captions Language: en Okay. So, get started. >> Okay. I guess it's 7 o'clock. I guess we can get started. I'd like to welcome you to the September 1st planning board meeting. We have kind of a lengthy agenda this evening, so bear with us. We'll get through it. Would you join in a pledge of allegiance, please? Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Katherine, you want to call the role, please? >> Mr. Anderson, >> here. >> Mr. Shawnie >> here. >> Mr. Better >> here.
>> Mr. Malta >> here. >> Mrs. Maltman >> here. >> Mr. Gassik >> here. >> Miss Forsy >> present. >> Mr. Artuso >> here. >> Mr. Chard >> here. >> Okay. Um, question to the board. We have Verizon has two applications. This is going to be lengthy a little bit, but we have like four or five sign applications. Is it okay with you folks if we hear the signs first? >> Yeah, fine with me. >> Work with you guys. Work with you guys. >> Yeah, get them out of the way. >> Okay, Peggy, why don't you go ahead and start? You've got that. >> Thank you. >> So, first on the agenda is the Penfield Webster EMS sign located at 607 Phillips Road.
Applicant Michael Cunningham of Vital Signs is requesting sign approval in association with the installation of 14.8 89 ft non-illuminated sign on a 1.68 acre parcel having SPL number 065.01-1-28.1 located in the in Industrial District under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster. >> Good afternoon. >> Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Um Steve Stanley here on behalf of Mike from our shop for the EMS building. Uh it's rather straightforward. Um, as was just described, we have a flat panel um, ACM backer with a digital print on front. It will be mechanically fastened to the building. And as it was mentioned, we the total square footage for the project is 14.89 square ft.
This sign will be non-lit as well. So, just a simple shield sign going on the front of the building. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Anybody any questions or >> Nope. >> Pretty simple. >> Okay. We have to do a seeker on it. >> Town of Webster Planning Board consider request by applicant Michael Cunningham with oil signs to install 114.89 foot sign for Penfield Webster EMS located at 607 Penfield Road on a 1.6 6acre parcel having SPL number 065.01-1-28.1. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type 2 action under section 617.5C2 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.
>> Okay, we have a motion. Need a second. >> Second. >> Have a second. All in favor? I. Okay, we're all set. Thank >> No, that's that part of it. Now we got to vote for this the sign. Anybody want to make a motion for it? Yeah, go ahead. I'll make a motion. We approve the Penfield Webster EMS sign as presented and this is located at what is it? 607 Phillips Road. Motion for approving this side. >> Second. >> Got a second. All in favor? I >> I Okay, now you're all set. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next item on tonight's agenda is super cut sign located at 900 Holt Road. Applicant Peter Durst of ID Sign Systems is requesting sign approval in association with the installation of one 28 ft in internally illuminated sign on a 28.47 acre parcel having SPL number 079.12-1-6.211.
211 located in the highintensity commercial district under section 265-7. >> Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Josh Palmer from ID signs vital signs slash um just asking for requesting permission for this uh facelit uh set of channel letters on a raceway just at the whole road Wagman's Plaza. I think we just removed the previous whatever the previous haircut place was and it's similar in size going back up. So >> internally >> yeah just standard channel letter >> white acrylic face. >> Pretty simple. Anybody any concerns? >> Nope questions >> that being any want to do a secret around this one. The town western planning board considered a request by applicant Peter Ders of ID Sign Systems to install 128 square foot sign for super cuts located at 900 Holt Road on a 28.47 acre parcel having SPL number 079.12-1-6.211.
The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under section 617.5C2 of the state environmental quality re review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. >> Okay. You need a second. >> Second motion. We have a second. All in favor? >> I. Okay. So, we want to make a motion for it. >> I make a motion to approve. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the super cut sign located at 900 Holder Road. >> All in favor? >> As presented. >> As presented. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Uh we need a second. >> I second. >> Have a second. All in favor? >> I Okay, we're good.
>> All right. You're all set. Thank you. >> Next item up is the Monroe County Water Authority sign located at 593 Basket Road. Applicate Tony Snow of Gup Signs is requesting sign approval in association with the installation of one 18 square foot non-eluminated sign on a 42.7 acre parcel having SPL number 066.01-2-6.1 located in the in Industrial District under section 265-7. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Hi, I'm Tony Snow from GUP Signs and we are just proposing to erect a freestanding roadside sign double-sided so it's visible from both north and southbound traffic >> just to identify the location uh address number town uh water authority logo and >> yeah that's good >> pretty basic notated just fabricated aluminum >> okay anybody any questions you know if anybody thinks this is interesting I think I mentioned this one of the other meetings recently.
It's like what are we doing this for? See like a simple thing. If we didn't have this, at least everybody that applies now for a sign, they pretty much are aware of what our code calls for and they fall into queue with it. If you don't have a plan of a sign, height, size, lighting. We'd have we'd have lit up signs all over town, flashing lights, and everything else. And they'd be all different locations and height. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd see some go across Ridge Road over here ultimately. So that's why it's a simple thing, but at least we've got it controlled where people, you know, queue up and we get a good a good product out of them.
These are all nice looking signs. So, yep. Okay. Um, you do a secret on this. Yeah. Town of western planning board consider a request by applicant Tony Snow of Gup signs to install one 18 square foot non-elilluminated sign for Monroe County Water Authority located at 593 Basket Road on a 42.7 acre parcel having SPL number 066.01-2-6.1. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under 617.5C2 the state environmental quarter review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. >> Okay, we have a motion for seeker need a second. >> Second. >> Have a second.
All in favor? >> I I have a motion for approval. I make a motion to approve the county water authority uh sign located at at 9 593 Basket Road >> [clears throat] >> uh as presented. >> Okay, need a second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I Okay, you're all set. >> Okay, good luck very much. >> It's a nice simple sign, too. >> Okay, next up is Mccelpin Industry sign located at 865 Hard Road. Applicant Steve Stanley of Vital Signs is requesting sign approval in association with the installation of three internally illuminated wall-mounted signs, two wayfinding signs, and one monument sign totaling 366.13 square ft on a 25.65 acre parcel having SPL number 079.06-1-32.123 06-1-32.123 located in the OP core area north office park district under section 265-7 of the Webster Town Code.
>> Good afternoon. Uh Steve Stanley from Vital Science along with uh Mel Matt McKelp from McKelp Industries. As described, we are proposing um three building mounted channel letters, um two wayfinding um directional signage, and one freestanding internally lit monument at the roadside. Um the channel letters are uh basic channel letters with aluminum construction internally lit and they also be uh face lit as well both on the east side of the building and then the south side and the north side. Um also with that we will have uh some stud mount stud mounted aluminum letters that will be non-illuminated on the east side of the building as well.
And um yeah um for the house number of 865 for hard road um the total square footage was declared earlier of 366.13 for and that does include all of the signs that we are proposing today. There is um a few questions we have for the board in regards to uh the uh the placement of the monument sign. Um I know there's been some back and forth. >> Mhm. >> Uh with the U of and we'd like to see if we can get some of that hashed out today. >> Yeah. I think I was going over it with Josh last week and your sign of our sign are separated. It'd be nice if they could have been combined or side by side or one over the other or something >> because where where the sign is going to be now, you've got that >> whatever that box is that electrical >> hot box >> hot box out there right in front that's that's actually blocking one of the signs.
>> Agreed. >> Correct. Um there was numerous attempts for back and forth with U of >> Yeah. >> to propose a stacked version >> of that sign. Um, I believe those conversations kind of stalled out over time. >> Yeah, the latest direction from them was to proceed with our own monument sign on our property and they were going to make other arrangements on their property. >> Mhm. >> Um, we did have a number of conversations about putting a monument sign together with them. >> Um, they are not interested in doing that. >> Okay. Nothing you can do about that. I guess it would have been nice and neater and cleaner.
You know, >> I agree. We went through nine revisions. >> If I'm not mistaken, their sign is the one that's somewhat going to be hidden by that hot box. >> I'm still open to working with them on it. >> Are you? Okay. >> It's been six to seven months now. So, >> yeah, we're out of time. >> Well, good luck with it. >> Anybody any of the other signs are pretty standard. They're back on the building and >> y >> so on. I don't have any issues. The only one I had a concern with was that monument sign and you explained it. Anybody any concerns or issues on it? >> No. No. [clears throat] >> Nobody. >> All right.
Move forward with it. Uh Town Wer Planning Board consider request by applicant Steve Stanley of vital signs to install three internally illuminated wall mount signs, two wayfairing signs and one monument sign totaling 366.13 square ft for Mckelin. Yeah. Mcelpin Industry located at 865 Hard Road on a 25.65 acre parcel having SPL number 079.06-1-32.123. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type 2 action under 6 section 617.5C9 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. >> Okay, we have a motion. We need a second. >> Second.
>> A second. All in favor? >> I >> I for a motion. >> Um I Oh, you do have it on. I'm just looking at it now. You have the address on the sign. >> You do have the address on it, correct? >> All right. Somebody want to make a motion on the regard to the sign. The >> I make a motion to approve the Melin McCalpin Industries sign located at 865 Hard Road as presented. >> All plural, right? All >> All plural signs. >> Okay. is is presented. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. Need a second. >> Second. >> A second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. Okay. We're good. All right. You're all set with that. Good luck.
If you can get any words with them with that. >> We would like to have one clarification. Um >> what's that? >> The access road is going to be wid widened by 8 1/2 ft. Um and the distance from the property line to the access road is going to be 16 and 12 feet. I know for residential typically you have to have your structure six foot uh from the property line. Um the distance, [clears throat] excuse me, the distance from the the property line, I'm sorry, the access road to the property line is going to be 16 1/2 ft. Um we'd like to make sure that we put that in the proper space the first time. So splitting that difference, is that an option?
Do you guys have any preference on where that gets dropped? I think the question is when I was reviewing the code, I couldn't find anything that said what distance from your property line a monument sign would need to be. It will be 25 ft from the road. We saw that. Um but the distance from your property line, >> Frank can just look for some guidance on that. >> Josh, you know what it is for certain? >> I don't believe there is a setback in our code speak >> for side length from the lot length. >> Correct. six feet. >> I personally I don't have an issue with it. I don't know if legally if you can what?
>> We'll put it somewhere between. It won't be on the line. We'll be on the road. >> Mhm. >> We'll make sure that it's appropriate. >> I'll check the code and give you an answer. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Why don't Why don't we do this? We'll approve it and then he can get to you if it has to be here or there. Obviously, you're not going to put it up tonight. So, >> Okay. Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, you we made a motion. We you gave a file. Okay, that >> we did. We did, didn't we? I forgot where we left off in there. Okay, good. >> Okay, next agenda item is Bloom and Blend Lights located at 790 Ridge Road.
Applicant Alyssa Connors is requesting final site plan approval in association with the installation of 36 ft of decorative exterior lighting on a 7.2 2 acre parcel having SPL number 079.17-1-15.1 located in the CO commercial outdoor storage district under section 269-10 of the code of the town of Webster. >> Hi everyone, my name is Alyssa. I'm one of the owners of Bloom and Blend. Um yeah, just looking to see >> Can you I'm sorry. Just get just get a little closer to that mic. Okay. >> Yep. Just looking to see if we can get approval to put up um lights on the norththeast facing side of our building just to try and get customers attention.
>> What kind of lighting is it? Are they like Christmas tree lights or >> they are they're considered permanent lighting. However, when I talked to the company, um the way that they showed it to me, it kind of looks like an extension of a gutter. Um but it can be taken down. We uh made sure of that because if we don't stay with our current landlord and stay at this property, we want to be able to move it with us because we're putting money into it. >> So, they're probably LED lights. >> Yeah, I believe so. >> They're not shining out anywhere. I know the building is in the back, but >> are you shining like to the east?
>> Correct. They're they're uh shining down. Okay. >> Downwards. All right. Anybody any concerns with that? I mean, our code is, you know, if you look at the planning guidelines, one of the things is very strict on there when this was done was the kind of lighting and so on and so forth. Um, there's certain situations though, in my opinion, you're sitting in the back of the building over there. You're not out on the highway with bright lights or anything. >> Yeah. It shouldn't have any effect on cars driving by. No. for neighboring businesses. I did make sure of that with the company that we're going to be using.
>> Um, and it is something that we can control through an app on our phone as well. So, we can change the colors of it. Um, depending on the season, holiday, things like that, but it won't be flashing lights. It won't be moving lights. >> That's a question I was going to ask. So, they're not flashing on and off. Okay. >> Nope. >> All right. Anybody? Anybody? This is actually the first application we've had for >> What's that? >> This is the first time we've ever had an application for lights. >> I know it. I know it. >> Well, we actually actually we just >> this is the second thing we've done with this.
