Zoning Board Meeting

to the zoning board appeals for the town of Webster for September 8th, 2026. Uh we have three tabled matters for tonight and we have two three four five uh scheduled matters uh for tonight. Here's a proof of publication for all items. Uh call for attendance.

Mr. Short

here.

Mrs. Vololo

here. Mr. Spanado

here.

Mr. Senola

here.

Mr. Porso

here.

Miss Mr. Artuso

here.

Miss Corsy

present.

Mr. Dearco

present.

If we could all stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So, we do have uh quite a bit of items on the uh on the agenda for tonight. Um if we need um we we the board has the right to at 10:00 uh table any remaining items. I'm hoping we don't have to do that. Um but if we do um we'll give fair warning. Uh let's see. So I guess first first item

so just to let

audience know we are because the tabled matters um are a longer discussion we're going to start with the scheduled matters this evening and then we'll go back up to the tabled matters. So we are changing the agenda around just a little bit. Um so that [cough and clears throat] being said, um the first matter tonight is 1725 State Road.

So if uh Robert uh Bingham and if you can make sure you speak into the mic.

So if you can uh kind of uh explain your project to us and um go through what you're doing.

Sure. Uh, I'm Robert Bingham Jr. I live at 1725 State Road. Uh, basically my project consists of I took down my old dilapactated garage. Uh, was falling apart. Had a bunch of holes in the foundation. Um, it would be more to repair to than it was to replace it. So, uh, I'm coming here today to seek a variance to go, uh, 2 ft closer or 3 ft closer to my property line, uh, making so that I can make my pull barn attached to the house of 40x40, which is a more conventional size. Um, it was easier to order that way. Uh, more room for the stuff that I have. And uh yeah, it's basically what I'm here for today. Seeking that variance to go closer to my property line.

Do you know what the distance will be off the property line?

Uh 12 ft, sir.

It will be 12 ft off the property line.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Is this one story or two stories? one story.

How tall will it be at the peak?

The ceiling height on the inside is 11 ft and the rafters are they're 412 pitch, I think. So,

okay.

Other questions from the board?

Any utilities inside the garage?

Yes, sir. Utilities will be all brought in through the basement and then into the garage. So, just the electric. I'm going to put a couple outlets out there.

And are you What's the pole barn going to look like as far as an elevation? Is it just going to be the metal pole barn? Are you going to side it similar to the house or? Uh, it's going to be like a gray metal uh exterior and then my hope is to match the siding to it in the coming years, next year or two. The siding in my house now is not the best. So, I figured I'd get the barn where I wanted it and then attach the siding up to that.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And this is all for personal use, the size of it, not for any commercial use. Yes, ma'am. It out.

I have uh I have an old truck that I don't drive in the winter. Two trucks I don't drive in the winter and a plow truck that I just like to keep inside. So,

Okay.

Thank you.

and four-wheelers and stuff like that. So, run out of room at my old place.

Other questions? No. I'd like to open it up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this project. Please come on up. No. I'll bring it back to the board. Any other questions for the board?

No. I'm going to ask the question one more time. What's the distance off the property line? I didn't write it down.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. It's uh 12 ft. It's going to be 12 ft off the property line.

Thank you.

Okay. [clears throat] Uh like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

I um see findings Chris. Sure.

[clears throat]

The uh proposed uh action, if approved, will not result in a uh change in the essential character of the neighborhood. Uh I don't think it will create a detriment to nearby properties. Uh they you're replacing a existing garage in at best fair condition with a new pole barn. and he has stated that he will try and match the siding uh with the house when he resides the house. Uh the based on the applicants uh propose these choosing the size based on commercial availability and the need to store additional personal items. So there's not any real addition alternates considered for this because there was a available one and it needs to go where the garage is currently. Uh the variance isn't uh substantial in

in any way, shape or form. It's similar to other garages in the general area as far as setback 12 ft off the side. Uh there aren't any potential impacts on physical or environmental conditions uh based on the provided material. And while the uh the the project is self-created, there's no really other place to put a pole bar the size he needs to to meet his requirements uh any other way. I'm just going to add that um it's not out of character for the neighborhood. Uh the property is um in a more agricultural area of the town of Webster.

I um I would also excuse me add that um it there was an existing garage there so it's just replacing the existing attached garage to the house. It's just larger.

Okay. Anybody else want anything else? No. Okay. Uh, I'd like to make a motion for an area variance to allow a side setback of 12 ft where 15 ft is required in association with the construction of a new garage on a 0.68 acre parcel having SPL 081.03-1-21 03-1-21 located in a uh LL large lot single family residential district under section 350-13 of the code of the town of Webster.

Second

Mr. Short

I

Mrs. Volo

I

Mr. Stampinado

I

Mr. Senola

I

Mr. Of course, sir.

All right. You have your variance. Uh you have one year uh to make meaningful progress on the project. Uh you still need all your build building permits and everything else.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Have a good night.

Uh next up we have uh 539 Countryside Lane. If applicant uh Dominique Zakara can come on up.

Good evening. My name is Dominic Zakaryi. I own 539 Countryside Lane. I'm looking for an area variance of 49 ft 2 in where 60 ft is required. I'm on a corner lot, so I have two fronts for all practical purposes. I'm trying to put a uh an addition on my existing garage of 30x 48. Um, it's going to blend in with the neighborhood and I'm going to use the existing vinyl siding and match the metal roof that I already have on my on my house.

Questions from the board? I'm going to ask the same question I asked the other gentleman. Is what's the height of this building? It's one story or two stories.

I'm sorry. He can't hear you. He's hearing impaired. So, your question, I will go ask him or tell him. He wants to know the height of the garage.

Uh, it's going to be a single story. Total to the peak will be uh 21 ft, 16 ft walls.

Will there be any screening on the uh Bay Road side of the building?

Um, this is on the corner side on the corner of Bay and Countryside. So, it'll be facing well, the siding will be on base road. Uh there's a five- foot burm with mature pine trees uh on the back corner and then other pine trees lining up on bay road. So that's why I figured the best place to put it is it it will be shielded pretty well. Um so it looks like it'll blend right in with the rest of the house and the rest of the neighborhood. And having those those mature pine trees, the neighbor behind me won't be able to see it. My other neighbor uh on the opposite side won't be able to see it. So, it'll just be well, the people across the street really won't be able to see it out there cuz it's covered by pine. So, it'll only be coming from the lake down Bay Road and on the countryside.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board?

This is just to be for your personal use, not a commercial use.

Correct.

Any other questions? I'd like to open it up to the public. If anybody wants to speak for or against this project, please come on up.

No. Bring it back to the board. Any other questions from the board?

No, sir.

I I want to uh thank you for uh getting support from your neighbors. It's uh greatly appreciated having these letters in here. So, thank you for that. Um there's no other questions from the board. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

I.

Jim, you want to do the findings? Um the essential character of the neighborhood um will actually um look good with that size of the building going up um being hidden by Bay Road. Um there's not many alternatives where that I would say building can go due to uh the location in the corner lot. Um there's not much of a significant setback from 60 ft. You're going down to 49. Correct.

Correct. 49.2.

Okay. Um there's no uh potential impact uh for any physical environmental conditions and although it is self-created um it does uh improve his home and make sense what he need needs it for for extra storage.

Anybody else want to add anything further to it? I I would just add that if it were not a quarter lot, a corner lot, um the variance would not be required. It's only required because bay the side what's traditionally the side setback is also considered a front setback because it's on Bay Road and it meets the front and the rear setback. So that's the only impact.

Perfect. Anything else? No. Um, okay. Then I'd like to make a motion for an area variance to allow a front setback of 49.2 ft where 60 ft is required on a corner lot in association with the construction of a garage edition on a 0.84 acre parcel having SPL 063.14-2-30 [cough] located in R2 single family residential district under section 350-11 of the code of the town of Webster.

Second. Mr. Shore.

Hi.

Mr. Senola.

Hi.

Mr. Corso.

Hi.

Mr. Spanado.

I

Mrs. Wa.

I.

You have your variance. Uh, you still need to get all your other building permits uh required. You have uh one year to uh have meaningful movement on the project.

Good luck.

Very good. Thank you.

Yep. Uh, next up, 522 uh, Hackberry Way. Uh, uh, Mike Richie uh, could please come on up here.

Where is Tom Thomas?

Tom Thomas

audience.

Is anybody here representing 522 Hackberry way?

I can speak.

Okay. [clears throat] I was under the impression that the builders or the engineers were going to be here to present. I am the the father of the owner. He's on his way here from work. Should be here momentarily.

Um

if you want to state your name for the record and then um

Yes. My name is Dean Sagio.

Hold on one second.

Do we want to table this until the applicant arrives?

Yeah. I um being that you are not the applicant or one of the representatives, we'll table it until he gets here.

Does Does someone need to be here?

They somebody needs to be here to present. Yes.

Okay.

Um

I wasn't sure if just based on the information you had, you could approve or not.

We're we're just putting it further down the schedule for tonight.

Oh, I understand.

Yeah. Um

so it's required for him to come here as opposed to going home to his three kids right now.

Correct. Okay.

Yep. Unless unless one of his representatives would would be here, which obviously they're not here right now.

I will I will make sure he gets here.

Okay.

All right.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Uh so with that, we're going to move on to uh 1054 Clem Road. Um if applicants uh Angel and Sandy uh want to come on up. Good evening.

Good evening.

Um, I'm Angel. This is Sandy. We're just

Can you please make sure you speak into the mic?

Sorry. I'm Angel. This is Sandy Margaras. Uh, we're just applying for a uh permit to have some chickens. So, um you're asking for seven chickens.

Yes.

Um why

why [snorts] um

for eggs?

For for eggs to eat.

Why seven?

Oh, why seven?

Yes. Um we we had uh bought six and my mom gave me one. Okay.

So that's how I got seven.

So So you have the seven?

Yes. I

mean I've been to the property. I I'm asking the questions so I can

bring it out to the public is what it is. But yes, I Okay.

Um so the coupe is a pre-existing coupe. It's it's there currently.

Yes. Okay. Um, questions from the board.

How long have you had the chickens?

Um, to be honest, about 5 years.

Do we know of any complaints about the chickens?

Erica, any complaints that we know of?

We did not receive any complaints for the chickens for this property.

Okay. Okay. Other questions from the board?

You going to top it off at seven or do you think you might want more?

I'm sorry.

You going to keep it at seven or do you think you might want more?

I think we we probably keep it at seven.

And it would just be chickens, no roosters.

No roosters. No.

Okay. Other questions?

The um I know the coupe has been there for years. Um just I'm familiar with the area and with one of the neighbors and there's um like a tarp on the front of it or are you going to

redo that and clean it up so it looks more tidy?

I wanted to go through this to get the permit so I can put probably a metal roof on top of that.

Okay. Okay.

And make it look cleaner

just cuz I know when I was at the property um it is visible from the neighbor on either side of you. So, just cleaning it up. Um,

okay.

And and they were they were making I'll say chicken noises when I was there, but [clears throat] it was not

they laid an egg and they sung that chicken song.

It was not loud whatsoever because I know we've had neighbors of previous applicants mention

the the noise and it was I wasn't that far away. I don't think [clears throat] I'd have heard it if I were in the driveway.

So, so the record is complete. Could you demonstrate the chicken noise? [laughter] Why not?

Not a dare. [laughter]

Okay. Uh, any other questions or comments from the board right now?

No, we're good.

Uh, I'd like to open it up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this project.

Nope. Back to the board. Any other questions?

No.

No other questions. We did get one um letter from the adjacent neighbor and I believe that they were in support of the chickens. Um but I think there was one cleanup item from the the barn. I think once your accessory building was complete, you were going to eliminate the old building in the

back. I'm in the process of doing that.

