would it would it solve this coverage? >> No. problem is when you start assuming height uh variations in existing equipment a that's a whole lot of work and effort to be done in an existing tower can the tower actually take that height so that means we have to get a whole set of you know rebuilding the tower basically but then if you look at where these sites are they're pretty close to the lake when we get too high close to the lake we have to be concerned about interfering with Canada uses same frequency fre same frequencies as we do and if we proliferate across the lake we're going to interfere with them then we're going to have all sorts of really big FCC issues if we do that so we have to maintain a proper heights for proper coverages prop you know the balance is tricky with what I do and we're always playing with what is the right height what can we get away with so I don't come in here lightly with these things I know you know these we're not wellliked with for doing these things but we're doing it for a reason is because everybody's using cell phones.

We need coverage. We need to get to the areas we need to get to. [clears throat] >> I appreciate the technical discussion. >> Happy to have it. >> But the other thing that I when I look at this, the circle looks to be idealized and the location that you've picked is on the western edge of that idealized >> circle. That's what we're given. >> Can that circle shift? And how much do you if you shifted that circle a little bit to the east and to the to the south, >> would you pick up other additional properties that may be potential uh for leasing? >> And how much would you lose in the in the event?

>> I don't know property wise. That's something that they'd have to scrub. >> It wasn't really our question that I think >> I think Bob looked at quite a bit of those things and there wasn't anything in there other than this spot. He did review that. >> Correct. Yeah. Correct. >> It was within that circle though. >> It's because of the >> No, he did. He he did that and those we looked at the map actually. We were actually had the map in front of us looking at it and going through it and how about this one? How about that? And >> even even the residential houses across on the north side of the road, you know, would it fit there?

And that's all residential, but would somebody possibly, you know, but that didn't work either apparently, >> right? that that search area cannot move. That search area is what was identified as being the search area necessary to to solve the co the coverage gap. Um that's the information presented here in the supplemental information and is shown in um exhibit F that you know this is where RF needs to be. Again the the analysis is not done by we found a site let's see let's see what if we can put something there. It is done by RF identifying where they need the tower to be and and where they need the tower to be centrally located.

Uh I think in Tim's ideal world, it would be in the middle of County Line Road that's in the very center of of the circle. That's the ideal place to be within the ideal search area. uh the fact that it is closer to the east um is it still works from an RF perspective but to be further outside that ring you know every every movement is farther and farther away from being able to remedy the coverage gap that we're seeking to remedy >> just an assumption suppose just suppose that area was a wetland or a big pond or something there where would they put the tower then >> we'd probably cancel the ring wouldn't provide coverage there Yeah, >> it' just be >> What would you do with a tower?

>> What's that? >> How where would you have to locate a tower then? >> I would probably head south to find something to just if we needed like I I don't know what I do actually in that case. If we had nothing there >> trying to This is you know always the gamble we get is like okay I can't solve it. Nothing can go there. What do I do? >> I I don't know. >> I think You need to look at something or relocate it somehow. Do whatever. I mentioned two short towers. You say it doesn't work. I don't know. That's beyond me. But anybody Dave or >> No, I'm not I'm certainly not in favor of that site. >> I understand the need for the the tower.

>> What's that? >> I understand the need for the tower. >> Absolutely. And it, you know, based on the information that's been provided and the the effort that they put in for locating it, it does sound like this is the location. >> That's what they're saying. >> So, I wouldn't I have no other reason to to not believe it. Um I just quick quick question. So when when you look at at the coming down county road um county line road you there's that triang triangular >> area where you want to put it. I mean you're you're talking about um minimal feet from that triangle area past a little and it looks like a little road or some type of gravel road.

This is a little >> to the other side of this of these um uh electrical towers. It is there some particular reason why there's a hedro already. It's kind of not away from the road. It's kind of covered by that hedro that are near the electrical towers. Is there a reason why the farmer wouldn't want it like on the other side of those electrical Can you specifically point out I don't know if people >> Yeah, just to confirm. You mean on the existing site? >> So if you >> the existing proposed site, can it be moved south? >> Yeah. See, there's See if you could I don't know if they could put this up on the screens, but if you >> if you look at up a little higher now, >> so there's this there's the triangular area that has the where you're going to put the tower.

There's already a hedro that's on the looks like the the property line. I mean, you're talking about. >> Yeah. >> I I don't believe the tower is going in that triangular area. The tower is going in that place where I got >> you. So, you have whatever whatever that weird thing it's >> and that ve that vegetation is anticipated to stay. And again, if there's other landscaping that can be done to help mitigate >> the appearance of the equipment, we we always welcome those. Yeah, >> you know, the thought of, you know, landscaping is is good. I mean, you put something around it, but that that really doesn't do anything to because that that stretch of road is straight down Lake Road.

If you're going if you're going east, it's a straight run down. And if you're going if you're going west, you're coming around that corner. It's it's right it's right in front of you all the way. >> If >> anyways, we can talk all night long on it. We're not going to get anywhere with it. Um, my opinion is I think there's some way there's an alternative. I think something should be able to be worked out with that farm uh property right there to locate it where we first suggested. Um, I'm firm on that my opinion. Anyways, so with that >> if if I may add just in the discussion of the viewshed, I want to draw your attention to exhibit K.

That's a good visualization of where the anticipated viewshed would be. Exhibit K of the application. So just as as you're considering it um and and thinking about as you were talking about driving down Lake Road, I wanted to offer exhibit K is showing the the proposed viewhed. >> Are any of you guys neighbors there? You're all neighbors there. you folks are also >> what have they you know you know I'm thinking back a long time ago waste management [clears throat] a little off the topic here obviously waste management came in over on Basket road and the neighbors were opposed to them putting the garage and all the trucks and stuff there and they negotiated a deal with the neighbors they gave them free pickup or something you ever guys ever considered doing that >> I'm again I'm out of the box but >> I think he's referred to like a neighbor agreement.