The first one was at Seven Brew. >> Yep. >> We approved the lights on that, you know, because that's their style and so on. And we did ask them to have a dimmer because if they're bright or gets too much noise or so on so forth that we have the ability to control that. So, all right. If nobody has any concerns with it, >> I was just I mean, you want to just make sure that they're not doing the LED that are >> No, that's it. They're not flashing or anything, she said. So, yeah. >> Or switching colors. >> Well, you when you switch colors, they all switch. >> It would be like a stagnant light. Like, if I wanted every other one to be red and green for Christmas, it would just stay as red and green.
It wouldn't be like red, green, red, green, red. Is >> that going to look like a carnival ride? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Special light for Saturday or Sunday, you know? >> Yeah. Just kidding. [laughter] So, >> I do um have a question though. About 45 minutes before this meeting started, I got an email from uh Mark Jardina. >> Yeah. Okay. He's the person that's not here this evening. >> He's not here this evening. Okay. Um it was about the cost related to if you guys were to approve this tonight. Um, it's saying that it would be invoice totaling $4,950. >> I'm not Yeah, I'm not sure why we would need to pay that when the lights are like less than a grand for us to install.
>> Yeah, [clears throat] I think that might be a fishing scam that we've seen some of our applicants um receive emails that are posed from the town of >> Webster. Oh, good. >> Did you really? Oh, wow. >> Okay. Glad I asked. >> Well, you can keep that in souvenir. Okay, we'll leave it at [laughter] that. >> I'll keep that five grand. >> Why move forward with a seeker hennis? >> Yeah. I guess the only other comment I would make is that uh since this is the first really [clears throat] formal one is a lighting. Uh we do have chapter 222 of the the outdoor lighting code. And based on the description that is in here about pointing the lights down and keeping it away from nuisances to the to neighboring properties, it to me at least it does appear to conform with that section of the >> Yeah.
And I think you did say they're down. >> Yep. >> And you don't you have no neighbor to the east of you right at that point. They're in front like more. >> It would technically be um West her I believe they're quite a distance away. >> Yeah. So it doesn't really impact any neighbor there. >> Nope, I don't believe so. >> I know the building and Yeah. So I think we'd be all right with that. Okay. >> That be assigned. How was that? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Uh Town Western Planning Board consider request by applicant Alyssa Connors to install 36 ft of decorative exterior lighting for Bloom and Blend located at 790 Ridge Road on a 7.2 2acre parcel having SPL number 079.17-1-15.1.
The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type 2 action under section 617.5C9 of the state environmental quality review environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. >> Okay, they have a motion second. >> Second. >> We have a second. All in favor? I >> I >> and a motion to approve the lights as presented. >> I'll do it again. I'll make a motion to approve the Bloom and Blend lights located at 790 Ridge Road as presented. >> Okay. Need a second? >> Second. >> You have a second. All in favor? >> I I Okay. All right. You're all set. Good luck with your lights.
>> Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> Have a good night. >> Okay. Next up on our agenda is vital sign building edition located. >> Yeah. Why don't we what I think we probably Well, how do you want to do it? You want I wanted to do the signs, but this isn't for a sign. This is for the building. >> No, I know. >> Should we go back? >> The signs are done. >> Then we should go right back up to the top again, I would guess. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, the cell tower. >> So, are we going to split them or should I just read them both? Talk about >> Oh, let's do one at a time, right? >> One at a time.
>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. One at a time. Absolutely. >> So, next up is Verizon Wireless Cell Ter tower Webster North located at 1222 Wildflower Drive. Applicant Robert Burgdorf for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems. DBA Verizon is requesting preliminary site plan approval in association with a 135 ft telecom tower with 4ft lighting rod lightning rod and associated ground mounted equipment on a 14.2 2 acre parcel having SPL number 065.05-1-48 located in the R3 single family residential district under section 269-5 and 350-12 of the code of Webster. >> Hello, my name is Laura Smith. I'm with Nixon Peabody and I'm representing this application.
I know the town has received a report from their outside consultant, the RF engineer. I don't know if we want to turn to that first or I'm happy to to just kind of jump right into my presentation, whichever is your preference. >> Go ahead. That's right. >> Okay, that's great. So, just to remind us of of where we have been with this application, this is a 135 ft tower to be located at 122 Wildflower Drive. This has been before the planning board. I think this is our third time coming before the planning board with this application. Uh, or I'm sorry, the second time. There are several themes that we want to highlight as we're going through the application and the supplemental information.
Should I move it closer? the supplemental information that we provided uh on August 27th. The first is to really hit home that there is a sign significant gap in coverage in this area. As demonstrated in our exhibits, it's F and Q of our applications and was independently confirmed by the town's RF engineer. There is a significant gap in wireless coverage in the Webster North cell. This area is currently served by three distant and overburdened sites. It's the Webster site, the Fort Mile Creek site, and Webster Park. All three sites have terrain and foliage challenges and result in significant gaps in both lowband and mid-band coverage in this area.
Moreover, the actual utilization data for the past year shows that several key performance indicators have already exceeded 100% utilization. As I'm sure you can imagine, it is Verizon's goal to build a tower before utilization, before that 100% utilization is maxed out, before the existing towers are exhausted. We are already there with these three towers as they serve Webster North. So that means that the existing network cannot meet current demand. This tower is necessary in this neighborhood. The goal of the project is to increase network capacity, provide reliable coverage to North Central Webster, and offload traffic from those existing overloaded sites.
I'll note one of the members during a public meeting testified that she had no cell coverage in her home and must leave her neighborhood to make a phone call. That's the exact problem we are trying to solve. If you're looking through your application on exhibit F and Q, page 14 in both exhibits show that the existing low band coverage in this neighborhood is akin to the type of coverage one would have on a rural highway subject to variable conditions such as fading and foliage and seasonality gaps. Page 18 of exhibit F and Q demonstrate there is little to little to no reliable midbatten coverage in this area.
And then as demonstrated on page 15 and 16 of exhibits F and Q, this project with this area will have wireless services appropriate for suburban single family residential homes. [laughter] Next, I'll note in our application the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide the effective coverage as demonstrated on page 23 and 24 of exhibit Q and was confirmed by the town's RF independent consultant. These supple supplemental propagation plots compared coverage at the proposed 134 foot antenna center line against a reduced height of 111 ft and 91 ft. So again comparing what the RF coverage would be if we had a lower tower uh with an antenna center line of 110 and an antenna center line of 91 ft.
In each scenario, both the lowband and the mid-band coverage are material materially compromised due to area clutter from dense old growth forests in these neighborhoods. The town's independent RF consultant also confirmed that the reduced height operations would create or expand the weak signal area uh to the north of the site along Schlaggel Road, Shoemaker Road to the west, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. I'll also note that we provided to the planning board's question, I believe at the prior meeting about why we need to go up higher. Are the are the trees growing? And the answer was yes.
We provided drone imagery showing that the tree canopy tree canopy and area clutter reach as high as 110 to 115 ft in this neighborhood. That foliage is what this line of sight needs to overcome. We need to be higher than the tree line. The proposed 130 foot antenna center line would pre place the antenna about 10 to 15 feet above that tree line which is typically the minimum clearance needed to maintain the effective RF performance which we need under these sight specific conditions. Third, I wanted to draw the board's attention to the fact that Verizon has conducted an exhaustive search for an alternative site and there's no viable alternatives that exist.
The record clearly demonstrates that there's no viable alternatives that would offer or improved visual visual impact and still serve our RF needs. Verizon has worked to resolve the significant coverage gap for years, including pursuing a lease for townowned property located in the neighborhood, and despite sustained good faith efforts, the town board declined to lease that property to to Verizon last summer. That is within their legislative purview. they are allowed to decline leasing to Verizon. That is a different ask before you today from a zoning perspective. What was before the town board is not for a lease is not comparable to what's before the planning board today for zoning approvals.
Following the town board's de decline declination to enter into a lease with Verizon, Verizon then undertook an exhaustive site selection analysis looking at 11 candidate parcels within and immediately outside the search area. that was since last summer. As shown on page 12 of exhibit of exhibit G, the search area is heavily wooded. As we mentioned before about the tree cover consists of predominantly smaller residential lots where a cell phone tower would not be appropriate to be located and there's wetlands which severely limit the available locations for this tower to be located. The selected site at one at 122 Wildflower Drive is the only candidate that is both technologically viable and available for lease.
The parcel also meets all applicable setback requirements, which is important when when doing an analysis for appropriateness for a tower. The remaining candidates, the remaining of those 11 candidates were eliminated due to parkland or wetland constraints, unwilling land owners, or an inability to satisfy RF coverage objections from locations outside the search area. As you may recall from a prior meeting, the ideal location would be to be in the center of a search area ring. However, to ensure that we were uncovering every stone and looking at every possibility, Verizon did look at sites that were outside of its search ring, although not necessarily assumed to be ideal for RF.
Went through a full RF analysis and confirmed those sites do not meet the coverage needs that are necessary for this neighborhood. Last, I'll I'll mention that the project will not have an adverse environmental effect. the we have previously testified on this fact and want to again stress that although there are there has been testimony in the past about perceived health effects for this project for both this project and for Lake Road and you may hear similar concerns tonight from the public but the science and the law are very clear on this issue. Boards are expressly preempted from denying or conditioning approvals of a wireless facility based on health or environmental effects of RF emissions where the facility complies with FCC standards.
We have provided this evidence. It is exhibit O in the application materials that the proposed facility will operate in full compliance with all applicable FCC regulations. That means the board is without authority to consider RF related health or environmental concerns when reviewing this application. Last, I'll note that tree cover also provides a substantial natural screening of the tower from area residents and the the high distance of the trees really serve as a screening from the from the tower itself from the residents that are immediately close to it. The project doesn't pollute. It doesn't create a noise.
It doesn't increase traffic. It doesn't create demand on governmental services. And it enhances emergency communications for police, fire, and other first responders. I'll conclude with the importance of wireless technology and its designation as a public utility under New York state law and the federal protections that are given under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As of December 2024, this is pursuant to an FCC order that was released just March of this year. So just a few months ago, the FCC noted that based on their review, which was from December of 2024, >> Mhm. >> there were approximately 390.9 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States.
And according to preliminary data from the center for disease control prevention as of December 2023, approximately 76% of adults were living in and relying on wirelessonly households with adults and lower age groups more likely to live in wirelessonly households. That means 76% of Americans don't have a home phone. And those residents that are living in this area that do not have coverage need to be afforded the coverage to make calls, to make emergency calls, to call family and friends. That is why we are given the protection of a public utility. Public utilities and infrastructure need to be in a specific place to serve a specific function.
And I think as you go through this application and hear from the town's independent engineer, you will hear that we have satisfied all of those requirements of demonstrating there is a need. This does satisfy the need and there are no alternative ways or sites to satisfy this need. So with that, I'll pause. I know that's a lot of information. I can take questions. Well, we received a whole lot of this information just in the past couple days even, you know, so I spent and I'm sure some of the board members have spent most of today going through it and trying to understand a lot of it, but a lot of the information that we've got is from the consultants that have been involved and I think they've done a really thorough job with it, but there's a lot of it here to verify what you're saying and based on that be honest with you.
I think we should probably slow down a little bit with this and maybe table this until everybody gets a chance to really respond and understand what all the verbiage is here. It is a public hearing. We we will open it and I will acknowledge that we did get a bunch of comments from neighbors and wildflower area and we'll enter that into the record. We'll keep that for sure. But I don't know if any board has any questions specific you want to bring up right now. >> And if I may ask as a point of order is the I believe the next step would be a referral from the planning board to the zoning board of appeals.
>> Understanding the planning board would like more time. We would be back before the planning board at the >> oh goodness first week of October. May we ask for the planning board to at least move us to the zoning board of appeals so we can continue through the uh approval process and the review process while the planning board is continuing its review of the materials. >> I don't know. Can you do they can do that, couldn't they? Would that be all right to do that? >> Go to the zoning board. >> They are on next week's agenda for a preliminary introduction of the project to the zoning board. Um, so I think that would be appropriate to allow it to at least continue moving through the process.