Okay. All right. So, I believe what is circled in red is the building that's going to be eliminated and the chicken coop is in front of it. Correct?

Okay.

Okay. Other questions, comments from the board?

Nope.

All right. I'd like to make a motion for a type two seeker uh type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

Second. All those in favor

I

um findings.

I need a special use permit. Findings

findings are on your screen.

Thank you.

Um the use will not prevent an orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or the properties in adjacent use districts. Um the chickens have been there for a long time. I'm I'm sure the previous some previous owner had chickens because that coupe has been there for at least 30 years. Um the public health safety and general welfare and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use or its proposed location. Um it's a over 2 acre parcel. All of the parcels on that section of town are larger and deeper for the most part and it does back up to a working farm at this point. So, um, it's certainly not going to change the character of that. The use will be in general harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent [clears throat] of the most recent comprehensive plan. Um, the use will not interfere with the preservation of general character of the neighborhood. Again, the neighborhood is larger lots, um, large gardens, large farms. uh physical characteristics and topography of the proposed site make it

suitable for the proposed use. I would say yes since it is existing as a current use right now and the use provides appropriate landscaping and or forms of buffering. There is actually a hedge row between the chicken coupe and the neighbor that's immediately to the east and um it's p partially sh um shielded by the accessory structure from the neighbor to the west who's in support of this. So with that, I can make a motion to grant a special use permit at 1054 Clem Road for the applicants Angel and Sandy Lagaris to allow a 6x9 foot chicken coupe to exist and to have no more than eight hens on a 2.2 2acre parcel having SPL number 06416-3 I'm sorry-1-3 located in R2 single family residential district. Um I would note that the applicant at no time will have any roosters. It will just be chickens on the property and that the um the roof will be reconstructed and cleaned up so that it just blends a little bit better.

And a maximum flock of seven.

Okay. a maximum of seven hens. I'll amend that.

Second um one year is what we'll do.

So we have historically we put a control on it. Not that we have to but we have

I would I would recommend that it's the permit would be good for one year initially. The applicant will come back to this board after that one year and if um if the use works with the neighbors and there are no complaints then the board at that time you can apply to have it extended. The maximum the permit can go for is 5 years before you would have to re reapply for it.

Okay.

So if this is approved tonight then a year from now you have to come back.

Okay.

Second.

No there was a second. Um,

hello there. Okay.

Mrs. Vololo,

I

Mr. Senola,

hi.

Mr. Corso,

hi.

Mr. Short,

I

and Mr. Spanado.

I,

you have your permit. Um, it's a one-year permit, so the town will reach out to you. You will have to come back next year for a renewal. Um, again, without having any complaints in the past. Um, if you don't have any complaints, uh, come back and go through this process again and, uh, give you a renewal.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Have a great night.

Thank you.

Um, next up, 400 Lake Road if applicant uh, Mark Loenth.

Hello, I'm Mark Lowenth. I live at 400 Lake Road. Um, and we are asking for a variance to put an addition on a pre-existing non-conforming single family home which we constructed in 2011. The um we've taken uh considerable pains to blend the addition into the the rest of the house. We've set done setbacks that are further from the property line. There was non-conforming on the south side as well as on the lakeside. And um the finishes with the designer and the architect will match the roof line as well as the materials with stuckco stone uh and wood. So it does not look like an addition. The lower floor would be a screened in porch and a storage room. And the upper floor, which is contiguous with the rest of the house, would be a laundry room, kind of

a flex room, and some closet space. Questions from the board? There there'll be no access to the second floor one except as part of the main bedroom suite. Then

uh this yes there would the only access to second floor is the main bedroom suite. Have you had any any discussions with your neighbors? Any issues?

Well, the closest neighbor is my my brother um who was supposed to be here, but unfortunately he um had a fire in his cabin last night which was destroyed which he just built and so he is not here. Um the next neighbor is my other brother. Um and on the other side there's a a home um which nobody has lived in in over 15 years. assuming you get get along with your siblings. I don't know if my siblings would approve.

Most of the time most of the time most of the time the the home now um where the addition is going to be positioned you can't see it would not be able to see it from the west side. You won't be able to see it the south side. Really the only area you'll be able to see it from is from the lake and my brother's home would be able to see a portion of the roof when the leaves are off.

Okay.

Okay. Other questions from the board? [clears throat]

No, not at this time.

Okay. Uh, anybody want to speak for or against this project?

Good evening. Philip Miglarati, 382 Lake Road. I'm about um five houses to the west of the Loen Goose residence going on Oklahoma Beach. Um, I've lived there about 10 years. Uh Lo and Gool Goose are uh good neighbors. They have a lovely property. I have no concerns over what they're doing. It's not going to affect anybody. Not going to affect anybody's lake views, which everyone is always concerned with down there. And uh lastly, if there is any um while the work is being done, construction work, if there is they are on a we are on a common driveway there, if the truck has to get in there and is going to be blocking for any more than a few minutes, I'm more than happy to open the gate on my I have a private driveway that goes out to Lake Road, I'm more than happy to open the gate so other residents have access or for emergency access.

Thank you.

Anybody else wanted to speak for or against? My name is, excuse [clears throat] me, my name is Frank Shenko and I've submitted a letter. I don't know if you had an opportunity to read it.

Can you pull that up, Erica, or I submitted a response online and I dropped another item off this morning at the main desk.

Erica, is that in your file there? This is what

it's not in the on the drive. It was sent to all the board members this morning uh via email, but it's right here on the screen.

I have it right here. I'll uh I'll read what I have in front of me.

This is what he submitted online.

Okay.

So, he can summarize it.

Do you want to summarize what you wrote, sir?

I'm sorry. I I've got hearing aids. Do

Do you want to summarize what you wrote? I'm sorry.

Do you want to summarize what you wrote?

Kind of give a brief summary.

Yes. I have been arrested

in into

the mic. Sorry. [clears throat] The property that I have at 390 Lake Road has been in the family about 100 years. I have owned it for 40 years. Uh over my time there, I worked a number of years ago with Katherine Thomas to help in the sewer project. Uh the initial request was not approved. So, I was part of a small group to go out in campus homeowners in the Oklahoma Beach area in the uh Sandbar area to get additional votes to get the sewers approved. I was involved in getting Senator Schumer down to Oklahoma Beach because we are suffering severe erosion problems. I started in 19 92 to try to work with the Department of Transportation so the Oklahoma Beach property owners could acquire the abandoned railroad. And when those options were made, that

opportunity was made by the Department of Transportation, four of us and the addresses from 390 to 390 whatever. Uh those offers were rescended because two property owners refused to sign a release document. So we're we're in a situation and I hope to I guess create a condition as uh [clears throat] as their grandfather wanted to do and that is to get access to the uh railroad property because for me in the years that I've been there it's been a very very difficult situation. If you read the letter or look at the pictures, we got flooding in the yard. Uh [clears throat] when I when I came here with a request to expand the property, and I have a picture to show you. When I came here to with a request to uh expand the property, the uh board suggested or they told me

that I couldn't get closer than 15 1/2 ft to the access road because I would block the view of my neighbor looking out her kitchen window. So for me, it's been a very very difficult and long tenure. at uh 390 Lake Road and I feel I deserve the same opportunity that other people along the uh Sandbar and those at Oklahoma Beach and that is to acquire the railroad property.

All right, Mr. She just what

can you get close to the mic

the relevance of your concerns tonight as related to the applicant's request. Can you tie those together?

I'm sorry. My

Sure.

Given the comments that you've made tonight.

Yes. How do those relate to the applicant's uh request for the variance this evening?

The two, one of the two applicants, both of them refused to sign a release document so we could so we could acquire the railroad property.

Okay. And and

the railroad property offer was extended from

Okay. Just so that I understand. So the fact that the applicant refused to sign that are you asking us to deny the application?

There were the two the two brothers refused to sign a release document allowing four of us to acquire the railroad company. That's correct.

Okay. And that's the basis upon which you're asking the board to deny the applicants uh request this evening.

That is part of it. The other thing that I would like and that is at my age uh I had no idea whether or not Sarah is going to remain in the property but I would like to eliminate some of the issues that we've been dealing with. If you take a look at the pictures we get our driveway and parking area flooded 2/3 coming up. So basically I don't have a good place to park in storms.

Okay. They acquired the railroad property would give me an option to park on the south side of the road.

And and is that opportunity still exist?

Pardon?

Does that opportunity still exist?

I I don't know. I first of all, what I would have to get and that is a release signature by the two brothers that said in fact we can acquire the railroad property. Okay. Very well. Thank you.

Uh, does anybody else want to speak for against this property?

Give the applicant opportunity is

um I don't know if there's anything else you want to add after uh both the both the uh residents made comments. Uh I'm not really very familiar with much of what he said. Um the whole railroad property has been very nebulous. I think um my grandfather actually spearheaded much of that more than I believe he did. But I don't want to argue about that. With regard to the the the neighborhood itself, I would say that is certainly anything we're going to do is only going to enhance the overall quality of the neighborhood. The landscaping will be as as appropriate as the rest of the house is. You were there yourself. You know, it's it's a nice home and we tend to keep it in and keep we intend to keep it consistent with the the rest of the house.

Just out of curiosity, Mr. long ago. Did you refuse to sign?

I don't know anything about it. What he's talking about is

the first time you've heard of it?

No. No, I haven't. My

No, I I said, "Is this the first time that you've heard of this situation?"

I've heard that of my brother not wanting to sign it. Nobody really approached us about signing it.

Do you know what the basis was for that?

Pardon me.

Do you know what the basis was for that?

No. No, I don't.

He's 408. If if you look at he's up even further. Did you see the pictures of his property flooding?

Pardon me.

Have you seen the pictures of his property flooding?

Our property flooded as well.

My my my question was did you see the pictures of No. Okay.

But we all flooded.

I guess my question is do you know whether that's causally related to this issue with the uh railroad?

No. I would say that it was flood the flooding is caused by the high lake levels.

So the railroad has no impact on it.

No. In my opinion, no. And I would say that the engineers would say so as well.

Very good.

All right. Clarify though. Um

the railroad property, the park to stay out of the flooded areas is what I think he was looking for.

Yes. [clears throat] Everyone else along Lake Road has had the opportunity to purchase the property that's across from the lane that goes to the houses along Oklahoma Beach, which has allowed some of them to actually do a driveway through to get them to Lake Road or extend this the building of their house or give them additional spaces to park when the lake does come up because the lake does come up and and that shoreline gets a little bit smaller every year. So, um, my concern when I visited the property, um, when the the construction is actually going to be on the side of your house that's away from the access to the remaining 13 addresses on Oklahoma Beach.

Um, is is there a means for the construction crew to make sure that they don't block that bridge and that access?

Yeah. What? There is a twocar parking spot down next to the home. Yes. On the garage. And then on the entrance road to the property, which is about 300 ft. It's mowed on both sides. And when we constructed the home, when um Phil constructed his home, when the there's been three other homes constructed there in recent years, that's where people park.

Okay. you know, so it's if somebody we do have a good construction manager as well as a good constru contractor who make sure if I mean they're very attentive to people's needs. If a truck's going to be there more than 5 minutes, they'll move it. Uh Phil said if this there was an emergency, they would um he he would open his driveway as well

because that was that was one of the concerns I had just from even just an emergency response point of view was

the fire department comes down routinely to make sure that they can get around that corner. And even when we had construction that we had a dumpster there, they came down to make sure that they could get underneath the underpass and around the corner. They're bringing a small truck down there. They're not bringing [clears throat] one of the big trucks.

No, but

who maint who maintains that?

It's

It just

the walls are the engineers told us to not take down the walls. They didn't know what would happen to the bank and the top is blocked off. But but the top I was a little concerned walking under it when I was around the property just because it is is a little it's old. It's old and it just there would look like there were pieces of it that could fall.