>> Yeah. Something to accommodate the neighbors if it had to be there. I don't I don't know. I'm just >> That's not >> I don't know if you've ever done that or not. I I was just thinking about that particular incident on basket. >> You don't want to put it here. >> Try anything. something to appease the neighbors that are affected by this >> the most. >> Maybe it's something you guys can think about and work out. >> Affected by it. >> I'm sorry. >> There's always >> I can't hear you guys use the microphone. >> I'm sorry. No. I'm sorry. >> There's always going to be neighbors that are affected by it.

No matter where we put it. >> It It's just the way it is. It's how this works. >> Okay. Guess that. All right. Okay, I guess we all just move forward and do what we got to do at this point. Yeah. >> Well, and I'll, you know, I'll note to the extent [clears throat] um >> again for the board's consideration that, you know, we are highly we are highly regulated by the FCC. >> We are a public utility under New York state law. We are uh also highly regulated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a a a pretty wellprepted body of law when it comes to the sighting of cell phone towers. We have we've we have done this time and time again.

>> We have located the narrowest search area that we could we could um or the most pinpoint of search area that we can be in. We've reviewed whether or not that search area can be expanded. we have uh scrubbed additional properties to see if there was any other feasible locations. You know, to the extent the um there is uh RF data that it can be quite dense uh in in other municipalities have taken advantage of of seeking a a consultant of its own. Um so we do offer you know we offer these as notes of we understand the planning board's hesitation or the planning board's viewpoint of uh aesthetics and location but this this field is quite quite crowded by the telecommunications act of 1996 through case law regarding the public utility standard and to the extent it it feels boxed in or feels hampered And it, you know, candidly, it is, it is because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and because of the public utility standard.

So, we we would welcome a conversation with the the planning board again about landscaping, about fences, if there's other uh mitigation efforts that can be done to help address the aesthetics of the equipment tower at least, or I'm sorry, the equipment facility at least. um or or again seeking a review by a professional consultant about the RF data. >> Can I join the out of the box group here for a minute? >> Uh you had mentioned about uh Canada and having to protect infringing on Canadian do could you elaborate more on what you had to do? What what exactly you mean to >> Well, when you're talking about locating of the cell towers, >> okay?

>> Yeah. >> Do you take into effect, for example, you're going up north to the lake and what kind of mileage or area that the Canadians have and and we have the United States? >> Yes. So, the border between the US and Canada is basically considered in the middle of the lake, Lake Ontario. >> Okay. Like it is for the radio. Okay. Yeah. So that's where radio signal waves that's where we're basically considered say but basically it becomes serving. We don't want to interfere with the Canadian service on the Canadian side of their land mass actually but we are regulated by FCC to not go past the actual border in the middle of the lake.

We do that by regulating tower sizes by powers by down tilts. You know we've got ways we can do it. It just gets harder the closer we get to that lake because when signal hits a lake, it just starts skipping [laughter] and takes off. So, we do our best to stay away from being on lakes like that to to to mitigate that. The reason I bring this up, and I'm probably all wrong about it, and if I am, I apologize, but Canada has a series of repeater stations along the northern shore of the lake. There's a station in Toronto that carries into Cobberg. It carries up the St. Lawrence. It's radio. It has nothing to do with cells.

But can there be and here comes the question which I'm going to get hung up on. Can there be a type of a repeater station here for cell towers that where you could put it so they you know what I'm trying to say? Do you have one at the bay or do you have one up up here at the >> Doesn't really work the same way. If you think about a radio like a radio tower and those signals, their powers are magnitudes higher than what we run at. So doing repeaters, we'd have to have repeaters every 50 ft. >> And how big would a repeater be? >> It depend on what we'd be trying to do. But I mean, you can't repeaters don't really work in an RF environment because the biggest problem with a repeater, it's still the same site just being repeated over and over.

So that site if it has traffic capacity issues, you're just you're extending that coverage zone of that site to be just repeated over and over again. So now you're just making cover a larger area than it is currently. >> Okay. >> Okay. I guess we're not going to get very far with this tonight anyways. We pretty much spoken our pieces. See where it goes from here, I guess. Um I'm disappointed in it. I'm actually disappointed with the owner of the property for not being a good neighbor and cooperating, willing to cooperate with his neighbors. That's very disappointing, but it is what it is. Okay.

Anybody else? >> No, I agree. >> Any other comments? >> That's it. >> Mhm. >> Okay. I guess that's it then. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, is this back on the calendar next month? >> I have no idea what their schedule. I don't know. It depends on >> when they put their application in. I'm sorry. >> Heard a lot of comments from Verizon. >> Oh, yeah. That's all it was. >> One of the neighbors. >> No, that that would have to come up. That would have to come up again. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. That this was just bringing us up to date. >> I've spoken to New York State about this transportation. Mhm. >> That would be good.

>> Absolutely. [clears throat] >> Pass that right over to Josh or whoever. Yeah, Erica. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, you could give it to him or give it to probably go right to the Josh or Erica. >> Okay. >> And they they'd forward it to whoever need to get it. >> Okay, great. >> That would be good. >> All right, I guess that's it. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thanks a lot. Have a good one. >> And what else have we got? We'll get the March 3rd meeting minutes. I'll make a >> Okay. >> Motion for approval of the March 3rd meeting minutes. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. All in favor? >> I was the last meeting.

>> All right. Well, I guess the answer for