>> Moving. Yeah. I I don't see this being any problem. Do you? >> It's fine. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. I'm good. >> I don't see a problem with that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Then continue on to your meeting next week with the zoning board then >> and you'll be back here first of the month. >> Excellent. Are there any questions at this time? might address the board has any questions. I know there's a lot of there is a lot of stuff here. >> I have a question. >> I know. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. We're going to open it up. >> Let take care of it. >> Okay. Let Yeah. Go ahead. >> When I was reading through the information that we received, it seems like it it addressed all the comments that we had before and the concerns for coverage.
and it really does demonstrate that the places that were selected are the appropriate locations. >> Um, personally, I'm satisfied with the information that we received and that it's complete. >> Have you got Yeah, we got one as current is today. >> Yeah. I'm not sure that it's necessary to delay it. >> I I agree with you. I think what they have done has they've really done homework on this. >> Yeah. >> Everything that's you could possibly ask for, I think they've addressed. >> Yeah. Yeah, they've they've addressed they've addressed. We've got the response. It makes sense. I'm not sure what another 30 days is going to give you.
>> Well, personally, I would have the same. >> You're aware of it. I am, but I don't know if anybody if everybody's gone through it all, too, because again, we just got some of the stuff today. >> I appreciate that, Derek. But I do think it gives others in the community an opportunity to review the same information, and I think we should afford that that opportunity. >> Sure. Why don't we do this? Let's um if anyone wants to speak in regard to this one. So this is the one the first one on on wildflower. Um just go up to the mic and give us your name and address and if you have something if you can do it please do it in three minutes because after that I kind of lose track of everybody.
Okay. Anyone wish to speak to us? Sure ma'am. Go ahead. [clears throat] My name is Barb Robbins and I live at 1205 Wildflower Drive. I also submitted a petition to the board um to Josh on Friday with 95 residents in our neighborhood. >> Um one of the things that we're concerned about is they talk about the tree canopy. What happens as the tree canopy continues to grow? Are they going to come in and start cutting down trees in our neighborhood so that you know the rod doesn't have to continue to go upward? Nobody seems to be able to answer that. I know that's a question that was asked multiple times along the way because they state right now that, you know, it has to be a clear opening for those radio frequencies to work.
That's not something that unless you're going in and cutting down the trees completely. And our neighborhood has a lot of older trees that are very beautiful. And that's part of the reason that a lot of the residents, you know, are in that neighborhood when they first purchased homes. They like that. It's not like a new development where you're going in and the trees are, you know, five, six feet high. So, that's something that we would like answered. If the board does approve this, are they willing to make Verizon camouflage that tower as they've done in Pittsburgh where they make it into that monopine because it was just stated that we aren't going to see the tower.
That's not true. There are very few pine trees in that neighborhood. They are all going to be bare fall, winter, and early spring. And I'm one of the people that will walk out of my house and be able to see that. I don't want to see a tower in my neighborhood. That's not why we bought our home 24 years ago. So, I think that needs to be considered. There are people in the neighborhood that have recently put homes up for sale. And there have been neighbors that have run into individuals who were going to put in offers on homes. And they've stated, "We don't want to put in an offer on this house, not not knowing what Verizon is going to do if the tower is going to go in.
Is it going to um, you know, make our home values decrease? Who's going to guarantee that that isn't going to happen? >> Okay. >> Would you want it to be in your backyard? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else wish to speak? >> No. Come on. People talk. >> Hello. Uh, can you hear me? Okay, there you go. Uh Cameron Cox, opposing view. Uh I give us your name and address. >> Uh Cameron Cox, 1257 Labaron Circle right here in Webster. Uh I've been uh wireless cell phone for probably 35 years and the last three years because of all the building. My business has suffered because I can't take a cell phone call in my own home, my office.
I understand they're unsightly. I think there's ways that they can camouflage it. But I just want to remind the board that this is something that's been going on for years. The need is excessive. It's damaging businesses. It's damaging residents. I can't even get a hold of my parents in their 90s in my own house. So from my point of view, it's something that is infrastructure that needs to be done. >> That's it. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I see him. >> Hi, I'm Rick Stacecy. Um 12 uh 1491 Providence Drive here in Webster. Um concerned about the fact that we have to continually fight this this uh process.
Uh we beat the cell tower last year and keep coming back. There's a claim, the attorney claims that there are no health issues. We've stated I've given to the board um at least 50 incidences around the country where there are health issues. Okay? I'm sure there's 50 or 100 incidences or or u uh research reports that shows that there aren't health issues. But we're not sure. We don't know. We don't know if there's a health problem. We'll know 50 years from now. None of us may be here. All right? But our children, our grandchildren will be here, right? We should worry about them. So that's something.
They also talk about coverage. They talk about coverage over and over again. But I got three instances where they got cell towers on top of each other. There's one in Aronda or there's two in Randquite. All right. Empire and Winton. All right. Right across almost right across the street. There's one on top of the uh the Helenale. um office building. When you're coming down 590 or I'm sorry, when you're coming down 104 heading east and you're crossing over 590, there's two cell towers less than 100 ft apart. Okay. Right here in Webster Hard Road where the buses park, there's two cell towers in that in that parking lot less than 100 feet apart.
What are we talking about coverage? I think we're being slightly misled. All right. Can the town deny this? Yeah, I think the town has the ability to deny this. All right. They did it before. I think they can do it again. As far as the issue of we need the the cell towers there to provide coverage because people need cell phones. People need to be able to communicate. People make a choice. They make a choice. I'm going to have cell phone or I'm going to have a landline. Landlines are still available. All right. Landlines don't hurt anybody. Cell phones, we don't know yet. So, we should consider that.
All right. If your business is suffering or if you can't get a hold of loved ones, put a landline in your house. I got one in my house. All right. It's available. I use a cell phone all the time. By the way, I live right around the corner from where the site is proposed. I don't have any coverage issues and I don't live on that street. That's all I got to say. Please think about the residents, not about Verizon. >> Okay. Thank you, Rich. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Hi, everyone. Um, I'm Christina Mchuan. I live on Wildflower Drive. You may remember me. I was uh 38 weeks pregnant here last time in May. Since had a baby, and that's part of the reason why I'm here.
I just really want to emphasize the fact that those regulations that were brought up were done in 1996. Nothing has been updated since 1996. The laws and what's required. So although there has been studies done since then, the requirements have not changed and a lot of technology has. So I really want to keep that in mind. Also, we you can see we have so many people from our neighborhood here. We're really trying not to have this. We've already fought it once and we're coming back again. We're very passionate about where we live. We have a great community and I just really want you guys to consider that like the previous residents have said.
Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Yes, sir. >> [clears throat] >> My name is Justin Jenner. I live at 1512 Province Drive, right next to Rick. I was here last year when this was all going on. Um, and I wanted to come this year. I have four kids, all under the age of seven. I realize that the legality of this is we can't win on the health concerns of the the town's people. However, a couple things I just want to reiterate. On top of what Rick said and what the MS just said before me, many townships in Europe are taking a precautionary approach on cell towers because the data is inconclusive on what it does from a health perspective to its towns people.
they have more power in the European Union to do that type of uh or to have that type of decision making. We don't have that here, right? But that's something that we shouldn't dismiss because they are still looking at under trying to understand what exactly those health issues are that are potentially being caused by this. I have four kids. I do not want to grow up I don't want them to grow up next to a cell tower and they would be very close to the cell tower. I understand that folks have issues about not having coverage and things like that. You have other options. You can get uh wireless internet that'll connect to your phone to make calls.
You can get a landline. You can go with satellite cell coverage. Those are three inexpensive options. And if it's for your business, you can write that off as a taxable deduction. Right? There's many options. If you put that cell tower in the proposed area, my only option if I don't want to be there is to sell my house. And I know that there's many people in that area that have the same exact feelings that I do because they have young kids that do not want to grow up next to a cell phone tower. So, I understand what the FDA says. I understand what the regulations say, but guess what? Legislation is always usually slower to the cause than what making things right than what actually is set in stage right now.
Right? So if you think about lead, right? We used to have lead in gas. We used to have lead in paint. You don't have that anymore. Right? Many of many examples of things that we originally had is products that we used readily that then we came back and said, "Wait a second. These things cause too many issues. So, I want you to think about that. I reiterate what Rick said. This is the town's people. I know some people want it, but the majority of us don't because I don't want my kids growing up next. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Go ahead. >> Okay.
Uh I'm Dennis Gorlick and I'm speaking on behalf of the conservation board. Um I know that we did a uh we typically do site reviews of places that might have some issues. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Um on the 29th of uh April, we did conduct a site review this site with the cooperation of Verizon who who arranged for us access to this site because it's a private property site. Um, and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to talk about it. Maybe we wait until we get further along. >> I would rather, Dennis, I would rather we hold off on that. Okay. >> Let the board review this thing too.
We just I just got this thing yesterday. >> Just want to mention a few things for people who are in the audience. We do look at things like uh would there be a significant erosion or effect on wetlands by this site being built? So, we do look at that and we make recommendations. Um, we do also look at whether or not there might be any significant uh um damage to mature trees and we did make a recommendation that's probably can be um followed in terms of identifying some mature trees. Uh when and if this is um approved, we look strictly at environmental issues. We don't look at anything else. There are there are things that the town engineer looks at.
Um there are um a lot of evidence that a lot of the trees we look at whether the trees are used by significant groups of animals and if they are we ask that they uh um mark some of those trees and if at all possible keep them there when they do construction. It looks like they're in the perimeter. and also um avoid taking any trees down during the months of the year that >> that's all active. Correct. Okay. >> Why don't we give everybody a chance to review this because we've got a long >> No, that'd be great. We just want to let everyone know that this is part of the process and uh >> we had our wetland biologist member of the team look at this.
So, >> great. Thanks. And >> did everyone get a copy of the >> You all got them? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Get a chance to look at them then. and you did some good work on it. There's some deep research on it for sure. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to comment? Yes. Kevin. Hi folks. Kevin Lockart here, resident of the town of Webster. Um, I recognize that Verizon has presented evidence of a legitimate legitimate need for improved wireless coverage and capacity in North Webster. Tonight, the planning board is considering preliminary site plan approval for a telecommunications tower at 1222 Wildflower Drive and R3 single family residential property.
I ask the t the planning board to focus on the operative standards Webster has already adopted to ensure the public record contains the evidence necessary to apply each one. The first is to establish the exact height. Section 130-10 of the zoning code establishes a maximum cell tower height of 100 ft including antennas, extensions, and other devices extending above the tower. and that's a recommendation by them that the planning board does not have to approve. Verizon's January zoning drawings identified a 135 ft monopole and a highest height of approximately 139 ft above ground level. Tonight's planning board agenda describes a 125 ft tower with a 4ft lightning rod.
That revision needs to be clearly established on the public record. What the question is what is the exact tower height now proposed and what is the antenna center line and what is the maximum overall height of the tower including the lightning rod. Second, we need to establish the planning board needs to establish why this amount of height is justified. Verizon has presented comparisons at approximately 134, 111, and 91 foot antenna center lines and argues that reducing the height materially compromises coverage, but Webster's standard is still 100 ft. The record should establish exactly what happens at those intermediate heights closer to the 100 foot standard.
And what does Verizon achieve at 100 ft that makes it insufficient? And what about 110, 120, or 125 ft? The question should not be whether a taller tower performs better. The record should demonstrate the technical justification for the amount of height actually requested. The third issue is the location. Section 130-12 of the zoning code establishes a preference for higher intensity property where a technologically feasible and available alternative exists. Existing structures suitable for colllocation receive the highest preference, followed by commercial property and then government property before residential categories.
R3 zoning is legally permissible, but it's by no means preferred. Verizon says it examined 11 alternative parcels and concluded that Wildflower is the only site both technologically viable and available for lease. The public record should demonstrate that conclusion candidate by candidate. Which preferred locations were unavailable, which were technologically infeasible, and which simply produced less desirable radio frequency performance. Those are different findings that the record should clearly distinguish between. The fourth that I mentioned issue that I mentioned is the collocation. Section 130-12 states that at all times shared use of existing towers are preferred to the construction of new towers.
The code requires an inventory of existing towers, consideration of shared use opportunities, and documentation concerning good faith efforts to obtain shared use. So the record should specifically establish why existing towers or structures cannot reasonably accomplish the network objective. The record should demonstrate why the collocation >> and actually actually the things you're saying this is really what this whole thing has been about. They have gone and we've the town has gotten you know these outside engineers to come in and research all the all their findings and some they agree with some they question and so on so forth.
That's >> I understand that Tony and I do appreciate you clarifying that. I know a lot of this is redundant, but I'm just pushing back to make it as difficult as possible for the planning board to um >> we don't need that. >> Approve the, you know, approve the project. That's all. >> Time is up, Kevin. But thank you. >> Uh and then Okay. >> The last one I was going to talk about was the visual impact. Okay. >> Thanks, Kevin. Appreciate it. >> Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is My name is Jill Moravka and I'm at 1191 Scandia Drive. We own three and a half acres and our backyard butts up to where they're going to put this because it is the 1222 Wild Flower Lane.