There have been and the um the ties could be removed but the risk with that is um you have to maintain the metal the walls

could collapse. But no one maintains that. That's

No, no, it's it's posted not to walk across it. And

let me ask you this. If if it if the opportunity came up again where the railroad property became um available, would would you sign off on those properties being able to purchase that?

I I

Again, it's all hypothetical at this point.

I don't know much about it. I would have to look at it. I I mean I don't I don't frankly know why they couldn't before. Um so I don't want to speak to something I don't know. I don't know really know anything about that.

Okay.

As I said um when I talked to Josh, my grandfather acquired their property in bits and pieces over the years. So it was one the original house was where our home is and then he acquired and one piece and then another piece and then another piece over the course of 50 years. Okay. Other questions from the board? No. Okay. Um, I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under secret pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

I.

Karin, you want to do the

No.

No. Okay.

Someone else's turn.

Okay. Chris.

Sure. Uh the uh addition uh will not impact the essential character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. It uh mostly won't be visible to the general public at all and will not block any lake views if if approved. uh based on the uh the applicant's needs, there were no other real alternates because it needed to go uh as an expansion of the master bedroom suite and then using the space underneath it as a uh covered porch area. So there really no were no other uh alternatives considered. Uh the request is not substantial or contextually significant uh from from the zoning required. Uh it uh will not increase uh any type of adverse effect or impact the physical environmental conditions in the

neighborhood or the district and more importantly to the uh immediate neighbors. And although the the difficulty is self-created, it is the minimum relief necessary to allow the applicant to do what he needs to do with his property.

And I'll just add um the views views of the lake are not going to be affected uh with this uh variance being provided. Uh the addition is not going to be uh visible from uh basically from from uh any of the properties surrounding properties. I'll be at the property to the I guess it be the souththeast. Uh we'll be able to see the roof of the uh of the addition uh that the variance is being required for. Um the location of the addition is limited to the location that it's at just due to the uh unique shape of the property as well and how close uh it is to the to the water's edge. um not not being able to provide get any closer to the water's edge um as well. So, uh this is a non-conforming building. Um so, yeah. Anybody want to add anything

else to it?

Um I just have a question. Do you have [clears throat] approval from the DEEC for this or the Army Corps of Engineers yet?

Um we contacted them and as long as we're not going closer to the lake, that's why we deliberately set back six feet.

Okay. from um the existing north north wall of the existing house which was where the exact two inches inside of where the existing

the original house were two inches inside of that and now we're 6 feet back from that.

Okay. All right. So they don't need right any further permits for this

from the DEC.

You' still need building permits.

Anybody else want to add anything further?

Okay. Um only condition I'm I'm going to add to it is uh during construction um the construction manager and the owner are responsible for maintaining uh drive access through uh through the property. Um let's see. So, I'd like to make a motion uh for an area variance to allow uh the alteration, sorry, the extension of a pre-existing non-conforming single family home in association with the construction of a 460 square ft addition on a 0.45 acre parcel having SPL063.06-1-19.1 06-1-19.1 located in R1 single family district under section 350-10 and 350- 95 the code of the town of Webster.

Second

second

Mr. Short

I

Mr. Sola

I

Mr. Corso

I

Mr. I

Mr. Bola

I

you have uh the area variance for the addition you still have to get all uh all required building permits.

Okay.

Uh one year to to start uh meaningful um action.

It'll be started soon. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Uh going back to 50 to Hackberry way. [clears throat] How's it going?

Good. How are you?

Good.

Um, so if you could tell us a little uh name, address, tell us a little bit about the uh the project that you have uh going forward.

Uh name is Austin Sagio. Just purchased the home. Uh builders had told us it'd be no problem to put an addition onto the property. Obviously finding out that there's a variance for everything. Thankfully, my dad knows a little bit about this, but we got young kids just want more space in the house. It's more important to us than having outside space cuz we don't get to use it all the time. So, okay, questions from the board. That's a brand new house already doing addition, huh? That's what they sold us on. We knew it was too small and they're like, "Hey, yeah, we can put this edition on. No problem." So, fun news.

And here you are.

Yep.

Got it.

With no builders to show up. I love that.

Got to love salespeople, right?

Mhm.

Oh, that was tonight. [laughter]

Yeah. Right. Questions from the board. Um, Erica, is this a cluster subdivision or is this

the lot seem to cluster?

Um, I would have to double check.

Looks like they're tied,

but I believe it is.

Okay.

281.

Just cuz they seem condensed.

Yes, this is an LMR inside of a single family residential.

Okay. So spots are going to be uh threeseason. So covered porch. What is is it three seasons screened in? What is the

We plan to screen it in eventually. They're just going to cover it though.

So just the roof.

Yes.

Got it. Okay.

I think on the on the plans.

So you mentioned you were just you were looking for more space

for the house

being outside. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that since it's not

I mean the house is it's I I don't want to sound like that but it's 1500 square feet. We moved from a house that was 1500 ft.

It's the same exact size. It's split differently.

But this is outdoor space. This is not indoor space, right?

Yeah. Exactly.

Okay. You said the intention eventually is to potent is to screen it in. Again, that's not what you're doing now, but that's

Yes. Maybe finish it. I don't know. Whatever.

Okay.

Yeah.

Other questions from the board?

Yeah.

John.

No. Uh, anybody from the uh public want to speak for or against this project?

No. Have you had any discussion with any of your neighbors? Uh, I drove through the neighborhood. It um it's definitely very visible

where it is. Mhm.

So, any any dialogue with any of your neighbors?

Haven't really. I mean, we just moved in and we have one neighbor to our side at the moment. That seems nice, but

Okay, fair enough. Um Okay. Um any other comments from the board?

I just say the the odd shape of the lot really if he had a normal rectangular lot, I don't think he'd even be here.

Agreed.

Okay. Well, and that's a feature and perhaps maybe the builder excluded it on this particular home, but um when we get this type of subdivision, typically that little covered porch is part of the back of the home on I'll say 80% of them. And I imagine this won't be the last one that we see within this subdivision. Even if you look down Arowwood, there's there's a couple of them already that they already exist. Um, but because it's a corner lot, which makes the backyard smaller than normal, there's there's nothing that this applicant could add here without without a variance.

Yeah. Which I had no idea about to be completely honest with you. That's that's all dad. That's he knows what he's doing.

About that.

Other comments?

No. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under secret pursuant to NYCR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor? I

uh

I'll run through the findings if you like.

Okay.

I was going to ask John if you want to do them.

Oh, I No, John can do it.

No, be my guest. [laughter]

I was going to scare you.

Well, since you told I told you no before because I just didn't have my papers ready. Um, I'll I'm going to say the request is not out of character in the neighborhood and that some of the homes already on Arowwood have that feature built in, an external covered porch. Um, the det there will not be a detriment created to nearby properties. Right now, that side of the street is fairly unbuilt. It looks like they're working on developing it, but um it's it's it's not going to impact anybody. It's certainly not going to hurt anybody's line of sight. Um, it's not too close to anybody's house. achievable by any other method? No, not in this instance. In that the um the back of the house is the logical location and it's a very short backyard. Um no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or to the neighborhood. That's as stated. Um the difficulty is or is not self-created. I'm going to say it's really not self-created in that it's the size of the lot. Um and and the

builder obviously didn't include it because he didn't want to come here and get a variance before he built the house. So um certainly not an undesirable change. We get such a short season that you want to be able to have a covered area to be able to enjoy a little bit more of the non- snow weather without rain or excessive not that we get excessive sun but um

sometimes

it it it it does make sense. So, um, anything else anyone would like to add to that? [cough and clears throat]

No.

All right. I will make a motion to grant an area variance at 522 Hackberry Way. And um it is to allow a covered porch area that has a rear setback of 43 feet where 50 ft is required and it's on a.34 acre parcel with SPL number 065.02-5-10. And this is in a an LMR district in the town of Webster.

Second.

Okay. I heard everybody.

Mrs. Volo.

I

Mr. Short.

Hi,

Mr. Spanado.

I

Mr. Sola.

Hi.

Mr. Corso.

Hi.

You have your uh variance. You still have to go uh through and get your building permits before you can start any work. Uh you have one year for meaningful um progress.

Awesome. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Uh next up, uh Waterview Apartments phase three. If uh the applicant from Legacy Development can come on up. Good evening. I'm Chris Nadler, general counsel for MarkV Enterprises. I'm here tonight with Ed Martin from Paso, our design engineer team. Uh our goal tonight is a renewal of the two variances that were granted by this zoning board uh in November of 2024. An 18.7 front setback where 75 ft is required and a 38.5 district buffer where 100 ft is required. Um as as you know this project has gone through a lot of uh change a lot of reduction. Uh in early 2024 uh late 23 24 early 24 mark started meeting with the town and presented

applications uh originally for two threestory buildings with 90 units. Um after uh four or five meetings with this board and five or six meetings with the planning board, the project was reduced in scale uh and now features uh twotory townhouse buildings with 56 units, a single driveway to Mchuan and uh significant landscape buffers. Um this board actually required um the landscape buffers at its meeting. I just was looking at the findings um to increase total vegetation and buffer zone and work with the town to provide buffering in Mchuan Road right ofway. And Ed will tell you a little bit about the the difference or the uh the distances involved and I mentioned them when I was here last. Um but the district buffer uh of 38.5 ft doesn't really reflect the actual distances involved. the the building to the border between the districts is 38.5 ft. But then there's another 25 22 ft between the district buffer and the edge of Mchuan, making

the total distance to Mchuan 58.5 ft and the total distance to the closest house 152 ft. Uh the currently the town houses that we have uh in existence in phase two are as close as 66 ft to the houses on Mchuan. Um so this is again the same just a renewal of variances that were granted by the board in December 2024. No conditions have changed. This board has received significant correspondence from our neighbors along Mchuan Road. I don't think that changes any of the conditions that were in place or uh the situation that was in place when this board considered uh the variance factors and granted this these variances in December 2024. So, what we're asking for tonight is that this board confirm that no conditions have changed uh and renew our two variances. Uh I'm going to turn it over to Ed to explain one why uh some of this time has passed and two some of the uh reductions that were made in conjunction with this

board and with the planning board. [cough] [clears throat]

Thank you, Chris. For the record, my name is Ed Martin. I'm a licensed engineer with Passerro Associates. Um, as Chris mentioned, there's quite a history to this project and most recently, uh, dating back to 2024. The the buildings were changed, reduced in size to go from the two 45 unit buildings to these generally 10 unit, we have one six unit off to the west, but to be more consistent with the units that you see to the east and to the south. And our initial layout included individual driveways for the the building accessing uh MUN, but uh the feedback from the town was they wanted it to be more single family in nature. And so we reduced it to that single access point um and pushed the building further to the south to to increase that that space and added significant plantings. Uh there it's north of 80 plantings along that that rightway to create a nice buffer. Um, there's another critical part to this whole story that I think this board needs to realize. In in January of 2025, the DEEC initiated some changes in the storm water uh or I'm sorry, the wetland regs and they were challenged by developers

across the state. Uh, the DEC subsequently filed an appeal and they were going to fight that to keep them in place. They they have since revoked the they revoked their appeal and so we are literally operating under preJanuary 2025 regulations for wetlands. Why is that important? Because if that had never been in place in the first place, they would have they would have uh pursued construction. We would have avoided this whole situation. So literally nothing has changed. There was this delay caused by the DEEC. We complied with the town and said we'll wait for their jurisdiction to come back. And by the way, it was for a pocket wetland offsite to the west. Was not impacted whatsoever. But because of this lawsuit that got filed, an appeal that was filed by the DEEC and subsequently revoked, we are under pre January 2025 DEC wetland rags. And so, as Chris said, the conditions truly have not changed whatsoever. So, we're just simply asking you to to more or less reinstate the variances that have already been granted. And so, I guess at this point, we'd be happy to answer questions that you might have.

So, uh, does staff know is the board that's voting tonight, is it the same board?

It is not.

Okay. And who's who is not?

I wasn't here. I think John Jim I don't know if you were an alternate at that point but I don't

an alternate back then.

Yeah.

It's s safe to say that the two two board members who were not here did not by any chance review the original application. No. No. Okay. All right. So the board and I and I don't frankly remember how comprehensive the first presentation was of course was versus tonight which appears to be more summary in in content. That's my my sense. I'm open to be challenged on that. But the board should be treating this as a new application. But it is uh generally bound by its administrative precedent uh which granted these uh variances. However, if the board was to find some change of circumstance, you know, we arguably it would need to be substantial so that it wasn't your decision if you changed it wasn't or is not arbitrary or

capriccious. The change could be in the zoning law, could be in neighborhood density, it could be environmental, it could be traffic. Uh those are all options. Or if the board found that they had to correct an error that had previously made in terms of an abuse of discretion or they or the board thinks it misinterpreted the law. So, I just set that out there to give you some general guidelines in in terms of how to treat this in so much as it was previously approved and the applicant just ex uh approval expired and essentially it's the same application. So, and I I I'll I'll um defer to council. I just want what I want to be certain is that u I I don't remember the specifics of the last application and I could be conflating it [clears throat] to some degree with your last visit here but my sense is it was in greater detail. Maybe staff says we have the same materials but the presentation was more brief.

You know I think that could be true. I I'm certain that's true as of today. uh we appeared in front of this board at least for I think five times on the original um so I've presented on a 90 unit uh project I've presented on an 88 unit project um and then several meetings where it was this design but wiggling stuff around and and coming to uh you know agreements on what would be uh appropriate and what would pass uh the variance tests and what this board was comfortable able with that would that would uh satisfy those tests. Uh our application materials that Pasro submitted I know probably about 3 months ago are uh identical. Um this board has uh those in front of them. I am happy to uh uh go further into depth. Uh Ed and I are happy to go further into depth. Um I think you have pretty much what I would present.

Yeah. So let's let's be clear on that. So, in terms of what the board has tonight or has been directed to access wise, is that the is it the entirety of the application? Because I I'm not saying council that you need to do a full-blown presentation. I

I can go about an hour and a half if you want.

Well, I Right. Uh, but I just want to make sure that since there was some brevity tonight that particularly those two board members that were not here for that that they were provided uh the information that was within the prior application. Not not not the application that was changed but the one that was approved. Look at you.

That's

one of the pieces of information that was missing with this particular application. Um, and I think it was one of the questions that we had last time, this was before this board two months ago was um in trying to determine how these buildings fit within the character of the existing neighborhood. And we didn't have any front elevations of the buildings. So, can we pull the Thank you, Erica. Um because that that was one of the big questions especially for the two members that were not present for this was the footprint is quite different than what the neighbors across the street have to look at every day.

Understood. And here this is what it's going to look like. This is uh

this would be the building across from Muan. That would be exactly uh the building across from Mchuan where

well not exactly

except that except that there will be uh significant landscape buffering and uh not individual driveways so or not individual driveways to Mchuan.

You'd have an internal road with a single drive out onto Mu.

Exactly. So 10 trees is substantial in your opinion.

Uh I believe it's 88

across Mchuan

in front of the the the 10 units across that face [clears throat] Mchuan. There are 10 trees. I'm not talking about sitewise. I'm just talking about in front of Mchuan.

Erica, can you go back to the uh the graphic plan again? So you mentioned 80 plantings. I'm assuming you're talking about the entire site. I guess the question

No, the 80 is just along the the frontage of the road there

of just Mchuan. So this graphic is not representative of the plantings, I guess, is is the question

or comment.

Well, you can look on the screen and count.

No, that's that's a a rendering. Our the site plan that was submitted with the variance application shows is a separate landscape plan. Yes. This is

Chris.

So just the applicant right there. Let's just Can you identify the map that you're referencing with the 80 plans?

Sure. It's sheet C106 drawing set

dated uh May of 2026.

Yeah. and and this board uh when it granted the variances directed as a as a condition uh that uh to increase total vegetation in buffer zone to work I think that means and work with town to provide buffering in Mchuan Road right away and so that increase was made up to the 80 plantings um and as we get closer to building permits we'll work with the town uh add plantings in the in the Mchu and right ofway.

So I just want to chime in. Um so we did share that with the various departments at our project review committee meeting and the sewer department particularly expressed some concerns with planting of vegetation in the town's rightway especially in close proximity to underground utilities such as sewer pipes. So it's while it was an initial condition of this board to encourage more buffering, the town really doesn't want to encourage vegetation in the highway right ofway. So I just want to state that for the board's consideration.

And [clears throat] we've we've worked in a lot of towns where that there's the exact same concern. There's things we can do. We're happy to sit down with the sewer department and say, you know, we can map the the exact location of things and exact location of where they're going to put their equipment if they have to dig something up and there's plants that can be uh planted. We're happy to still have that condition um to work with them and figure something out. So, um, if you can just for this board, the unit in the middle, what is the offset from the property line, not from the road, but from the property line? And then if you can also give it to me from the uh from the road edge

as well as the property to the uh to the uh west as well. Ed, ask which unit because you said the unit in the middle.

Yeah. So, I'm talking the middle one and this one and this one, right? Because the these two are the closest and then this one's a little further away. So, why don't you give me all three of them? So, working from west to east to Mchuan, uh, it's 38.5 ft.

That's to the road or to the property line.

Uh, to that's to the rightway, I'm sorry. Which is the property line?

This is the rightway right here.

Then it is 44.8 for the middle one. and 54.7 for the eastern one. And those are all to the right away.

And do you know what it is to the road edge?

It is another

22.

That's what I got. That's what I read on

about 21 ft to the pavement edge.

Okay. That That's the same for all of them.

I'm sorry.

That's the same for all of them.

Yep. This is I'm getting confused by what you're saying on the setbacks are because last time we were here two months ago, whatever it was, it seemed to me that the uh setback you were request or the easement you were requesting was a lot more significant than that.

Well, uh the setback for this because it's on a residential is 100 ft. Um so it they're asking for 50 you know, at the at the most uh where is it? 50 60 5 ft.

So, they have a 35 ft set back as opposed to 100 ft.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah. Other questions from the board? Is there I'm trying to think a a road or another I know there were stop signs right in this area that we requested. Correct.

Yeah.

Now, wasn't there

right?

Yeah.

And then another like an area to get out other than use Mchuan. it. Yeah, you could go Willow or Willow Point.

But now for the middle building.

Oh yeah, that's true.

Is the middle building able to have an exit to the east? No, I believe that was considered and uh the site

the grade is

the grade is significant there. I mean, we can push

Sure.

Uh there's not wetlands on that 22 acres that we own going down to the lake. We can just expand the footprint, but I don't think anybody wants that that you know eats up a a steep slope. We have room, but this is the better design that this board

wanted. Yep. Other questions from the board? Not. I'll open it up to the public for now and bring it back. All right. Um like to hear if anybody wants to speak for against the project. Please come on up.

How you folks doing? I'm uh Charlie Johnson. I'm at 440 Muan Drive. Um, I sent you guys a letter. I just wanted to clarify or at least summarize a couple of things. Um, when the applicant claims that this new uh a different decision would be arbitrary and capriccious. Uh, New York State law is clear. If the material facts have changed, this board is obviously legal is uh legally able to make a new decision. um they haven't much uh we had a formal request a response back on August 28th about a positive jurisdictional determination for the wetlands for this area. Um they came back and said this was a class one wetland which is the highest protective classification we have in New York State. Um, looking at the hang on, let me go to my notes I have here. We just look at the five st the five statutory standards that we have when you guys grant variances. Uh, the first one is the undesirable change to the neighborhood. Uh, squeezing these buildings into such a small area. uh

specifically cutting down or the single 61% directly robs neighboring homeowners of their privacy uh quiet enjoyment and property values. Uh the second part is number two feasible alternatives. A developer uh desires to build 56 units is a financial goal. It's not necessarily a physical necessity. Uh the obvious solution is to scale back the project. Uh number three, the request is obviously substantial. You're talking about a 75% reduction uh for the buffer and a 61% reduction for the other section there. Um and about the adverse environmental impacts the project has. Uh the DEEC's positive jurisdictional determination proves that the regulated wetlands and state protected 100 ft adjacent areas exist on this site. Okay. Uh which I believe requires that automatically trig I believe triggers a special use permit. uh I'm asking you to dig more or at least get more information from the developers on the status of their

current wetland determination and or if they have a special use permit application in process. Um and then lastly, I'll just say that uh the application pretty much fails all five of the balloting criteria that you guys use to make area variances uh decisions. Uh, one, it dramatically alters the neighborhood character. Two, uh, the requests are massively uh, substantial. Uh, the environmental risk is validated by a positive DEC determination and there's obviously feasible uh, alternatives that exist and that is all that I have.

Mr. Justin, you you mentioned the environmental risk and then the applicant said there was a a pocket wetland that was nowhere near the project. Do you recall that?

They they they did, but because they're using the entire property to obviously meet the density requirements, they have to consider the wetland that's down by the bay there. Um that is the again the the I don't know if you guys have a copy. I have a copy of this I can provide to you. Um the the date on the notice is incorrect. Um they had they said this determination shall remain valid for five years from the date of this letter which is through 222 2031. Um so I I think what they're talking about is the area closer to the bay there. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

No problem.

Any anybody else from the public want to speak for against the project?

No additional comments. Okay. Back to the board. Other questions from the board. I was not on the board in 26 or 24. I mean, um, had I been on the board in 24, I don't think I would have approved it at that time. And I'm I understand what Mr. DeMarco was saying about it being we might be under some obligation, but as someone that wasn't here, is that whole for me also?

Oh, I'm sorry. There was a question. um under our general law and juristprudence. I guess the analogy would be, you know, someone sitting on the Supreme Court that says or a lower court that says, I don't, you know, I wasn't on the bench when this higher court made this president. Do I need to follow it? And short answer is yes. You don't have to. What I said at the beginning was we recognize the administrative precedence of the board. So that if there's going to be a change of this board's determination, if the applicant was to challenge it, right, let's not mince words. If this board was to deny the application tonight and the applicant was to challenge it, they would challenge the uh administrative precedence and say, "Look, you previously ruled on this. Now you're the board, not individuals, but the board is now changing its ruling." So the question then becomes is there change of circumstances present in the site in the application that this board can hang their hat on

and say we have now new facts new circumstances and based upon those the board can give specific reasons of our criteria that we always look at and hang its hat on those factual changes. So that's what we're faced with. If we want to change, if the board changes its position, I'm not saying it can't it can. I'm not saying it shouldn't. But if it chooses to, it needs to articulate the change in circumstances at the site. How is it today changed from how it was immediately prior to your last approval?

Does that make sense? I understand what you're saying. I'm just I guess I'm wondering what obligation I'm under. I mean, if the board as a whole approves it, can it still have a negative vote in there?

Of course.

Thank you.

Of course.

That's a good question. Other questions from the board? I find myself in a difficult situation because when we first when I first saw it, it uh let me commend the applicant for changing it to our request originally and because it I think it does look much better and I apologize for questioning number trees. I was going simply by the presentation drawing which was different from the application drawing and that's my fault. I apologize for that. But and like I said, I think it's much better than it was before you made those revisions. But having a lot more time to look at it again, I try to look at it fresh again and thinking like, well, it's better, but it's not something that I still feel comfortable with. But, uh, if I I feel that, uh, I just want to make make it known that it'll be yes, but it's a reluctant yes, but I guess it doesn't matter whether it's reluctant or not. since I did vote it originally because it was an improvement and I still think it is an improvement over what was originally presented to this board. But the more I look at it, the more I start thinking maybe I didn't vote properly

last time and that's my error, not yours. And we certainly I don't want to put the board in any predicament by me having more time to look at it and potentially changing my mind. that that's more of a statement than a question to you.