So, they're going to take down the trees in in in the forest, which now is going to make it very visual for us to see, and it's going to be close enough to our property line that when we sit in our backyard, we're not only going to see it, we're going to hear it. And we are residential. We bought our home there 13 years ago because we were in a rural community. We had wonderful property. it there's a creek there are all these trees and yes they are mature trees >> and if there's an 100 foot that you're not supposed to go over why would we allow why would the town allow them to just go higher than the the trees they need to find another location it it doesn't work there if you have to eliminate what is there to put this tower then it shouldn't be there not only is it a residential area with this giant tower that you're about to put up there.
It's going to be an eyesore for people even further because it's going to be even bigger. And I'm sorry you don't have service, but where this Tyra is going is my backyard and I have fine service. We worked for, you know, the better part of COVID. My husband and I both 10 hours a day from our computers. We don't have a landline. I have never had a problem getting a call. And I'm I'm like again I'm sorry you you don't but maybe it should be closer to your house because I mean I'm not trying to be mean. I was not like but I mean if you can't get it >> direct don't >> I'm sorry but I was just saying for his coverage cuz I do feel bad of people that don't have coverage with their cell phones.
I know that you know the landline has been you know made a little redundant for some people. >> Um but I just wanted to say I'm very con this project. >> Okay >> that's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. This is one of the big issues we've had right from the beginning. It's a cell tower. The the sites are selected. Not by the town by any means. And if it goes here, the people complain there. Where would you want it to go? Over there. Oh, then it's bothering somebody else. No matter where you put a cell tower, it's impacting someone. And alls we can do is the best we can do I should say is deal with as we just did we [clears throat] hear it we listen to it all from from the uh Verizon people and went to the extent of hiring an outside consultant to do all the homework on this here look you want to see this is this is just part of the papers just for this one now there's another cell tower too and a lot of this we just got I mean I can read pretty good, but I can't read all this in a couple hours time.
So, it's got to be absorbed and a lot of it are the comments, uh, the rebuttals from the organization that's doing the review on it. They're giving us the report and it's interesting, but it's it's there's a lot there to be read, a lot to be understood. So, that's why I'm suggesting, ma'am, you know, that we table this thing. Okay. >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, before we move on, um I just want to remind the board that the third party RF consultant is in attendance tonight and is prepared to um speak to his analysis and findings. >> That would be interesting to hear. >> Where is he? Oh, yes, sir.
I'm sorry. Trouble hearing you. So, sorry. >> Oh, no. Go ahead, please. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Uh good evening, uh Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is William Johnson. uh professor emeritus from Rochester Institute of Technology. Uh my uh colleague, Professor Steven Chikarelli and I have gone over both this application and the uh one at Lake Road. Uh so I would be glad to give you a quick rundown. Uh we could spend hours doing this and uh if any of my students are in the audience, I know that they're trembling right at the moment because they know that this could uh this could take some time.
There's a lot of moving parts to these applications. So, I'll try to focus just on the uh north um uh Webster North uh site at this point. Uh so, as I'm listening to the comments, and I wasn't this isn't part of our report, but I I want to just share this with you. I've been through hundreds of these uh analysis through many municipalities throughout New York State, Pennsylvania, and on the West Coast. Uh, one of the problems that all municipalities deal with is that you're saddled with the burden of federal law that requires that you respond to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the multiple court decisions that followed uh that [clears throat] particular piece of legislation.
Uh I I would suggest uh if it's helpful to you to refer uh your residents uh the place that they should be registering their complaints is with the senator representatives from New York State and the House of Representative uh uh folks, the representatives in the House uh because they are the ones who are the shepherds of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They could change that legislation and they could make it either easier for you to uh deny an application. It doesn't fit into a community or as in as is presently the case, the Federal Communications Commission has a proposed rulemaking that would largely take all of the uh jurisdiction and discretion that you have to deny these sites uh off the table and would remove that essentially between the FCC and the service providers.
they would leave very little for you to do. Now, that has not gone to the point of of being written in code and it has not gone to Congress for legislation, but I would ask you to uh keep that in mind because that is going on in the back room right now and there's al there's been a proposed rule making comments have come in and gone out. There's over 3,000 comments that went to that particular piece of legislation. So uh so I would I would respectfully suggest to the residents that are here the place if if you're going to speak to this board. Okay, this board has a jurisdiction right now to look at did the applicant uh identify a significant service gap.
Is the proposed solution going to be something that will actually remedy that gap? And the third thing is is it the least intrusive approach that could be accomplished technically feasible? That includes land control. It includes anything you can think of in terms of feasibility. If they have met that burden, right now that's what the current law uh requires. So, u and I defer of course to your attorney to give you that advice. U I I happen to also be an attorney, but that's not my role here tonight. My role here tonight is to uh speak to you about the technical merits of the site. So having said that um those three thresholds the identification of a significant gap uh my colleague and I have looked at the propagation plots from uh Verizon and they definitely do show a service gap uh in both in coverage and in terms of capacity.
And what happens is when neighbor sites that are already serving an area have so many users that are trying to receive and transmit data and receive and make phone calls that there's only so much bandwidth uh that the FCC is allocated to the service providers. When that bandwidth is exceeded, everybody's service level starts to drop. You try to make a phone call, it won't go through. even though you show five bars on your phone, uh the call won't go through because there's not available capacity at the serving site to be able to handle the traffic. This proposed site will drop a what's called a dominant server into the area where there currently is very weak uh coverage, but there's some coverage, but that some coverage is being provided by the adjacent uh neighbor cells.
and those neighbor cells are being saturated already by users that are trying to make and receive phone calls and send and receive data. So that that's really what the problem is right now. So there's a significant gap. It's both coverage radio frequency signal and capacity because the existing neighbor sites can't handle that traffic. Dropping a new site in would add more capacity will place the stronger signal in the area where right now the adjacent sites are trying to uh serve the area and it would solve for the time being until the demands continue to grow and they have for for the decade now.
Uh demand has continued to grow for wireless service and I would expect that that sort of thing would continue but that's a question perhaps for another day. Uh so um this particular site is a 135 ft monopole with a lightning rod that's on the top. There are two different dimensions that show up in this application. I just want to be sure everybody's clear on what that is. There's the height of the tower and the lightning rod that goes on the top. And there's this other thing which is abbreviated ACL. It stands for antenna center line. So some of these antennas are about 8 feet. Okay, from the ground to about this height above my head.
Some of those antennas are about 8 feet long. The center of that antenna is about four feet down. So in round numbers when Verizon runs a propagation plot, you always do it to the center of the antenna. That's the height that's important. Although you need the whole antenna to do its job, but it's the antenna center line just to keep it simple. So you'll see on the propagation plots antenna center line values, but you'll see in the application different things about the height of the tower and the lightning rod that goes on top of it. That's [clears throat] 39 139 ft. The antenna center lines are the ones that are on the propagation plants.
So uh we looked at uh as I said we looked at those materials and now those materials are provided by Verizon. So I already know that you are very skeptical to say you know well here's somebody saying that they have a problem that they have to solve and how do we know it's actually a real problem. So, we have communicated about drive testing and about, you know, other types of ways to ascertain whether or not that information is accurate. As I mentioned before, I've been through several hundred of these sites throughout New York State. Not all of them, but a handful of them at least uh have had what are called monitored drive tests where I was actually on site, checked the equipment uh for accuracy.
Had the drive test run, compared whether or not the measurements were repeatable, and then here was the real good part. I got to compare that data to the propagation tool that was used to make the prediction in the first place. There's a very good correlation these days between the propagation tool results and the drive test that one would get if you actually ran a vehicle around the road and picked up those samples of the signals. So that's kind of good news, right? Is that the computer-based analysis is very accurate. If we were having this conversation 30 years ago, I wouldn't be saying that there was a big discrepancy between what the tool actually predicted and what a drive test would would show.
And so at that time a lot of comparison was done between drive tests and simulation tools. But what I can tell you is based on my experience for these monitor drive tests. When I've had the opportunity to compare a drive test to a propagation tool result, all things being equal, it's not exact. It never is because trucks get in between the car and the and the tower. Uh there's other type of anomalies that happen. uh but to a very good approximation, the computer-based simulation predicts very well what's going on. To help you with this, uh there's a website that's called opensignal.com. Other word open ops signal.com.
You can look on opensignal.com and you load an app on your phone and then you can actually observe what the measured test is from multiple people who are running the same app. It's sending and receiving data. It's measuring signal strength. It's the same sort of thing as a drive test except it's multiple people that are actually doing this. And it's all correlated. It's cold together and you can view it on the app. So, as a matter of routine, Professor Cherelli and I look at that information when we're going into a site. Sometimes the data is there that we can use and sometimes it isn't there.
There is data for uh this particular site and perhaps at another meeting uh we can talk about how that correlated but the answer is it correlates very well. What opensal.com shows is pretty much what the propagation plots that Verizon has proposed for existing coverage show. Okay, there's weak signal in the area that they say there's weak signal and there's strong signal where they say there is strong signal. So, it's a very good comparison and it's certainly is an independent thing. Now, there's other ways to take those measurements that we've talked about before, but I think you'd probably be satisfied looking at that information, and I would be happy at some point to walk you through that.
I don't have the graphics for that right at hand. Uh, but I would glad to talk with you about that. Let me pause here for a second. I That was a lot of information probably. Uh, are there questions that I can clarify and then I'll move on. >> I have a question from a legal standpoint. It's probably more for the zoning. Um but when when our code says that the maximum fee should be the maximum feet should be 100 uh and rising is mode and perhaps probably what a lot of people are disgruntled about because they'll see it above the canopy. Um, did you review whether or not a 100 foot tower that would satisfy the code could be ac could accomplish the same thing as a 125 or or or I'm sorry, eliminate the gap that they say they have?
>> Could a 100 foot in other words, could a 100 foot tower eliminate this gap and zoning board to your lawyer? I'll ask in the supplement available last week uh on uh left sites do compromise the coverage. Now having having said that could multiple sites be put in to fill in and bolster that coverage? Sure it could be done. Okay. uh power keeps growing more question for me as much and would they be willing to accept the compromised coverage I've had that discussion with their head RF engineer they are not willing to compromise that coverage and there's no other alternatives that he's willing to consider uh that would actually address that issue at a lower tower height but besides if get down below the trees.
Okay, now that disrupts how the signal propagates through the trees. You can't have antennas shooting through trees uh because of the the radio signal just gets absorbed by by the canopy. So that's why the drone footage that they show in the application materials. Uh it has to be about 10 to 15 feet above the top of the canopy so it can skim along the top and dive in when it needs to. So So that's maybe the uh long answer to your simple question, right? at the at the lower heights the uh uh coverage is compromised. Was there a was there a followup on that or >> Well, yeah. I mean, I just I guess ultimately the question then then becomes are you saying that the gap in the coverage can't be satisfied at 100 ft?
It has to be 125 or we're not >> we're not sure or does it have to be 125? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. in order to get the the coverage that they need. The proposed height is what they're asking for. And if you go lower than that proposed height, the tree canopy, terrain, and a host of other obstacles between the user and the base station uh start to cause a problem. So that's our opinion is that that the proposed height is at or near the minimum height that could be accomplished unless one starts breaking the system up into multiple towers and putting and these these would not be like 20 foot towers, right?
I mean, you know, you're talking 70, 80 foot towers, multiple towers in people's backyards, right? I mean, the the impact of those probably is more than the impact of this one particular tower, which goes to the chairman's comments before. >> Yeah. Actually, years ago when we first got the first cell towers in town, we set the height at 100 foot thinking that would reduce it wouldn't be such an impact on neighborhoods and so forth. Come to find out though, you needed more of them to accomplish the coverage, right? >> So the the code never got changed. In my opinion, I think it probably should get changed, but it is what it is today.
So therefore, an applicant is looking for variances. >> Yeah. And and the code does actually serve a purpose because it actually causes an applicant to come before you or before the zoning board of appeals and demonstrate need. That's not not a bad thing, right? So so so having that number in there, uh not a bad thing. >> Uh what else can I tell you about this? Um you know, speaking of Webster North in in particular, um we did look at the uh alternative sites uh that were listed in the application. Um, you know, and we always ask that question of the board. If you know of other sites which might have been better sites, uh, they should be looked up.
I think you've already been asked that question because, you know, at least a couple of sites I think were proposed by the by the board. So, Verizon has already looked at that. We didn't know that. We were not involved until uh, you know, just last couple of months. >> Uh, so uh, so you've already done that. Um, one of the uh items that we had as a as a uh uh a finding uh and and this was not directly addressed yet by Verizon and and you may not need it to be addressed, but we we put it there because you're the decision makers. We're just the ones who try to point these things out. Uh there's a process they go through to identify land control.