That's understood. I have a response uh a two-part response. One uh and it ties into something that uh John said earlier. This board had a lot more time to look at this application and and took a lot of time. You looked at it a ton. You looked at every single page of the application. you look you poured over this before and made made that decision after five four or five different meetings and I mean and I wasn't up here I've been up here for 15 minutes I was up here for an hour and a half every time um with you drilling me with questions and everybody so you know maybe your your first instinct was correct because you it did have you did uh go deeper second um and this is something Mark Fort does with all our projects But, uh, we're going to prove you wrong. If you're hesitant about it, we will prove you wrong. This is going to be a great project. It's going to be buffered adequately. The neighbors on Mchuan, I get it. They don't like it.

They They're not even going to notice it three years from now. That's what happens with every single one of our projects. Um, I talked to board, we go back into towns, you know, this is not our only uh development in the town of Webster. I'm going to see you in three years. And you're going to say, "Oh, yeah. Yes, that's a great a great project. We will prove you wrong on that.

I look forward to that.

Can can you help me understand how? Right. So, I heard Josh just say uh the town does not want the um vegetation in the right away. Um I like hearing it, but I've I've had salesmen sell me on things before and it doesn't come true, right? second slam on sale. [laughter]

So, so help me understand how help me understand and help help the residents of Mchuan understand how they're not going to notice this. And and you're right. I mean, we poured over this and and I I remember us talking about can we pull the pull that road in even more so we can get more vegetation, right? So there there was a lot of discussion because asking for the the setback of 35 ft 55 ft from 100 ft it it's not insignificant right I mean it's you know so how do we how do you how do we get an asurances in a comfort level um because [cough] I think the board that was here previously there reluctances, but we felt comfortable enough after the last time. Uh, hearing that the town does not want the vegetation in there leaves me a little concerned. Um, because at the end of the day, the town does have to maintain, you know, any of those utilities in there and everything else. So, I I would hate to leave here with those conditions. The town doesn't want it. And now all of a sudden I have three

buildings on Mchuan that are are visible and whatnot. So help me understand how we're going to get over that. Um so Josh uh is is I believe correct. You know that sewer department from an initial standpoint and they always all sewer departments say we don't want it anywhere near our easement.

Sure.

Um you know some easements they're very familiar with. this one down closer to the lake, they, you know, they can map it out, you know, off the top of their head. They're so familiar with it. This one, you know, it's a standard side of the road easement. They don't know exactly where the pipe is. They'd have to go in the file and look for it. Um, we can work with them, our engineers, our design team will work with the town um and find places where, you know, shallow rooted plants can can thrive. um the the the answer to and I I want to be clear, we're not going to hide this, but the neighbors on MUN won't notice it as, you know, uh the threat to their way of life that they think it's going to be right now. Um it's not going to be hidden. It's going to blend. It's going to become a part of this neighborhood. And uh the real answer to it is we rent these things. We have to sell them. And it sounds like a salesman, but you can't sell junk. You can't sell stuff that doesn't have uh you can't sell stuff on Mchuan Road that looks like an apartment complex. We're gonna make it look like Mchuan Road. That's the way to rent it and rent it for the you know quite frankly the prices that uh a great neighborhood like this deserves.

And these are you said two things in in your last statement. Rent and sell. So

no I'm being a the salesman.

Salesman. Okay. Lease leasemen. I guess we have to sell them to tenants. None of these will ever be sold. This will operate as one functional property

as an apartment complex. Yep. Okay.

Um the the resident had talked about uh in in his letter storm water soil erosion. Um can you talk about the storm water for the uh for this complex? Is all storm water going to be handled on site?

It it will be and this is subject to the DEEC storm water permit GP0-25-00001 that is not impacted by the regulation changes that I referred to earlier. Uh prior to the start of construction, perimeter erosion control will be put in place. A stabilized construction entrance will be put in. storm water management facilities installed, including sedimentation basins, so that that when storm water leaves the site, it does it never occurs at a rate higher than it occurs today for various storms up to and including the 100red-year event, which is significant. That's flooding. Um, and sediment will be contained on site. So, downstream receiving waters, offsite properties will not be be impacted by that. And that it's subject to a weekly uh inspection

during construction.

Correct. Um when you say sediment is going to be maintained on site again during construction

both during construction and in in in the uh in the completed state also

um who is maintaining uh the storm system after it's complete? I mean I hate to say it it's you know

patients can get filled up and no longer function.

We operate we own and operate our own properties. That's us. We we will operate it in perpetuity. Um this this is an interesting one. I forget there's big giant storm chambers on this one. Um it's new for us. So we'll get a tech, you know, the the you know the techni technicians out and they'll train our on-site maintenance personnel. We have on-site maintenance p personnel on site at all of our properties. They'll learn how to do what they have to do. And then I'm assuming it has an annual or bianual bigger maintenance that we have to hire somebody to do. Okay.

So once construction's completed, this is subject to an annual inspection that gets provided to the town and so any kind of of repairs are noted in that and so they would make them.

Okay. Um can you talk to soil erosion both during construction and post construction as well?

Yeah. So we're going to employ pretty standard measures between uh what's called silt fence. You've seen this at any construction site. Uh and that gets again inspected weekly. Um

and again this is we're talking during construction right now.

Correct. And those that that fencing has to be removed before the permit can be closed out the construction portion of it. And that can only come out once all the surfaces have stabilized either through a minimum of 80% uh density growth or by a construction service put down like a asphalt or concrete sidewalk. Okay. Uh each one of those driveways, if you will, is a single family resident. If you I guess best way for me to put it right. Is that

exactly?

Okay. So on Mchuan, I'm looking at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight uh apartment apartments. If I'm counting that correctly,

up to 10.

Is that up to 10?

The ends are doubles.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Erica. Okay. Other questions from the board comment? Um I I understand we came from years ago an eight-story building and then two three-story buildings that were ridiculously long to the town houses which are probably the least impactful other than just building single family homes that we can come to. Um, and I also know it's really not the privy of this board, but I don't like all the extra traffic that this is potentially dumping onto Mchuan. Um, putting the traffic in inboard onto Willow Point makes it I won't say at least less impactful to Mchuan. It's not ever going to be unimpactful to them. Um,

I understand we have only the one driveway coming out of the building that's closest to Mchuan. Um, but it seems like this whole end of the complex is going to dart out there and and be a lot of extra traffic on a street that right now has five houses on it, so maybe 10 cars.

So, so the site plan included a seeker review for potential impacts like that. It was deemed to be to not have a significant impact whatsoever.

90 addition or I'm sorry.

So that

56 additional

is negligible. Yes. So it was considered at the planning board level.

I I understand that but I question it. So, and I I'm going from memory here, but I believe that the traffic study that this board and uh the planning board and staff and the town's engineers reviewed and agreed with, I believe it said that this project will dump one car every either 8 minutes or 12 minutes. And I don't remember which it is, and I apologize for that, but it's not one car every minute, every two minutes. It's one or one car every like 8 to 10 minutes.

Oh, I understand that. But I have and it's not going to be one every 8 to 10 minutes because there's going to be a dump between say seven and eight o'clock and then a dump coming in between four and six o'clock. But but right now I've got five houses, six houses on Mchuan with maybe two houses and grandma and grandpa coming over on the weekends or two cars per house. So it is going to be an impact regardless of what the traffic study says. that's not going to be, you know, high volume traffic, but it's additional traffic. And I just

I'm struggling of how do we how do we make it attractive for people to want to go out the Willowpoint entrance and not out the Mchuan? That's that's what I struggle with. And I know I voted for this project the last time just because it's so much better than where we started. But but it is a significant impact to the people that live there now and don't see the other 56 residences worth of cars or even half of them. Say half of them go in half them. So, what [clears throat] I just be cognizant of that when you're doing this, if you get the approval to to make it least impactful traffic-wise for the the kids that right now probably play in the street and

well and and absolutely and understood. Um, one of the nice things, uh, that I've seen happen, um, sometimes through planning board meetings, um, but we have on-site property management. We also have our tenants have children playing in the streets. If somebody can wants to lodge a complaint with our property on-site property manager, and say it's a red car, she'll figure out which one it is, and we'll we'll we'll violate them. We'll we'll we'll tell them they got to knock it off or they can find somewhere else to live. Um, so if there's a traffic problem, uh, you know, if people are driving their through, uh, too fast through through Mchuan, uh, we hope our neighbors contact us and and let us know. You know, they're going to know if it's turning into our, uh, complex or, you know, onto Maritime Drive. And we hope they they reach out and tell us. other questions. No Erica, Chris, Jim. So you guys all

thinking

I No other questions.

No.

And uh Webster's was sanitation or what was it? the

the highway and sewer department.

They've worked with other builders prior to this.

I'm not aware of an specific example where a project has spilled out into the right away, if you will. Erica, do you have the um the engineering plans, not the rendering?

Because I believe the rendering shows the roadway a little closer to the

rendering isn't the most accurate set of plans.

So, here we go. The issue

that I had. Sorry.

Yep. The um the rightway is the the rightway is those two lighter triple dash or quadruple dash lines. Is that correct?

The rightway is the darker one in the middle of those two.

Okay.

The other the other two lighter ones are easements.

Easements. Okay. Um, so we do have they do have space for vegetation on the property before the easement based on this plan. Am I reading that correctly?

Yes.

Okay. Uh, do we have an understanding of how much space that is? Looks like 16 ft.

Yeah. Well, it gets worse as you get closer in Eric or

it's probably around 154.

15.4. Okay. Uh and then take off five or six feet for the for the easement. Um because if I remember correctly, we asked to shorten those driveways so that they could have more space inside the on the property instead and stay outside the the easement if I remember correctly. Uh back to 2024. So there is space on the property proper to do that. Uh is this a 12 in sanitary sewer main that would run through that 22 ft? The other thing is this is a 12 or 18 in sewer man running through a 22 foot rightway.

There's room. There's room. And if they really don't want it, we'll put the we'll find some other way to to buffer um that's suit that's acceptable to the town. Um but you know, we can do uh planting boxes. We've seen um that don't you know, dig down that don't you don't plant in the

uh soil. You put a a box and then uh uh plant the tree in that.

What are the driveway lengths right now?

We can do that.

What are the driveway links right now? So to the interior drive, it's 20 ft

from the from the

front of the garage to the close edge of the interior road.

It's 22 feet.

20 ft. Really a bare minim.

Yeah. Anybody with a pickup truck is that that's basically it.

Y

gotcha. Okay. Okay.

Other questions from the board? No. Uh, one last question I have for you. Uh, special use wetlands permits, uh, not required, I think is what you were saying,

correct? Um you are looking at the entire parcel uh for so the uh the resident was talking about um the density factor of this uh using one portion versus the wetlands portion as I was trying to listen to it. Can you speak to any of that by any chance? Honestly, I don't know if we use that area to to determine density, but it's a small isolated pocket wetland that is outside that we're not touching whatsoever. So, I'm not sure cuz cuz passive space is often used for density. I'm not sure what the concern is.

We took out We knew that was a wetland. We knew that was a wetland when we did the D or Pasro knew when they did the density calculation. So, I'm sure that wasn't included.

Okay. All right. If there's more comments from uh from the board, I'm going to make a motion for type two. Is there any any further comments?