Uh so they, you know, they do mailings to, you know, land owners of record. uh maybe they get a response back from them, maybe they don't. Uh they probably follow up. I'm I'm not 100% sure what that process is that they go through, but they haven't really documented that for you. So, if you're satisfied that they have made an adequate uh attempt to reach land owners where there was no response, then our our finding is mood on that particular point. Uh you might know that they have done that. Uh we don't. So, that's why we put it in as as a finding. But in terms of all the other findings that we had in our preliminary report uh from back in August, I believe uh that uh all of those findings have been in our opinion adequately addressed to the point that the board could look at the results and look at the answers and then be able to weigh that to do that third prong of Willith, which is is it the least intrusive uh means to actually address the significant gap that they've identified?
And of course, we'll stand by to try to help you with that if you if we can do that. >> I think you've done a great job with this thing. Quite honestly, I've >> quite a bit of it already and your comments and your responses to the questions and so on and so forth and pretty clear and concise. I think that's good. I think it's just a matter of everybody getting a chance to review it and get up to speed with it. That's all. >> I think you've done a great job, Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you kindly and certainly credit goes to Professor Chikarelli. He did the the uh bulk of the research on this and putting the findings together and then he and I hammered it out and >> had some fisty cuffs to to get things right.
So, but I I appreciated his hard work. He's probably listening tonight from Tennessee, by the way. >> Sir, I I echo Mr. Croad's comments. I also appreciated the fact that you put regulatory citations in your footnotes >> because I I think it makes it much easier to understand the basis of the regulations and how they apply to some of your findings. >> Well, I'm glad you found it helpful. Thank you. Thank you for that comment. I appreciate it. I'll yield the podium at this point unless there's any further questions. And >> I had a just a quick Yeah, I did a Josh. Do you mind putting up the application from Verizon uh the one that's linked in our agenda and like go to page 48?
of the application. This is really more of a question to the consultant. So basic question, you know, we have two applications essentially before us, Webster North and Holton Lake um with kind of the gap analysis that was pro provided for Ryzen and there seems to be some overlap between the two towers. The question being, you know, if Webster North proceeds, is Holt and Lake really still needed? Or if Holton Lake proceeds with the gap over overlapped, is really Webster North still needed? >> Um, and I was just wondering if that was evaluated. >> Some of what you're saying, I'll move my the mic over here perhaps.
Uh, some of what you're seeing is in that overlap is the capacity relief that the new site will bring. uh because you can't draw traffic off of the existing sites unless that coverage unless the signal is stronger. So the phones which are in that particular location are actually drawn to the new base station. So the overlap is in is intentional. Also, when you're moving on a road between two base stations, uh there's a process called handoff that occurs as as one signal starts to fade and the other one starts to pick up. Uh the mobile controller makes a decision to switch off to the other base station at that point.
You need to have a little bit of overlap uh for that sort of thing to happen. But for capacity, you need to have a lot of overlap because you're trying to actually pull traffic to the new site and leave the old site uh less burdened by the traffic that was there. So the uh the Holt and uh uh the Holt site uh that's up to the north is actually a small cell uh site that's up on the top of a uh a small pole. Uh they put the pole in for this and it has a omniirectional canenna that's up on the top of the pole and it essentially is a fillin so that the proposed site doesn't have to be quite as tall.
That site is already actually built and it's installed except they don't have fiber run to it yet. they've been waiting for uh whoever puts the fiber in to bring it up to that particular site. So, they can't actually use the site yet until they get that fiber back haul in place. The back hole is where once the base station receives the signal, all the data to and from that particular facility uh runs along the fiber back to a central office essentially that >> is is there fiber already established at this location? >> Uh one more time, please. >> Is there fiber already established at this location or will this tower just sit and wait?
I I I'm guessing it is not there yet. U and it would ha it would also have to be uh installed, but I I I defer to the applicants. I know Tim Tim knows the answer to that, but >> did answer your question? Okay, >> it did. The only other question I had is so initially sites H through K were rejected outside the search areas when uh the applicants presented to us. you know, now with the again looking at both applications, if Holden Lake goes in, um, would the alternate search areas that were rejected H through K be something that should be considered again as an RF analysis as in, you know, moving the tower potentially further southeast away from residences if Holton Lake was to be installed.
>> Yeah, I suspect our attorney Smith is coming to answer the question. Let me take a quick crack at it which is uh we asked uh uh the uh RF engineers to actually on the propagation tool turn Holton Lake on because we wanted to see what it what its performance was because that may indeed affect uh you know the other site and it doesn't right alls it does is fill in an area that the proposed site would not cover and Holton Lake will pick up the slack on that particular area. >> So I don't know if that's what you were gonna >> No, that was perfect. I did just want to clarify though um despite a a similar naming convention that is not the other macro tower that is before the planning board on tonight's agenda.
That's Lake Road. So I do I do just want to clarify that the the lake and halt is a small cell which is essentially a as professor Johnson was saying it it's uh it fills in a hole. It's a band-aid um to be able to serve a very small but highly used and intensely used area. So, if you'll note on the on the map where Holt and Lake is, that is where Webster Park is. So, it's serving, you know, events such as the Turkey Trot or the White the uh county's White House is there. So, it's really supposed to be a small booster that is allowing more individuals to connect in a very small tight space. So, I I did want to clarify that the proposal before you for Webster North is really apples and oranges to the small cell at Holton Lake and a different application from the Lake Road uh which is also before the board.
>> That was that was actually in your paper. I went through that in specific those two points too. >> Yeah. >> I think my last question here is primarily for Verizon. So um in in the application said that the antennas must clear 110 to 115 foot clutter of function. Uh but future colllocators in the same application indicate would be in that range of you know 115 to 110. So you wouldn't be able to necessarily have a future colllocator on this poll. It would just service Verizon and not anybody else. >> So I can't speak to how a different and actually Professor Johnson may um how a different provider's network works, right?
So, we can only look for our antenna center line to where we need to shoot to for that line of sight. And that is to the Webster, the four mile creek, the Webster Park, four mile creek and Webster tower. Yes, I remembered them all. Uh so, so those lines of sight is what the antenna center lines are shooting towards. I you make a good observation of that those two heights are the same, but we can't at this time speak to what another carrier's need would be to fill in the network. >> Yeah, I guess my concern would be another carrier coming in and saying I need a tower here as well now because I can't colllocate.
>> That that is a future possibility. It also might be we will be back before the board for to increase the height. >> Mhm. But I I can't speak to now what a future carrier would need. But to meet Verizon's need and and again being respectful that we do want to have the tower at the lowest height possible to meet the network needs that are before the board today. That is the 130 foot tower with 130 foot center line. to to go up any higher for lower attachments would necessitate us asking for a higher pole than we can demonstrate at this time. We don't I don't I can't recall any anybody other than Verizon putting cell towers in the area here and one of the stipulations is if AT&T or whoever wants to come in they colllocate by code to it's required that they you know find them a collocation on a on a current tower which is generally Verizon's obviously.
>> Yeah. But in this case they wouldn't be able to do it right. >> Yeah. I don't know >> because they would have to colllocate it into the tree line. >> Oh, yes, please. >> Yeah, I don't know. >> Yeah, if if uh if you look back at the July 24th Webster North uh preliminary report that Professor Cherelli and I issued to you, uh finding number 12 deals exactly with your question. Mhm. >> There is a provision in uh the current FCC regulations that say that if another service provider wants to come in >> that there is a provision for increasing the height of the tower to accommodate them uh without uh pretty much this type of process.
Uh so that's that's again that's federal law that's not kind of Webster code, right? So any any concerns about that need to be addressed to the folks who actually write those things which is uh the US Congress. >> But it can only be the height can only be so much. I mean then you have you got to get away from a monopole. >> Yep. Yeah. Well well the height I I I I I forget exactly what the numbers are off the top of my head but it's 10% or 10 feet or 20 feet above the top of the existing pole and they is one bite of that apple. So once that happens once >> nobody else can do it again. Now, it has to go through the full zoning review, but but that's in our findings because I wanted you to be aware that that's a possibility.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm not suggesting that that's a reason for denying this application. >> Mhm. >> It would allow this tower at this location to fall into a neighbor's yard based on the because right now it's to that land owner. >> Webster North report say what are the exceptions of If consideration needs to be given to collocation capability and if the application should have accounted for that as an increase then the location that it's currently cited on should be altered for that. >> I don't see that as part of this application whatsoever. we had before is an application for a height of a tower of a specific height.
>> If a single use >> if they paint it blue or if they paint it black, it's still a tower of a specific height. You can't speculate on what may happen in the future. >> We're not appro We don't approve based on speculation. >> We approve based on the application we have in front of us. >> Okay. Um anybody I think that's your [clears throat] opinion of the board. Table this and >> yeah, I think there's still a lot to discuss. >> Review all the paperwork. I mean, again, there's >> volumes of it here to go through and Mr. Johnson actually did a real good job of explaining quite a bit of that stuff, too.
So, that was good. >> Um, okay. So [clears throat] >> can we ask to request to table this to the next meeting then and let you keep moving to the zoning board approving that? >> Okay. >> Yes. Is if >> that way you're still moving along to keep this process to you know if it's going to keep moving. Okay. >> Yes. We we certainly appreciate the town allowing this process to continue so we can >> go before the zoning board. Then I I will make a motion to table the application for uh Verizon communications for the wild 1222 wildflower project uh tabled until what's the meeting in >> October >> October what is it?
>> 6th >> okay till October 6th of this year. >> That'd be a motion we need a second. Second. >> We'll call the rule authority. >> Mr. Kashani. >> Hi. >> Mr. Malta. >> Hi. >> Mr. Anderson. >> No. >> Mr. Veter. >> I. >> Mr. Jassic. >> I. >> Miss. Sm. >> I. >> All right. So, it's tabled until next month. >> Now, you've got the second one. >> Yep. >> You still got to deal with that. So, Verizon Communications Tower located at Lake Road and County Line Road. Applicant Robert Burgdorf for Bell Atlantic. >> Thank you folks that came in. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Mobile Systems DBA Verizon is requesting preliminary site plan approval in association with 125 ft telecommunications tower with a 4ft lightning rod and associated ground mounted equipment on a 7.8 8 acre parcel having SPL number 037.03-1-44 located in the large lot residential district under sections 269-5 and 350-13 [clears throat] of the code of the town of Webster.
Thank you. I am still Laura Smith with Nixon Peabody representing this application. I will try to focus on the differences between this application and Webster North. Um, but also want to make sure that we have a robust record and and I'm able to address all the questions that you have that are particular to Lake Road. Um, as noted, this is at the corner of Lake Road and Monro Monroe Wayne County Line Road. This is a 125 ft tower. Uh so it is that uh a different height than the the Webster North tower. But similar to Webster North as demonstrated in our application materials and confirmed by the town's independent consultant, there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in this cell as well.
This area is currently served by three distant overburden sites. It continues to be served by Four Mile Creek and East Webster. However, this site is also served by a tower at Gennai. All three sites are terrain and foliage challenged resulting in significant gaps in both lowband and mid-band coverage. Moreover, as we noted before, the actual utilization of data for the past year shows that several key performance indicators have already exceeded 100% utilization at these other three existing towers. That means the existing network cannot meet the current demand that is shown in exhibit F of our application pages seven and nine.
The goals of this project are to increase network capacity, provide reliable coverage to the Lake Road service area in northeastern Webster, and offload traffic from existing overloaded sites. Here, which is somewhat different than the Webster North application, the mid-band comparison is [clears throat] particularly significant. In addition to the midband coverage being weak, being able to put up this tower will both address the lower midband coverage as well as by providing significant mid or or sufficient mid-band coverage in this area. It will then free up the low band congestion that's happening at this site.
These items are demonstrated. Page 18 of exhibit F is the existing mid-band coverage which shows there is no reli little to no reliable mid-band coverage in this area. Page 14 shows that Lake Road cell has existing low band low band coverage that's akin to rural or suburban and incar applications. And then page 15 and 19 of exhibit F show how those two coverage gaps would be solved with the project as proposed. Just like in our Webster North, the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide the effective coverage in this area. As shown in exhibit R and B of our application and was also confirmed by the town's independent consultant, the supplemental propagation plots compare coverage at the proposed 100 ft antenna center line.
So again, we discussed the 125 ft tower has 120 center line uh against a reduced height of 95 ft, which would be akin or close to the 100 foot tower permitted under the code. As confirmed by the count the town's consultant, a 95 foot foot a 95 foot tower is too low to overcome the area terrain and the foliage and does not allow for the necessary coverage improvements, capacity overloads and the network densification needed in this area. Also like Webster North, we have conducted an exhaustive alternative site analysis and no viable alternatives exists. The record clearly demonstrates there are no viable alternative sites that would offer an improved visual impact while still meeting Verizon's RF needs.
If you recall from our prior uh meetings, I believe back in March that it Verizon undertook the compre comprehensive site selection analysis in its initial application evaluating a total of seven candidate parcels within and immediately outside the search area. As shown on page nine of exhibit G and as appropriately noticed by the planning board at the March meeting, the majority of the PI properties located within the search area are owned by our our currently proposed landlord Windmill Farms. As discussed with the planning board in March and documented in our March 31st, 2026 supplemental application, we did engage in extensive negotiations with the landlord for permission to be on any other location on the landlord's part property both in addition to the property the locations on the property requested by the planning board as well as just blanket can we be anywhere else.
um include it. For those reasons though, as we were as were included on our March 31st supplemental application, if you recall, it was a letter from the landlord. It was exhibit T of the application. The landlord could not per permit Verizon to be located anywhere else on the property due to conservation easements and then the the working operations of the farm. Verizon also reviewed two additional candidates identified the bo by the board. If you recall on our prior exhibits, we were calling them H and I. Um, but those two locations which were outside the search ring failed from an RF perspective.
We also asked our site selection analysis and RF to to re-evaluate the search area, which candidly is an unusual step for Verizon to take, but certainly want to be responsive to the planning board's requests. However, after researching and redetermining the search area, uh again that applica that materials presented to you as exhibit U, it was determined the search area really had to be in the location that it was presented in the original search. The remaining property owners within the search area, so those other those other six of the original candidates, uh declined to participate in lease negotiations.
in these decisions, we'll want to note, and I know this is um certainly top of mind for the board, but we we can't force people to lease to us. Uh so to the extent that there are other locations, we are happy to look at the other locations. We did we did so during Lake Road, but the decision to enter into a lease is purely the landowner's discretion. We cannot command a landowner to enter into a lease with us. That leaves only the selected site at the corner of Lake Road and County Line Road is the only candidate that's both technically viable and available for lease. Much like the Webster North project, this project will also not have an environmental or community impact.
As we also noted um on the Webster North project, and we did hear similar concerns tonight, you'll hear similar concerns in October. And and not to um these are deeply held feelings by the individuals and and we respect those deeply held feelings. But the law is very clear here. Science is clear. There is no harmful effects of RF radiation. in the law as it stands and right, wrong or indifferent as one might feel about the law, the law expressly preempts boards from denying or conditioning approval of a wireless facility based on health effects. This field is entirely preempted as long as we do our due diligence and demonstrate to the board that we meet the FCC requirements and the regulations which have been presented to the board of exhibit P.
Again, this is not not to speak to people's deeply held beliefs in and understanding of what they feel is the RF effects, but I want to be very clear that the the law is strong on it and science in my opinion is very strong on it. The FCC believes that the science is very strong on it as is the FDA and the WHO. Uh that there are no negative health effects of RF emissions and cannot be considered as part of this application. Much like Webster North, this project will not pollute, will not create noise, will not increase traffic or create a demand on governmental services. It is an inert facility that is located on the corner near other public utility infrastructures located on the corner as well.
There's uh electrical wires and and telecommunication wires trans transversing the parcel. I'll also note like Webster North, this application meets the requirements of state and federal law. I was struck as we are hearing the public comments from before and likely we'll hear from this group that there is a reason these are protected as public utilities or the reason New York State has recognized them as public utilities. There's a reason there's a telecommunications act of 1996. Popular things do not need federal law protecting it. This is a difficult decision. The federal government recognizes this is a a difficult decision.
That is why it has put protections in place and preeemptions in place to ensure that there can still be a rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facility across the country while still being mindful of the areas and and concerns raised by local boards. That's the same reason we have a shot clock. If this was an easy decision, the federal government would not have to put in restrictions on how quickly a board has to act in making a decision. I think although we can discuss the policies and should one reach out to Congress to to go through a a change of the law, the law is what it stands and the law is there because this is a hard choice and it is meant to protect the type of public infrastructure that is needed to ensure people have the an ability to communicate.
I can pause there. Ear can also go through the legal standards for that public utility standard and the telecommunications act or I can pause and let Mr. Johnson come uh give his report >> Mr. Johnson. Sure. >> Thank you. So I think my comments uh regarding this site are almost going to be duplicates of what we talked about previously, right? Is we have looked at the uh various heights. Uh the proposed height is what's needed because the coverage footprint draws back when uh we go to a lower height terrain and and foliage and other obstacles uh in the area. Um I I didn't comment about the uh uh human exposure issue on uh Webster North but we'll take a moment to do that here.
Uh in both applications there is a exhibit uh produced in one case by u uh Sears in the Webster North site and that showed less than 1% of the FCC threshold. The FCC established a 100% threshold for general population. Uh that site is below 1% of that threshold. So it's almost imperceptible in terms of its intensity. Uh uh Aerosmith produced the report for the present site for Lake Road and uh the maximum theoretical exposure would be 3.27% of the FCC's threshold. So again, very very low uh emissions and and toward that end uh what I would caution people is that the cell phone is actually going to produce more electromagnetic uh energy when you hold this to the side of your head and make a phone call or even if you're not making a phone call that the phone is occasionally talking to the base stations to report its location.
This is where the exposure is coming from. So if people are concerned about exposure at the levels that the base stations have been analyzed, uh that's nothing compared to what you're getting from the actual cell phone. Uh there's also radio and TV signals that are in the air and I don't have specific numbers for those for this area, but uh generally much stronger than what you'd be getting from uh base station. Uh having said that, the same issue regarding uh the alternate sites. Uh, you know, we don't have documentation about what attempts were made to contact unresponsive land owners if any of those sites were uh uh viable, but uh it sounds like most of the alternative sites are owned by the same uh landowner and uh you know, he's already precluded the use of other locations on his property.
So, I think unless there were further questions specific to um Lake Road, I'd be uh finished with what I had to say. I think one of your comments was in regards to the uh Lake Road project was the for the applicant, you know, dates and persons they contacted in that area and I would testify that I spent some time with Mr. Burgdoff myself and trying to contact people in that area to see if there was another place for it. And all due respect to them, there was nothing. >> Yeah. So, so that's great information >> right back to the original >> spot. So, and we and on that spot as we all know, we tried to relocate the tower further back in and for reasons of the uh land owners, they couldn't do that and we understand that.
So, again, I think you did a pretty thorough job with this too here. >> Thank you. Thank you, Kylie. I had a just a quick question. I in in your review is the location of this tower just capacity driven or >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Lake Lake Road is there's already low band coverage. So, uh you know, we look at three different bands. We look at the the low band which is about 700 megahertz that is is already there but there's very limited capacity. uh when these sites were first put in back in the 1980s and 1990s uh weren't a lot of people using cell phones so that bandwidth was quite sufficient but now uh we heard some figures from uh attorney Smith about how wireless devices have proliferated and now more bandwidth is needed to service that many users uh simultaneously to these to these sites.
So, uh, low band is is covered. Uh, the, uh, low band signals from the mobile phones are trying to reach out to the adjacent neighbor sites, and there's not enough capacity there to accomplish that. So, putting another site in the general area where the search ring is located would draw traffic away from those sites, service it at the new base station, and the new base station would have much more bandwidth uh, at the mid-band and then at Cband. Okay, we consider that all kind of one band, but there's there's huge amounts of bandwidth that are available with that new spectrum. And I say that now 20 years, 30 years from now, someone will be quoting me and saying, "Well, that wasn't huge.
This is huge." Right? So, so the demand continues to grow and the site would actually supplement what's happening in in the existing coverage right now. >> So, thank you for your question. >> But it it is primarily capacity driven. It's primarily capacity because the low band is already in service. >> Yeah, >> there is no midband >> uh or any usable midband at this location. >> So, so there will be new capac new capacity but there'll also be new spectrum at midband which opens up more bandwidth for folks that are connecting to this particular base station. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I have a question for Linda.
Did you or did anybody from the Verizon team reach out to anyone in Ontario, the town of Ontario to see if they have land available in anywhere in this area or is it all residential owned or owned by the wind windmill or >> It is we did look at we looked at the zoning map for the town of Ontario. It is all residential in that area as well. >> I have a question that's for more for the expert. Um so again going back to the code since I'm the attorney for the the board um relative to our requirements that um it'll be as less I see this project as different than uh the north project and that visually it's not in the tree line.
It's not covered. You can see it on Lake Road. Um and the code again specifically indicates that we have the right to um have some type of camoufl camouflage or have a aesthetically landscaping u have those covered and spec specifically written in the code. Um, how have other towns in your experience dealt with that? And and have other towns required like stealth designs, designs that don't make the tower look well, sometimes they look like a tree. I saw on the throughway on the way here, I think. Saw one that look like a tree. Um, and and how I guess in your opinion, how because I see this is different.
This is not in a tree line. This is right right smack on Lake Road. Um, how would the talk the this board consider something like that? >> Right. Well, thanks. That's a good question. U, so I'm a radio frequency engineer, not a uh landscape architect. Uh, but I have been around enough of these hearings to hear some of the things that landscape architects and others have suggested. So, I'm glad to share what what I've heard and what I've seen. So, tree canopies in this area are around 65 to 75 feet tall at kind of the shorter end of things. Uh, here you've got some much taller trees. And, you know, here's here's a problem that I experienced on my property, which is somebody prior to my buying my property had actually cabled a big maple tree.
It was a beautiful tree, but it had these huge limbs that that kind of went out. And what I learned from an arborist is when you cable those things, the tree will grow now, you know, 10 20% taller than it actually should be. and now it's it's really unstable uh in it in its roots. So uh sometimes you get really tall trees like that that have you know been cabled or you know for some reason are up on a null or something and they grow taller. U but typically you know 65 70 80 ft kind of is is where the canopy uh stops in in this particular area. So, uh, getting up above that is is going to be necessary, but now trying to disguise something that's up at 125 ft.
So, you know, that's going to be a clear 20 to 30 feet above existing canopy, even if there were trees around. And there have there are some humorous photographs, and actually I've seen some of these. A friend of mine who travels the country sends me photographs of these when they run across them. Uh but uh you know making a tree look like or or a cell tower look like a huge cactus or making it look like a huge tree in the middle of a you know a desert u you know there's there's questions in my mind as to whether or not that actually is a successful stealth approach. town of Pittsver recently stealththed a a site that wasund I want to say it's 110 feet and it's it looks like a pine tree.
Uh depending upon which direction you approach it uh it blends in and some other directions it you know it's clearly something that's head and shoulders above the rest of the canopy but you know perhaps that's not as big a deal. You know, I think when people are driving down Link Road, uh, they're probably not going to be taking their eyes off the road too long, you know, to look and see what the what the stealth tree looks like or what the tower looks like. Uh, but that's always the problem trying to stealth something that's higher than the canopy. Uh, often times draws more attention than it than it should.
Uh, it can be done though. It certainly can be done. Now when you stealth a tree uh or stealth a cell tower uh it uh it limits what you can do in terms of collocation on that site. The the the branches themselves that are the artificial tree now produce wind load and torque. So when the wind blows off of the lake, whatever we're going to call it, uh then uh it you know it'll it'll you know force the torque at the base of the uh uh pole uh to be greater than it would be without those particular branches on there. So it limits how many antennas you can put on because a lot of the wind load has already been taken up by the stealth branches.
And if you bury antennas inside of the stealth branches at 700 megahertz, that's not so much of a problem. But as I was explaining earlier, when you go to mid-band, those are higher frequencies. And the higher frequencies are very much so disrupted by the extra obstacles that are right in front of the antenna. It changes how the antenna pattern works. it's less efficient and uh ultimately the propagation from that stealth site may be substantially less than what it would be otherwise. But it's a trade-off, right? If you if you're trying to balance aesthetics against technical performance, stealth approaches are used, you know, fairly regularly u at sites.
Usually though, they're not applied at things that are 125 ft or, you know, in that in that range. But that's doesn't say it couldn't be done. Okay, I guess that covers it. I I should have said it the last the first application. Again, this is also a public hearing and I don't if we table this also I think we should keep the public hearing open for the preliminary. We've not closed the public hearing. So, if there's any new information, you all can come back and still speak again. We won't we won't stop that. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. You can. Yeah, I was going to open it now, too. Yes, >> Tony. I just had one more question.