Um I just I want to make sure I understand this is the last development that's planned for the Willow Point complex, right?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. I'm going to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

Second. All those in favor

I All right. Um area variance uh request is not out of character uh in the neighborhood. So, uh over the course of several years, the uh the applicant uh has looked to reduce the um the imposition of the uh highdensity housing on this uh property to a more um scalable residential um feel so that would fit within the neighborhood itself. uh eliminating uh maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Uh albeit the property itself is a uh wooded lot with housing on the uh north side of it. So, the neighborhood itself will change, but the applicant has modified um over the course of years to come up with a a design that will mimic uh a a single family residential uh type look um not not imposing um a difference

in character for the neighborhood. [clears throat] um detriment to created by uh to nearby properties. Um this this project does uh include additional uh drive and vehicle access uh to nearby properties. Uh again, the the roadways themselves um able to handle it based on traffic reports that uh were provided by the applicant previously. Uh so limiting uh limiting uh any uh detriment to nearby properties um achievable by other other means. The property is uniquely uh uniquely uh graded. So relocating moving some of the facilities elsewhere is difficult. um the applicant would have the opportunity to eliminate uh some of the structures to um to achieve said goals. Um

but due to uh again due to grading property um and uh it ends up being difficult uh to to achieve the the goals of the project any other way. Um there are no adverse physical or environmental impacts uh to the site um or the neighborhood um based on uh wetland um current wetland codes um [clears throat] and all the uh SWIP storm water uh practices that are being put into place for this site. Uh there are no environmental impacts to the site. Uh the request um not being substantial. Um, if you look at our code, any of you are looking at a um single uh single family uh home on the same property as well as um looking at uh duplexes, multi multifamily dwellings on the same

property. offsets would be uh 35 feet versus um the current required um 50 feet or 100 ft next to a residential area. Um so again, the the applicant is is making these units look and feel like a um single family type unit. Um, so the the desire the request is is not substantial. Uh, I think I covered all of them. Anybody else want to add anything? Nope. Okay. I'd like to make a motion for an area variance to allow a front setback of 18.7 ft where 75 ft is required and to allow a single family district buffer of 38.5 ft where 100 ft is oh sorry uh conditions. The applicant is going to

work with the town uh highway and sewer department to maintain the requested uh vegetation that was previously identified in the 2024 application um and provide a a significant buffer to the residents on Mchuan Drive. Is there any other um conditions from this board

that this will be the end of construction for this

and no further construction on on this uh on this this parcel or the adjoining I guess adjoining parcels of of this property right is that

further development

no further development

okay all right now area variance is to allow a front step back of 18.7 uh 7 ft where 75 ft is required ired and to allow a single family district buffer of 38.5 ft where 100 ft is required in association with the construction of six buildings plus a community center total of 56 units each two stories in height on a proposed 13.15 acre parcel having SPL093.06-3-64.11 06-3-64.11 located in an MHR medium high residential district under section 350-14 the code of the town of Webster.

No second

second.

Okay, Mr. Short. Uh I

Mr. Spania

I

Miss Volo

I

Mr. Senola

I

Mr. before so

nay.

Okay,

that is a 4-1 vote. Uh you have your area variance. Um obviously you have to get all your meaningful uh permits uh etc. uh to commence. You have one year for meaningful um movement forward.

I'd like to thank all of you for your thoughtful consideration. And I know this wasn't easy. Um, but I appreciate you're doing the right thing. And like I said, we we will do our best to prove you wrong or prove your reservations wrong. Uh, we look to do a really good project here and uh keep our neighbors as happy as we can. Thank you again.

And for the residents that uh did speak uh about the project, as you heard him say, any issues,

call call the uh the property management.

So, thank you. Thank you.

Uh next up, Verizon Cell Tower. Uh we're going to start with uh Lake Road. Um for for this, we are going to have um Verizon speak. Um give us uh your thoughts uh describe um I'm going to have honestly both projects. Uh and then I believe we have um the town consultant here. Uh and then we'll hear from the town consultant uh before we go any further.

Okay.

Excellent. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Laura Smith. I'm with Nixon Peabody and I'm here representing this application, both the Lake Road application as well as the Webster North. As uh we discussed, I'll start with the Lake Road application. Uh there are similarities between this and Webster North, but I'll focus on an overview of the applications in in their entirety and then go into some specifics about the Lake Road application. I first want to note we have been before the planning board several times with this application, but I believe it's our first uh meeting with the zoning board of appeals on this matter. I'll note that wireless telecommunications are treated as public utilities for land use and zoning purposes in New York State, which entitles them to a diminished standard of review rather than the standard criteria applicable to area variances. Under this public necessity standard, a wireless carrier must demonstrate these only these three elements. First, that there is a gap in wireless service. Second, that the location in the proposed facility will remedy those gaps. and that the facility pre presents a minimal intrusion on the community and is more feasible than other options. I'll also note that

wireless facilities are highly regulated by the FCC and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sets out a separate standard for the concept of uh effective prohibition and not permitting a wireless communication services to fill a coverage gap. I'll note for this Lake Road application, there is a significant gap in coverage. We have a pretty sizable application, but in demonstrated in exhibits F and Q, and as demonstrated by Professor Johnson, the town's independent RF consultant, there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in this lake road south. This area is currently served by three distinct overburden sites. The first is four mile creek. Second is East Webster and the third is Gana. All three of these sites are terrain and foliage challenge which results in a significant gap in both lowband and mid-band coverage. Moreover, actual utilization data for the past year shows that several key performance indicators for these three sites have already exceeded 100% utilization. It is the goal of RF and it is the goal of a network to ensure that we're providing coverage in looking for land use

approvals before those KPIs are met. Here for those three sites, we are already showing overage and capacity exceeding 100% utilization at these three sites. That means the existing network cannot meet current demand. Uh this is on Josh. I I know we're going to go quickly, but seven and eight of exhibit off. I'm sorry, 7 through nine on exhibit F. The goals of this project is to increase network capacity, provide reliable coverage to the Lake Road service area in northeastern Webster, and offload traffic from those overloaded sites. And here the mid-band coverage is particularly significant. We'll see in the other site it's it's more of the low band, but here the mid-band coverage is very weak in the lake cell. What's shown in your application is that the existing mid-band coverage shows that there is no reliable mid-band coverage in this area instead and it also shows the low band coverage is akin to a rural or suburban and incar applications. However, because that mid-band coverage has no coverage, it those users then have to switch to low band showing and that results in a very low capacity in our low band coverage. So it is although there is low

band coverage here the lack of mid-band coverage in this area is what's over taxing and putting these sites at over capacity for that low band coverage. You'll hear from your independent consultants since we had the pleasure of uh also meeting at the planning board last Tuesday that here there is a capacity in it a capacity issue more so than necessarily a coverage issue. But from both the FCC's standpoint and from case law, those two items are treated the same when looking at is there a significant gap in coverage. Next, I'll note that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide effective coverage. That's the item that's before the ZBA with this application. It is an area variance to seek going from the 100 foot height that's permitted under the code to go to 125 ft for this location. This is shown in exhibit R and V in our application and again confirmed by the town's RF consultant that supplemental propagation plots compare coverage at the proposed 120 ft center line against a reduced height of 95 ft. I'm going to pause and explain that concept a little bit. So the height of the tower will be

at 125 ft. That's at the very top. And then there'll be a lightning rod attached that's 4t high. However, when we're looking at cell phone coverage, the measurement that is used is the the ant the antenna center line, the ACL. So, when we're talking about how high up the antennas need to be, the concept is an ACL line rather than necessarily the height of the towers. So, our 120ft tower would have a I'm sorry, our 125 ft tower would then have a 120 foot antenna setter line. then comparing in order to have an 100 ft tower that center line that ACL would then be at 95 ft. So that's the reasoning between those comparisons of why although seeking 125 ft tower we compare the 120 ACL and then as confirmed in those exhibits and as also confirmed by the town's consultant the 90 foot ACL tower is too low to overcome the terrain and foliage and does not allow for the necessary coverage improvements capacity overload and network densification. Again, that's [clears throat] shown in exhibits R and B of the Lake Road application. I'll also note that we've conducted an

exhaustive alternative site analysis and no viable alternatives exist. This is an item that we have worked extensively with the planning board to review potential viable alternative sites that could still offer that improved uh coverage that we need to fill the coverage gap and then also have the ability to provide that an an improved visual impact. First, Verizon undertook a comprehensive site analysis evaluating a total of seven candidate parcels within and immediately outside the search area. That's shown on page nine of exhibit G. And I'll note the search area is primarily comprised of one owner. It's a farm owned by Windmill Farms. As documented in our March 31st, 2026 supplemental application, Verizon engaged in extensive negotiations with the landlord for permission to be on any other location on the landlord's property, including two sites that were identified by the planning board. in the planning board requested Verizon to go back and have discussions with the landlord. Specifically, one was towards the uh south western portion of the property so that it would be along the tree line and less visible uh as cars are going past on Lake Road. The other

was um on the souththeastern side also along the tree line essentially trying to move back from that that corner parcel. From Verizon's perspective, we need to be in an area with the within the search area that will meet the coverage the coverage needs and the coverage gaps we're trying to solve. But beyond that where within the search area as long as it works for RF needs it's not unreasonable cost or unreasonable very clear that there are no other locations our tenno would interrupt. There's also some subterrain in infrastructure that they use that is not possible to put us on another place on the farm. Candidly they provided a letter to the town that is more than we typically get from landlords really. we just need to um they we can't force them to lease to us. So, typically once they say no, uh they're not required to explain to the town what their logic or reasoning is. But I I'll note our landlord did go above and beyond, provided a letter to the town explaining all the restrictions on his property and the reasons that he will not lease other locations and cannot lease other locations to Verizon. We also reviewed two additional candidates. Those are shown on exhibit

S. They're noted as H and I uh also identified by the planning board, but those failed from an RF perspective. We also re-evaluated the search area as directed by the planning board. Uh that re that re-evaluation is set forth in exhibit U and that was to determine whether or not there were any other places that the search area could be expanded or moved to try to bring in new properties to review. As shown though in the ex in exhibit U, the re the search area cannot be expanded and it was properly sized in the initial analysis. The remaining property owners within the search area declined to participate in lease negotiations with Verizon. And again, these decisions are solely within the landlord's discretions. We have no authority to compel any property owner to enter into a lease agreement. So to the extent there are uh where there were other opportunities to engage with the town or I'm sorry engage with the landlord, we did so at the town's request. Um I'll also note the landlord came in for a conversation with the town and the planning board chair and really hammered through are there other places on that windmill farms complex that this site can be located and that answer and the conclusion uh both the landlord and

Verizon came to was no. That leaves the selected site which is the only candidate that's both technically viable and available for lease for this particular project. We'll also note that the project will have no adverse environmental or community impacts. This is a key part of that telecommunications act of 1996. The perceived health effects for this project and we'll say the same for Webster North and we've heard very uh passionate testimony at the planning board. You may hear the similar concerns tonight, but the science and the law are both very clear on perceived health effects for telecommunications towers. Local boards are expressly preempted from denying or conditioning approvals of wireless facilities based on health or environmental effects of RF emissions where the facility complies with the FCC standards. Here we provided that evidence to the town. It is exhibit P to the application that the proposed facility will operate in full compliance with all applicable FCC regulations. The ZBA as well as the planning board and the town board is therefore without authority to consider RF related health or environmental concerns when reviewing this application.