I'm sorry. Sure. >> That I just wanted to ask just because um earlier we said capacity was a driving force. Is coverage gap also a factor. I know you said midband would be on flight. The reason I'm asking is, you know, is a 125 ft macro tower the appropriate solution rather than like smaller cell towers that Verizon has used on Gravel Road or Holt and Lake and other areas. >> There are other approaches that could be used and I would have to defer to Verizon as to why they chose this particular approach because whatever approach they choose needs to meet the third third prompt. Identify a gap. Does the proposed site fill and mitigate the gap?
And third, is it the least intrusion on the community? Right? >> Uh so their burden is to show you that that what they have proposed of all the possible technical solutions that are out there and wherever they can get land control that this is the least intrusive uh way to actually address their coverage gap and and could I just add you know since we're talking about uh low band is already covered right in in this particular area. So there is no radio frequency signal coverage gap but there is a gap at mid-band uh frequencies. So there there's no service that's useful at those at those frequencies and when [clears throat] capacity of sites is reached uh that's as good as not having enough signal because you still can't make a phone call and you can't transmit the data right so I I started using the term somewhere along the line instead of just saying gap I talk about a service gap and a service gap could be caused by no radio frequency signal at all or it could be caused by having radio signal but not enough capacity.
Both of those accomplish exactly the same thing, which is you don't get your call and you don't get your data to go through. >> Yeah. I guess I'm not an attorney. I'm sorry to put you on the spot again, but maybe it's another question for another time. Is you know, if capacity is a driving factor here, what is the definition of need under uh you know, the federal effective prohibition standards that cover this? and the shock clock and everything else. Like if capacity is the driving force and it's not really a low band cellular need, out of those three, which is the one that's actually providing this need on a federal jurisdictional level?
>> I can give you a reference that actually would maybe help answer that question. >> Yes, please. >> Let me just look at it real quick here. I just need to go back to our original uh preliminary report that was August 3rd uh for late >> and sorry just a real clarification. The reason I'm asking that is like you said, you know, there are other technologies potentially that could address not necessarily 125 ft tower. That capacity factor could be something smaller [clears throat] if the intent is to address capacity or midlevel. >> Right. I I don't have I thought I had the citation in the report and I don't.
Okay. uh the the Federal Communications Commission actually um oh you know I'll bet you it's on the RF justification u of the of the application but uh in Verizon's materials but the Federal Communications Commission did uh make a uh a regulation so there there's laws that Congress passes and then the FCC develops regulations to implement those laws. So that's not really law but it's something that until it's challenged it it stands. uh the the FCC said that a service provider can densify their network, which is what we're talking about. We're adding capacity. They can densify the network uh uh using uh and the reason for doing that could be any one of a number of things.
It could be no radio signal. >> It could be base stations that can't handle the traffic or it could be the implementation of new services and new spectrum. Uh so as far as the FCC is concerned and I and I again will defer that because that's not the law that's a regulation the FCC has promulgated uh that they they've said that you can justify a gap in service right by by any one of those uh or more of those particular uh aspects. >> I and I can I I can get you that uh I can get you that citation if if >> Yes, I would appreciate that. Thank you. Do you have my uh contact information? Okay. So, just I'm sorry I don't have it.
>> Okay. Anybody else board? If not, we'll open it. >> Okay. If anyone here from that neighborhood wishes to [clears throat] >> Justin Jenner 1512 draft again I understand the fact that the health issues are not something that we can stand on from a legal perspective but a couple things that I just want to make sure I clarify specifically on the scientific ific research. The first thing is is there's many schools of thoughts on this, right? Firstly, yes, low radiation levels sporadically are not going to be harmful. However, what has not been studied is consistent low radiation levels that could be harmful.
And the juryy's still out on that. Yes. >> You just nodded your dread. >> Yeah. You can't you can't prove something's safe. You only prove. So my point is is we can't continue to sit here and say the science is behind us because this is not >> look I don't that's not true. >> That's something we're not even going to be discussing. That's something that was already brought up and it does not become an issue for this board to have to deal with. So >> I understand what you're saying but >> nothing we can do about that particular incident. >> So here's the other piece of this, right? So I agree with the fact that yes, we could go lobby our our congressmen.
Mhm. >> Verizon donates $30 million a year to lobbying, right? To the FCC, to the government. There's nothing that I'm going to be able to do that's going to be say, "Hey, Congressman, XYZ, go change this cuz I can't do it." That's why I'm coming here to the town, maybe not to you guys, but maybe to the board to say, "Hey, at some point someone's got to make a stand. I can't do it myself. I I got a job. I got kids I got to feed. I'm looking to you guys to help that." We're all We're all in the same boat. So you where do we go to? I mean, somebody has to go up above us, >> right? So >> we're in the same boat as you.
>> Who do we go to? That's That's the question. >> Talk to the state. >> Who's going to do it? I mean, I don't think this board is capable of going. >> Hopefully somebody else at >> Well, somebody's got that kind of free time. They can do it. >> Well, I sure I'll make time, but I need someone at the m municipality level to help to go through that with us is my my point. The third and final thing that I want to say is that there's other institutions like the International Firefighters Association who have banned cell phone towers being put on their buildings because of everything we're talking about here.
Right. So, I respect it. I understand the law. I appreciate the time and you letting me talk about this, but at some point in time, there's only so much that we can do as citizens, and we need support of our elected officials to help us with that. We're in agreement with this. Just that our hands are tied, too. >> How do we untie them? >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yes, sir. >> I'll make this short and sweet. Um Tim Lochner, 1854 Lake Road. I'm across the road from the proposed uh tower site. Um, I would just like to comment really quickly about it's a horrible spot to put that. I mean, just absolutely horrible.
>> Um, the financial impact for us across the road is going to be just unbelievable. And I can tell you re really quickly, um, I have a couple building sites over there and I had a purchase off offer on one last week and as of yesterday it was cancelled. So, there is a financial impact. I've got a couple million dollars in this property across the road. I live there as well. And I love the area, but I think that um it's going to be a big problem uh financially for everybody, not just me, all my neighbors. And my neighbors are very important to us as well. And um I just feel as if uh I'm not opposed to a tower by any means.
It's just the wrong spot for it. There's There's got to be a corner somewhere that that can go. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Uh David Rasmusen. I'm an attorney. I'm representing uh Daniel and Kelly Rasmus under 1890 Lake Road directly across from the proposed facility. The the piece that I'd like to comment on is the site selection issue. Um there was a letter submitted by Windmill Farms back in with the March 31st uh submission and in that letter you know Windmill Farms as as attorney Smith has aptly noted controls most of the land within the search area and they want it on that site because that's a piece of land they don't otherwise have any use for and they they can make money on it and I get that but their commentary of why they can't site it in other locations within in within the search area I [clears throat] think is disingenuous.
They recite the USDA conservation stewardship program as being prohibitive of of the use. That's not really the case. Um they haven't that the conservation stewardship plan is a five-year commitment. We don't know how far into the commitment they are. They could be four and a half years for all we know. And they can [clears throat] remove a piece from the conservation stewardist program. It's right in the website for the program. So, I think I don't think they've really given us the whole story on that. Then they talk about a contract they have with Kurig, Dr. Pepper. They don't tell us what's prohibited.
They don't tell us the duration. They don't tell us the consideration. They don't tell us if there's a penalty if they remove it from the from the site. They've really given us no information about that at all as to why that's prohibitive in in in some respect. Same thing. They talk about a contract with KDP which hasn't even started yet. Their own letter says it starts sometime in 2026. They don't tell us when. They don't tell us the duration. They don't don't tell us what's prohibited. So, they've really given us nothing other than a representation that it that it would that it would that they don't think they can do it.
But, they need to prove it. We need to I would I would urge you to dig deeper into that letter and the representations they're making. Now, there's also been a request to expand the search area. I don't know if Mr. Johnson's analysis has covered that issue, whether an expansion of the search area would meet the criteria and solve Verizon's purposes. I I don't know how deeply he's gone into that. If he hasn't, I would ask that he that he do that as well. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, you I remember when we first talked about that, we tried to get that to move back by the woods, you know, move it back in, >> right?
And there was issues with underground tile and the conservation easement they had with whoever. >> Well, I don't know if they've given us the detail. We should. That's that's my point. I mean, they've made those representations, but I think they got to go a little deeper. >> Yeah, that I don't know if we can even do that. I don't think that's in our ability to do that even. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you though. >> Oh my god. >> Hi folks. Kevin Lockard, quick question. So it's very short. If Lake Road is primarily a capacity densification project rather than a basic coverage project, has Verizon demonstrated that 125 ft macro tower is the least intrusive means reasonably capable of solving that capacity problem, which I think is a question you guys brought up understandably.
Okay, thanks. >> Okay, thanks Kevin. My name is Ellen Lindall. I live at 1886 Lake Road. Um I wasn't going to get up here, but I just had to. I wanted to um echo a little bit of what Mr. Rasmusen just said. Um and I would agree that, you know, I think the windmill farms letter very eloquent, articulate, lengthy, had all these justifications. Um but I I agree that it probably was somewhat disingenuous. But does that even matter? because as the Verizon rep said, you can't force people, private land owners, >> to agree to this and I I get that, but I guess the question, one question I would have was or is, you know, can Verizon sweeten the deal?
Um, and I don't know how that works. I know ballpark what these lease arrangements are and what private land owners can make off them, but can Verizon go back to them and say, you know, instead of $1,500 a month, we're going to pay you $4,000 a month and maybe then a corner of the property would open up because when you go, you know, they've they own like it's like 130 acres on one side, 136 acres on the other side. And there's a lot of corners. I drive up and down that road every day and I'm always looking because of this very issue. There's a lot of other places that this could go. Um they may choose not to and and you know that that that's up to them, but this is certainly the path of least resistance and least difficulty for Verizon because it's right there at the corner and they don't have to have um create a new road or egress or you know route in to to get to a place that's a couple hundred yards away.
Um, but I just go back to the meeting in March and you, you know, the chair said this, you know, we don't want, we don't want it right there at the corner of Lake Road. That's our scenic Seaway Trail and it can't be there. Look what they did at Pellet Road and they pushed it back. Um, there's one also at Lake and Sloum Road that is pushed back a bit. And I think that the the um some of the commentating was, you know, the different towers that we're tapping into. One was at Guinea um but the one at Sloum Road is quite a bit closer than Guinea. So I don't know if there's consideration um that's been given to that.
And then the final point I just want to make is um and and this was asked by by the the um the consultant in terms of the due diligence that Verizon really did with this. You know the I think it was site G and C. We don't know what that due diligence was. They said they reached out to these folks and just didn't get a response. But I think it's important that we know, you know, [laughter] when was that outreach? How frequent was that outreach? Was it written? Was it phone? um and and and what were what were the details of that because I think they they owe it to us and when I look at the map too again being intimately familiar with this neighborhood um to the east of site D there's a big piece of this circle that that isn't even labeled as an option and I would think that there's you know somebody owns that property and that is north of Lake Road and it's a pretty big hunk hunk of that circle if you pull it up where would be a potential spot.
Who who owns that? That's not I don't believe that's D, you know, e of D and and and see I you know there there's nothing there. There's a lot of woods. Perhaps there's wetlands, but I just think that they need to do to demonstrate due diligence that they really have done adequate outreach to the other options before it gets plunked in this horrific spot. Okay, thanks. >> See, those areas are residential and the the if you consider the height of the tower and the fall line, those would not even be sized enough to do it. >> I'm sorry. >> My name is Bob Jansen. I live on County Line Road and I live right across the street down my driveway from where this ugly tower is going to be.
Um, I've said this before to the board. Um, given what's going on in real estate and what we know has already happened, I'm looking at a 50 to $150,000 hit, uh, when we try and sell our house. Um, I this house, this tower will be 300 ft, 350 ft from my house. Um, and I know someone said, "Would you want this in your backyard?" I doubt it. Um, I think someone said, maybe Mr. Casiani that someone had spoken to the attorney about relocating this tower even on that 7.4 acre site and they're not willing to do that. Um I mean it's come down to the point that the the farm's dictating the future for all of us.
Um and it seems absolutely unwilling to understand what their neighbors are going through. Um and it's that's unfortunate at best. Um not good neighbors. we put up with all the spraying all summer um because we have to now we're going to have a tower to look at that's going to kill us financially. Um the issue of the health effects I understand you can't uh deal with. Um please know that there is a federal court case in 2023 and the courts ordered the FCC to re-evaluate the information available. They have failed to do anything. It's under an administration that's not willing to change anything that would benefit the public.
I think maybe in a couple of years we might see a difference. And I think that's something you need to consider. This tower is going to go up with the understanding that it fills a gap. Right now they're filling a gap by putting satellites up. And they're putting up a thousand more satellites every year. These towers are not going to be needed. And that's probably a lot sooner than you're thinking. Probably within five years. It's my understanding from Mr. Johnson's report that Verizon has to provide you with a uh information of new towers that might be needed in the next two years. Um I haven't had a chance to read the supplement.
I've read his report and um that what I can glean is in that report there are significant deficiencies in the information that may all be addressed in the supplement which I haven't had a chance to look at yet. Um, as for the issue of settled science, it's not settled. It settled. It is settled, but it's not settled the way they want you to believe. And in 2023, that's why the court decided, send it back for review. We want a new evaluation. We're going to get that eventually, and by that time, this will be too late. My wife and I both have leukemia. This tower will be 247 RF communication radiation to our house.
That's what I don't need and neither do the children that live across the street at the rasm musins. And if the people can can buy this property now that's for sale on Lake Road, that seems unlikely given what we're going to hear with the scare with that. It sounds to me like they've backed everybody into a corner. Verizon doesn't give a damn about us. They're going to put this tower up. You're going to end up having to approve it because there's really doesn't seem to be any alternative and no one's willing to budge on the other side. But as residents, and we have to live with it, we're going to take the hit.
Not the Verizon, not the farm. They're going to just go merily along, take their money every year with inflation uh adding to it every year while we suffer and while the town suffers because if my value goes down, you take a tax hit. You're going to take a tax hit on 26 properties within 500 ft. Keep in mind that the quote all the time about the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the recommendation at that time was a 1600 ft differential between the tower and residences. We're nowhere near that. They're not even trying to live with that. That hurt us and ultimately it's going to hurt the town because people are not going to buy homes near these towers.
You're going to end up with neighborhoods that get deserted. Okay, thanks a lot. Thank you. All I can at this point say about this whole thing is I think this board has gone above and beyond as best we could on this site. I mean, you all know that we tried to get it located back in the woods. Josh, we met with them supervisor at a meeting. We tried to relocate the thing somewhere where it wouldn't be so obvious and we got nowhere with it. That was and and that's that was the bottom line with uh with Verizon. They literally made the circle and we talked about other areas across the road and every which way and and I understand what you're saying and I can't fault you for feeling that way but what can tell me what we can do.
>> One question is is it possible to push it as far back? >> We can't hear you from there. So as possible. No, that's that's up to them. We'll have to we can ask them that, but that's up to them to do it. All right. Anybody any further questions? I mean, I don't know what more we can do with this until we review this. That may be something that could be done again is to try and recont them and see if there's some possible way to renegotiate that site. I don't know. I'll make that as a suggestion to the town. We'll do our best to try and >> That's all I can That's all I can do. >> What's that? >> They need a road in back.
I'll put a >> Yeah. See, that was one of the things we talked about and apparently they've got underground piping. >> I'll supervisor's willing to if you're willing to negotiate again with them, we I'd be more than be willing to sit with them again. do be up at the podium. >> Question was raised whether Verizon had contacted the town of Ontario. I've spoken to the supervisor. They've never gotten a word. I know they talked to Alec, the supervis it was necessary though town inside that not contacted the town. >> We asked a question at one of the earlier meeting. Yes, some of those properties are located across the county line in Ontario.
And and I want to be clear, I I hope I was not representing, we did contact the the town. We did confirm on the zoning map that those are residential properties as well. So, they're not more ideally situated for a higher intensity use. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right, >> Tony, I just had one more question. just because of the openness of the location, you know, these cell towers usually have uh uh generators with fuel tanks. Um what is typically like the testing schedule on those and then expected runtime and noise like is there any concern of noise from those generators going through the neighbors just because it's open in that in that corner?
>> Yeah. >> Typically they are tested I believe once a week for about a half hour time period. It is a a slight hum. Um, but it is no more than a I think a drier or you know a typical hum of testing the generator. But yes, generators are tested about once a week for a half hour period. >> Do you know how many gallons of fuel they usually have or I know it's a diesel generator. >> It is a diesel generator. It's not listed on the site plan. So I will confirm the the volume of the tank. Thank you. >> Okay. Um All right. We'll make a motion to table this application for the uh cell tower on Lake Road and County Line Road to the October 6th meeting.
>> Second. >> Have a second. Call >> Mr. Kani. >> Hi. >> Mr. Mr. Malta. >> Hi. >> Mr. Anderson. >> No, >> Mr. Better. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gassic. >> I >> Miss Maltman. >> I >> All right. And we won't close the public hearing. We'll leave it open so that any new information or whatever, it's still open for discussion with the town. Okay. With folks. >> I want to make it >> What's that, Kevin? >> I want to make a quick >> Can you do it quick? You want to be quick? >> Okay, go ahead. Uh, one one thing I think Kevin Lockheart, a town of Wester resident, one thing that I think that we haven't considered from a town perspective is actually fighting this in court.
Okay, there's a court case Omnipoint Communications Incorporated versus City of White Plains that the Court of Appeals upheld and uh it seems to indicate that we could possibly fight Verizon Wireless in court and possibly have uh the denial by the planning board upheld in court. Something to consider. I encourage you guys to look into that as a possibility. Yeah. What I'm going to thinking of that is you be spending dollars in court and end up losing a case. I don't see how they don't know. But anyways, we'll see what happens with this for moving along. All right. What else have we got here? We've got you call it the roll ninja.
I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. We did. >> We've got one more application. Why don't you go ahead? >> So, the final application Vital Sign Building Edition located at 764 Ridge Road representing agent Thomas Fitzgerald is requesting preliminary site plan approval associated with the construction of a 15,000 ft one-story addition to an existing 11,000q ft building on a 4.21 21 acre parcel having SPL number 079.17-1-8.1 located in the commercial outdoor storage district under sections 269-5 and 350-20 of the code of TTO Webster Tony >> gentlemen >> Tony I have to recuse myself >> well I'm sorry >> I have to recuse myself from this application >> oh all right okay that's fine thank you >> so I'm Tom Fitzro with MRB Group I'm here on behalf of representing and our clients uh glean development and vital signs.
Uh we're here for the uh preliminary uh plan review uh review and hopefully get approval tonight. Uh from uh the comment letters we've gotten as of dated from August 28th. We've addressed most uh all the comments. Uh we did get a response back from the town engineer earlier today with regards about doing a SWIP. Uh after some back and forth, we did agree we will do the swift in regards to the drainage uh situation they had with locating on the pond on the north side of the site. Uh we're willing to uh prepare a swift report uh drainage calculations for them to explain how the drainage for the previous area will not impact the uh pond itself.
Um I know the grain will have to get adjusted uh during final approval. It's slowly going into the pond, but we will adjust it as needed. Um, and and uh, aside from that, I mean, that's kind of where we are right now. So, if there's any further questions for the preliminary process, we're more than welcome to >> Well, I'll think you had some correspondence with the town engineer. I He's giving us a notice here. There's several things. He He wants He wants you to go through the process, you know, with Oh, he's got a whole bunch of plans do not demonstrate ADA compliance sidewalks so forth. Plans must clearly identify all points of ingress and eress.
A fire sprinkler system will be required. Remove all references. Did you get this? You guys have got >> Yeah, we got that. >> We've addressed all comments. >> Yeah, we've addressed all those comments. The latest one's from August 28th is the one we sent uh last week. And the drainage became an issue too I guess with the back offsite drain onsite drainage going to the north >> right >> now where does it go from there I mean there's I remember years ago those were it was a stretch like a swale of water through there for all all those properties that are there >> so if you want so based on what our review was originally it's all impervious surface that we're touching so to So there's no additional impervious surface being created.
Therefore, the sheet drainage to the north has always existed, always existed uh when we began our review. So to hear that something's changing was part of the comments from the town engineer which were agreeing to dig deeper via a SWIP report and re essentially recalculate what the requirements are and make any adjustments as necessary which is which has been the latest uh point of conversation with them. So we are in agreement with uh the town engineer. >> Well, he had concerns about the SWIPS reports and so on too. Yeah. So, we're saying we're agreeing that we will do SWIPS as requested by the town engineer.
>> All right. Well, the recommendation is actually to table this thing >> at this point and to you guys get together, >> resolve all resolve all the issues. I know you want to get going with it. If you can get this done with with engineering, I mean, that's the holdup for us. We're okay with the building and so on so forth. If you can get this project under your belt with the town engineer and you come in next meeting for your preliminary and you could get your final at the same time. Wouldn't be holding you up anything. You'd still one more meeting. >> Both the meetings. >> I'm sorry. >> We can roll both the meetings in order.
>> Yeah, we I mean it'd be possible to do I think right? Am I right, Josh? >> Yes. All the concerns have been addressed. >> You got a whole month to get all this stuff in order with them. get it all straightened out and then you can get preliminary and final the same evening. >> So, we have no issue with that. The initial comment letter that we received after the first meeting or prior to the first meeting did not address some of these things. So, there was a feeling that there were additional comments made after sketch plan approval which didn't allow us proper time to address these prior to this meeting.
So respectfully, there are some frustrations on our end. Um, so if you uh as a planning board are willing to work with us, we're in agreement that we will handle these with the town engineer and hopefully we can address them and receive final site plan approval next meeting. Is that fair to say? >> The latest comments I see here are from I think August 20th, I believe. Those are the right ones. >> That Yeah, that's correct. >> Correct. Can I can I request one item? >> What's that? >> Next meeting. We're ahead of the cell towers. [laughter] >> Get your application in earlier. [laughter] >> Well, actually, cell towers were actually >> first thing on the agenda.
So, >> but we wanted to get the signs out of the way. Probably could have done yours, too, but >> that might not have made everybody happy. So, is that working okay with you fellas? Request the table to >> We're in agreement with that. Uh, we're happy to meet the requirements of the town engineer and if you're saying that we can get final next meeting, then we're >> I think we don't lose any time. >> That's a very possible thing to do provided everything you clear with him and that should be because it's all engineering detail there. >> Correct. You know. >> Okay. Uh, we appreciate that. >> You agree to it?
Okay. Is there somebody want to make I'll make a motion that we table the uh vital signs uh project I'm um we have someone from he likes the talk >> it will be brief I know that we did give you the conservation board um site review that we just did a couple weeks ago um because that's when we first got notification that we should take a look at that. I think that you're saying that all of the items that are being addressed to satisfy the town engineer are the same items that we mentioned in the conservation board. >> Well, that your comments are addressed to the planning board. Then we deal with those.
>> Okay. So, that's the question. Uh it sounds like we're going forward with a with a motion and an agreement. >> When then do we get to make sure that or we discuss with you whether or not these have been the same? >> The things we would put in in a preliminary [clears throat] excuse me that's the stuff we would put in at a preliminary meeting, you know. >> Okay. >> And those would come up. The reason I'm not bringing them up, I know we've got them. You did give them to us and like I said, you guys did a great job with them, too. >> Okay. >> But that's all stuff that we're not going to deal with tonight anyway.
Okay. So, so because >> we just got we just got the paperwork on that thing is eight pages of work you guys got there to >> to deal with. We could spend a whole night just dealing with that, you know. >> Okay. Uh so I'll I'll just talk offline with you on that. Okay. And then later if we need >> So we'll address that at the meeting preliminary >> the next one. >> Okay. That's good. As long as we >> That's the way we would do it. >> What did we do? >> 106. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And you made a motion. >> We made a motion to table it to 106. >> I second it. >> Okay. >> We have a second. All in favor?
>> I Okay, we're good. >> Are there any minutes? >> That's it. That's everything. >> No minutes. >> We have any >> two administrative >> um issues for minutes to be approved. 84 minutes. Everybody approved. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Make a motion. Okay. >> Yeah, I read them. I'm okay with them. >> Need somebody to second it. >> Second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I have to abstain cuz I wasn't here. >> Yeah, >> I can. I was not here. >> Yeah, you two guys weren't here. Correct. No. >> Okay, we got it. >> And then um for the minutes to make [clears throat] a motion to approve the minutes for 105 2021.
So just to clarify, there was yes, there there was an error that was recently caught as a review >> and we're correcting that error now. That's what that is intended to do. >> Okay. >> What was the what was the error? >> I believe it was a copy and paste where [clears throat] there was a an approval resolution that didn't match where it was located in the minutes. So we're just correcting >> that. Got corrected. Okay. I'll make a motion we approve the minutes of that. >> Second it. >> Okay, >> Dave. Second. >> Yes. >> Okay. All in favor? >> It was actually. >> Okay, we're good. >> All right. With that, I guess we've covered everything we can tonight as best we could.
With that, I guess we're done.