Moreover, we'll note that this project will not pollute. It does not create noise. It does not incre increase traffic. It does not create or demand additional needs on governmental services. It's an inert facility that will enhance emergency communications for police, fire, and other responders. Last, I'll note that the application does meet the requirements of state and federal law. Again, going back to the opening uh comment about this being a public utility and a wireless facility that's regulated by the FCC and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a public utility and this site is important to fill the coverage gap. As noted most recently by the FCC in a uh order that was put out, it's the matter of reducing barriers to network improvements and service changes, accelerating network modernization, which was released on March 27th. The FCC noted that as of December 2024, there's approximately 390.9 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States. And according to preliminary data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as of 20 December 2023, approximately 76% of adults were living in and relying on a wirelessly household with adults in

lower age groups more likely to live in wirelessly households. To me, even Wednesday's storm speaks to the importance of having wireless facilities and wireless facilities in these coverage gaps. When electricity is out, when internet is down, people are relying on their cell phones during an emergency. And even candidly, people are relying on cell phones because they don't have landlines in their home. Landlines in their homes. So again, the importance of this is a public utility. It has to be located where the need is. Verizon did work very extensively with the planning board and the town and the landlord to try to determine another location for this to be located and are now coming with this application fully vetted by the town, fully vetted by the town's independent RF consultant that there is a coverage gap. This solves the coverage gap and there is no other feasible location it can be located. With that, I'll pause to take questions. Uh, [cough] excuse me.

You you brought up uh last week's storms. Does the cell towers have generators?

They do.

Okay. Um, internal or external because you also said the site does not create any additional noise.

It is an external uh generator. The site plan is located in the application materials. It is under exhibit Q and there is a 50 kilowatt generator shown on the site plan.

How frequently does that generator run?

It runs for testing purposes. It's my understanding it's tested about once every other week. I think the typical time is Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. It's meant to be identified at a time that uh would be the least impactful to the neighborhood. It is tested twice a week. It's about tested for I'm sorry. It's tested about every other week. It's tested for 15 minutes and then it goes off. Certainly during a time of of an emergency that generator is going, but several other generators are going at that time as well.

So very similar to a automatic generator at somebody's house.

Exactly. Right.

You said that they would have no utilities to it, but you do have you will be powered. Are you planning on

There will be. Yes, there are utilities going to the site. It's both fiber and electricity.

Okay.

Generators. Not that I guess not that it matters. I don't know why I'm asking the question. Is diesel operated then? Not

Yes.

Okay.

The tower actually will it serve others besides Verizon? This is being constructed for Verizon, but pursuant to the town's collocation policy up to it will be designed and constructed for up to two additional carriers to be located on the tower.

Has any inquired about it? Any other carriers yet or is too early?

Candidly, I don't know. I believe it's too early to for for inquiries, but certainly Verizon um Verizon has a need. Verizon's building it for its need and it's required under the town code to allow two other users.

So there might be another carrier that would be perfectly okay with a 100 foot um ASL but so their antennas are better than Verizon's because they don't need the additional height.

So each you know candidly each carrier is different. I can't speak to their network. we need to be at this location and at this height because it is the correct location between those three sites. Um, you know, think of cell phone coverage. It's almost like a flashlight going up and down. It can't be too close to the other towers that are already existing or else there'll be interference. Um, it also can't be too high up or else the signal um won't go where it's needed and it can't be too low down because the the signal won't go as wide as needed. um which is how we get to the 120 foot site. Um I'll also note that Verizon has 60% of the market here in the town of Webster. So what other cell phone carriers need is difficult. You know, I certainly can't speak to that.

So um other I almost I'd like to maybe hear about the other site because I do want to hear from the expert. This way we can ask questions

once

once to

No, makes sense.

So yeah, Mark, can I ask you one

question real quick?

So this um the cap the capacity issue, right? You said in the end the the gap and the capacity issue, my words I guess not yours, um are interchangeable now in terms of what the courts have ruled that that that triggers u this lower standard if you will in terms of what what you have to demonstrate.

Correct. It is both coverage and capacity.

Right. And when you talk about capacity earlier you were talking about um the these different zones.

Mhm.

What what happens when when the capacity breaks down like what's the net effect of that?

So those are shown it's in exhibit half of the of the application. um section it's it's pages seven, eight, and nine. They're essentially graphs showing that the capacity utilization

much rather listen to you than try to figure out those graphs.

So there's there's there's three items those those charts are showing. The first is if there is too many too many devices trying to download from the cell phone tower then the download capacity goes much very slow. So if you

let me just stop right there. So, is it fair to say at the Lake Road location if capacity was not an issue the um the coverage is sufficient? In other words, do you do you need capacity in your [clears throat] opinion

to to to to to get where you want to go?

Correct. and and from our perspective those are a symbiotic relationship. So although the low band is showing some coverage on the map you'll see that it's uh rural and suburban uh for incar coverage. So it's showing if you go from yellow or I'm sorry white being no coverage to yellow being adequate coverage orange being a little bit better green being the best. I'm sorry no cover no coverage is white orange yellow green is the very best. Let's say it's level of five, one being the worst, five being the best.

Yeah. So, so we're right about a three for low band coverage.

Okay. So, if there capacity issue, would that be sufficient in as a standalone?

That would not be sufficient for a standalone. You would still have dropped calls. you would still have slowed down coverage because there's only so many users that can be on that low band coverage. So by having essentially because there is limited capacity on the low band the result of that it once it becomes overutilized is no coverage. So whether you don't have coverage because there's too many users, uh I'm sorry, regardless of if you cannot connect to a cell phone, so you're dialing up and it says, you know, no service,

right? Whether that is due to the fact that there's too many users currently on that lowband coverage or that there's zero coverage whatsoever, the impact to you is the same that you can when when that low band is is overutilized and and taxed out, it will either slow down so much that you can't download materials, you know, you're driving down Lake Road and you're trying to find an address and it it won't be able to connect or you will be dropped. your call will be dropped. There will not be sufficient coverage for your call to go from this cell phone to the other cell phone. So, as you're driving, right, you go from cell phone tower to cell phone tower to cell phone tower. You're passed along as you're you're driving down Lake Road. You would come from Webster speaking to someone on low band and then if you hit this area and there is not sufficient coverage or not sufficient capacity, that call will be dropped. because there won't have

and then so then is there a frequency upon which the dropping has to occur or just the fact that it occurs at all

those are shown in the KPI from a network perspective the goal is to have no dropped calls right and the goal is to identify no dropped calls before the the tower is built here we are already at overutilization

right and I guess that's my point is look on the one end Verizon wants to provide a superior service, right?

It want Yes. It wants to be able to fill this coverage gap that that exists in

Webster and there's a gap and there's a capacity issue.

Correct.

At some point we get to a minimum level, right? And then over that level is is is a fivestar rating for Verizon. So I I was just trying to understand on the capacity level is is that a quantitative uh failure point

I it is in perhaps your question is you know is five drop calls okay or is it six drop calls right and that's that's something the the courts haven't spoken to it is con it is known as a coverage gap this is a coverage gap

and it is the health and safety of the network to ensure that there are no coverage gaps.

And then you you got to my last point which I I guess as I understand like the the third circuit court of appeals has made this standard and I don't know if the second has or not where we sit

but that they they don't they don't quantify that bar.

So we we in the second circuit we have what's known as the will standard. We have to show that there is a sign significant gap in coverage and this is the least intrusive means to fill that coverage gap. That's the standard that's

so it's significant in terms of capacity as well interchangeable.

Correct. capacity and coverage the FCC has identified as being th this is the items and

that are a coverage gap

and the significant significancy I don't know if that's a word at 920

at 920 it sure is

uh on the capacity side there there's not a a a a quantitative formula for that

correct

okay

there there are standards that we can show and I I want to make sure I'm being clear there are standards that we can show through those KPIs that these three existing towers are at capacity and reaching exhaustion. There is not a court case that says it's okay if four calls are dropped.

Understood. Key performance indicators KPI.

Correct. Well, our the three sites that are currently serving this area are at exhaustion. They are at capacity and those are that is what's shown on on the graphs. um within our RF justification that that those three sites

cannot handle traffic

at exhaustion

as a professional in the industry I mean I don't know if that's a term of art but you think by any reasonable measure people would say they're exhausted

correct

similar experts

correct and and and that point of exhaustion is when you see slowed coverage or dropped calls

okay

or inability to access the work.

Thank you. I did not bring up my other materials. So, if you'll excuse me, I'll go get our Webster North material.

Sure. Thank you.

GBS GB questions. I'm trying to follow the uh attachments is very difficult since they're not labeled.

Sorry about that.

Y

um so for Webster North, this is a slightly different history and also slightly different coverage and capacity gap that I'll go into in more detail for this Webster North site. I first want to acknowledge that this has been before the town and we have been working with the town for many years to try to solve a a real coverage gap in the Webster North cell and in this neighborhood. It started about two years ago, maybe by now three years ago, uh working with the town to try to identify sites that could be uh for locations for a telecommunications tower that could serve and solve the coverage gap in this neighborhood. There is a townowned property that is well suited. It's in this neighborhood. Verizon entered into lease negotiations with the town to lease the property from the town. Last summer, we were before the town board to approve that lease. The town board ultimately decided not to lease to Verizon, but that is a legislative act that is fully within the town board's discretion. Just as we were talking about the landlord for wind

windmill farms uh having full discretion whether or not to lease to us, the town of Webster as a landlord likewise has full discrepancy whether or not to lease to us. The town board decided voted no again complete within their right. But I do want to make that distinguish between distinguishment between what the town board decided in a legislative act whether or not to lease to Verizon versus what is before the zoning board of appeals tonight for a zoning decision.

Just out of curiosity and maybe it's an inappropriate question. If it is,

you don't have to answer. The the sense is that at the end of the day, if this new tower is more than likely to go up somewhere to to address this coverage area and and by the town previously [snorts] determining legislatively it for those not aware the first time the town had the ability to say no because it was a question threshold question of ownership just like you said about the uh u the the wind windmill farm somebody doesn't want to lease it you can't force them

exactly right

but the inevitable fact though it seems that this tower is going to go up covering the same area that the town previously legislated and says no we don't want to lease it the reality of that occurring and what I suspect will be residents at the new proposed location being as equally opposed as to the prior location that the town owned. Has Verizon considered approaching the town again or renewing the application in light of the town's and I I'm not saying that it's a good idea, bad idea, or I have any inside baseball information, but but was that part I guess I guess the town recognizing that this is going to go somewhere, would they reconsider it given the fact that Verizon hasn't given up, if you will, of putting this within the same coverage area. It's it's it's another bad question at 920, but you you understand?

No, I I I do understand.

Um, candidly, that was part of the discussion with the town board last year of that there is a coverage gap in this neighborhood. There is a real need for a cell phone tower. If it is not here, it will be somewhere in this search area. and the ability for the town board to put in um restrictions or or concepts is available to them as a landlord that is not available to them as a zoning authority. So that was very clearly stated to the town board. It was very clearly stated during all of the discussions and in going over the lease. So to us this is

was very well

explained to it was very transparent. We were very clear with the town board of it it will go somewhere in this neighborhood

and ultimately is from Verizon's standpoint is that proposal still today given all the criteria at least from your side of the ledger preferable to what you're proposing at um what's the second? Yeah, the the 1222 wildflower I you know I think candidly no we've where we started our initial conversation with the town was the town offered and again I you know I it was very collaborative relationship and it was um over a course of several years that these conversations were happening

when the town and Verizon first started the discussions the question has was only about that parcel so there was no site selection there was no comparison of other locations. There were no um you know going through the analysis of is there an alternative site because the town had offered that as a as an option. Now doing the comparison between the other sites. Uh after last summer when the town declined to enter into a lease, Verizon looked at 11 other sites within that area and found a location that is I I think preferable to Verizon to be so certainly

including the town site.

Correct. Yes. Because we after having the ability to go through the selection process, this was you know deemed to be a more preferable site.

Great. That's helpful. Thank you. So here I'll go you know I again won't go over that public utility standard but the same criteria apply here that is a diminished standard of review rather than the standard criteria set forth for an area variance here the significant gap in coverage and also in our application it's exhibit F and Q and again independently confirmed by the times RF consultant there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in in the Webster North cell. This area is currently s served by three distant overburden sites. The two are the same serving that lake road. It is Webster and four mile creek. And here the third tower is Webster Park. All three sites have terrain and foliage challenges resulting in significant gaps in both mid lowband and mid-band coverage here. Moreover, again, as we discussed on the lake road site, actual utilization data for the past year shows that several key performance indicators have already exceeded that 100% utilization, which

means the existing network cannot meet current demand. The goal of this project is to increase network capacity, provide reliable coverage to North Central Webster, and offload the traffic from those overloaded sites. Interestingly, we had one member of the public testify at a planning board meeting that she has no cell coverage in her home and must leave her neighborhood to make a phone call. And her testimony illustrates the exact problem that we're trying to solve with these coverage charts. In exhibits F and Q specifically, this is page 14. It's showing that Webster North cell the existing lowband coverage is akin to the type of coverage one would have on a rural highway subject to variable conditions such as fading and seasonality gaps. That means you know items such as inhome use is very difficult if not non-existent in this area. Likewise, there is little to no reliable mid-band coverage in this area. And with this project, again, as demonstrated in our application, the area would have wireless service that's appropriate for suburban single family residential. So, this unlike the Lake Road site, uh that the midband coverage was lower here in

the in the north Webster North cell, uh the the low band coverage is weaker. Like the lake road site, we did review if this is the uh the if the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide effective coverage. Here again demonstrated on page 23 and 24 of exhibit Q and again confirmed by the town's RF consultant. The supplemental propagation plots compared coverage at the proposed 13 foot 130 foot antenna center line. So again, as we discussed, it's 134 foot tower. That ACL then would be at 130. We compared the 130 center line against a reduced height of a 111 ft antenna center line and a 91 ft antenna center line. In each scenario, both low band and mid-band coverage are materially compromised due to area clutter from the dense old growth forests in these neighborhoods. also uh confirmed by the town's independent RF consultant that the reduced height operations would create or expand even a weak signal area north of the site along Schlego Road to the east, Schumacher Road to the west, and within the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

This is because in that neighborhood there is significant tree coverage. Um, [clears throat] and we demonstrated in our application. We had a drone go up to measure actually where the tree canopy is. And the surrounding tree canopy and area clutter reaches as high as 110 to 115 ft in this neighborhood. The proposed 130 foot antenna [clears throat] then is necessary to get above that foliage so that we can get across the clutter and provide uh sufficient coverage to this area. It is the minimum clearance that's needed to maintain the effective RF performance under these sight specific conditions. As we just discussed, uh the Verizon did conduct an exhaustive alternative site analysis after the town board declined entering into a [clears throat] lease with Verizon last summer. Um we went through a site selection analysis evaluating 11 candidates uh 11 parcels within and immediately outside the search area. Interestingly, I'm sure you're familiar with these area. These parcels are usually residential parcels. They're quite small. Um there are wetland considerations back in along the um

the creek that's going up through the neighborhood. So there are a lot of sight constraints when looking at how to serve and how to best serve coverage in this neighborhood. As and this is all shown again in exhibit G that the search area is heavily wooded and consists predominantly of those smaller residential lots and wetlands which again uh severely limit the available options in order for a site to be placed to meet the setbacks. The selected site at uh 1222 Wildflower Drive is the only candidate that's both technically viable from an RF perspective and was available for lease. This parcel also meets all the applicable setback requirements. The remaining candidates, so those other T those other 10 candidates were eliminated due to parkland or wetland constraints. the landlorder land owners were unwilling to enter into negotiations or they weren't able to satisfy the RF coverage objections from the locations and those candidly are predominantly the areas located outside the search area. They were not sufficient to meet the RF needs. We've collaborated with municipal staff and stakeholders over several years. We conducted an exhaustive search that extended beyond the defined search area and identified and evaluated every

technically feasible site that we could locate in the vicinity. The record contains no evidence of alternative sites that have not already been thoroughly reviewed and considered. As we discussed for the Lake Road site, the project will have no adverse environmental or community impacts. Again, here local boards are expressly preempted from denying or conditioning approvals of wireless facilities based on health or environmental effects of RF emissions where facilities comply with the FCC standards. Here those standards um similar to the other application are evidenced in exhibit O to the application. We'll also note that that tree height uh that mature tree cover that is necessitating needing this area variance to go up to the 135 ft tower that also provides coverage though and screening of the tower from residents. If you think when you're in a densely forested area or or a a a an area that has a lot of tall tree growth, when you are in the neighborhood itself, you will be looking up through the trees, which will certainly screen the effect of looking at the ant looking at the antenna. Oh my goodness. Looking at the antenna when you're actually located in the neighborhood. As shown in those photo simulations, you will be able to see the

tower from a distance, but from the neighbor neighborhood itself, that tree coverage should provide uh some substantial natural screening of the tower from the area residents. Again, like the lake road site, the project will not pollute. It does not create noise. It does not increase traffic. It does not create a demand on governmental services. It is an alert facility that enhances envir enhances emergency communications and allows the residents to make a call from their house and really solve a coverage gap that that is real and existing in this neighborhood and has been um an area we've been working on for many years.

Do you have any questions on this particular application? Um, so as I'm looking at the the simulations, um, and Erica, do you mind going to the simulations, the image simulations?

What exhibit?

It is exhibit J K. Exhibit K of the original application. Yes. Yep, that's it.

So, where in this photo is the cell tower?

There's two red balloons.

Yeah, the balloons. between the two trees.

Right in the middle.

Yep. Right in the middle.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So, the you'll see the orange balloons, there's a leader balloon, and then the second balloon is actually where the tower height will be. So, it's the the top balloon is just holding up this the second balloon, but the second balloon is where the

is up there first.

Top is just helped from a distance.

Gotcha. Thank you.

So then, yeah. So this first page in the photo simulation showing the balloon that's simulating the height of the tower. Again, it's that second second balloon down that showing that tower height. And then the following page is a a photo simulation of what the cell phone tower would look like shown at that height from that distance.

And then that's repeated from different

angles.

Angles. Thank you. Yeah, different angles. Um, and where the locations of the photos are taken is on the first page of exhibit K.

Okay. Um, one of the neighbors uh in a letter to the town raised a question about the height given the uh the tree the canopy the tree canopy and what happens if the tree canopy gets higher

that is that so we we are here because the tree canopy is higher than 100 ft. So your code is reflective of tree heights that that are are no longer prevalent. I am not an arborist. I don't know what the extent of the tree height would be. There's only so much higher we can go and demonstrate that need. Um, I'm certainly I'm certain we would welcome a taller tower at this time, but you know, we are trying to be respectful and mindful of only ask for the height that is needed to meet the RF needs and the coverage gap that exists today. So that 135 ft is demonstrating what is needed to meet the RF coverage today. I don't know what the the future is 20 years from now if it it will need to be extended, but certainly from today's RF needs. Being below that tree line is is not meeting the RF coverage. Being at 100 ft is not meeting the RF coverage. Being at that 135, that's what is going to provide a meaningful RF coverage solution for many years to come.

So I I have a guess I guess it's a question. Um what all the data now is showing this is needed. um firsthand experience. Used to live in this neighborhood, don't live in this neighborhood anymore. Um used to call Verizon on a regular basis. No cell phone service.

Um their response was, "You have perfect cell phone service. You shouldn't have an issue. I had to go and I had to leave my house, go down to the end of the street to get cell phone service." So what you are now telling me they don't have cell phone ser you know they don't have coverage they were telling me they did have coverage what which is it right I mean I guess is is where my struggle is to have a corporation tell me which you should be fine there shouldn't be any issues well now they want something now they're here saying well we don't have coverage So again, year years have passed.

Mhm.

Right. So I understand that there's more cell phone usage now. The technology has changed. I I get all that. But help me understand how they go from it's no problem, which I could I can tell you completely different from drop calls and everything else to now now they want something and now they need it. No, I I you know, you're exactly right. Years have gone by. Capacity and usage is very different even where we were five years from now. Um, you know, I don't want to speak to what the answer was when when you called the salesperson, right? That's our villain today,

right? [laughter]

But here, you know, we do have an RF need. We have an RF coverage gap. We have that evidence before the the ZBA. We have the evidence that it was then supported by the RF consultant. But you're exactly right to ask those questions. Those are very typical of a municipality to ask. It is what the planning board asked of why should we believe you? We're just looking at your data. Um and that's exactly why the planning board and then the planning board asked the town board and the town board engaged an independent RF consultant for for that exact question. It is typical of municipalities to ask. It's certainly a fair question to ask, but that has resulted in the RF consultant being engaged by the town. Why you were told there was coverage years ago? You know, I I don't know, but I can very confidently say, as you experience,

you're not being gaslight gas lit. There is a coverage problem in this neighborhood. You are correct.

And they're trying to upgrade.

Yes.

Okay.

What a good segue to bring in the town.

Yes. I I think uh unless anybody has any any questions for this site, um let's bring out the uh the town expert. Come on up.

Uh good evening. I'm William Johnson, hired as the uh technical expert on these uh two sites. uh my colleague, Professor Stephen Chikarelli and I uh we don't advocate for towers. We also don't uh uh lobby against them. Uh we try to make sure that the planning boards and zoning boards have the information in a factual uh manner that allows them to then do a even-handed uh analysis of the uh situation. Uh I wanted to go back to uh attorney to Marco's question. I I just want to be sure that was answered. You asked the question about the lake road site that if capacity had not been the issue uh would there be a need for a tower at this site. The answer to that is no. Uh but that's not the situation. The situation is there is a capacity issue and uh the number of users in that area are overusing the existing adjacent sites. So in order to fix that problem, it isn't adding radio frequency coverage. That's a solution. it's drawing traffic from those sites to a more uh localized tower which will then support those particular users. So I hope that perhaps you had your question answered but I wasn't sure that uh it was put in those sort of

terms.

No, I I appreciate that and and it was it was it was that coupled with the quantitative

right

u measurement if there is one or it's kind of you know it when you see it type of thing.

Yeah. on that particular point. So in in wireless communications terms, uh it's it's sort of a soft failure. Okay, it isn't like all of a sudden you have no service at all, but when you start hitting capacity at a site, everybody has to share the same bandwidth, which means everybody gets less time on that particular uh uh base station. And when that gets to be too reduced, that's when this saturation problem starts to happen. So it's possible in both of these locations that at times during the day uh particularly talking about north uh wipes north site uh there is no strong server in that area either at low band or mid-band but that doesn't mean that somebody might on occasion be able to get a call. Uh they they may be holding their their phone to the right ear and [snorts] the base station's over here whereas if they spin around they're going to be facing the base station. So, so the cranium does absorb some of the electromagnetic energy and can make the difference between a call that goes

through or doesn't go through. If you're sitting in an automobile trying to make a call, of course, with your hands-free device, a truck or another vehicle pulls up alongside you waiting at a intersection, uh that may be the difference between a call that it goes through or doesn't go through. So, it's a it's a soft failure that occurs. So it's there's no hard and fast rule, but the the metrics that come out of those soft failures are what are documented on those plots, right? You're see you're seeing times that it it spikes and you're seeing times that it drops down again below the 100% level. So it it you know doesn't mean it's always impossible to make a call. It's just that it becomes less and less likely to get that kind of reliability.

So if I have less in my cranium, that's a reason why I've never missed a call. [laughter] And that's why you and I can make phone calls very well. Some of our colleagues staff u the u uh yeah so so I guess we I guess we'll just leave it at that. We won't go too deep into that.

U so um u attorney uh Smith has made a very good presentation. I was hearing a lot of the jargon that was in my report and you know of course it's a common uh you know wireless is something that that they work in every day and something that professor Chikarelli and I work on every day too. So not surprising that there's some uh connection between these two. Uh it probably would be easiest if you had questions for me uh that I can try to answer. I I have no disagreement with anything that Attorney Smith told you. Uh, Professor Chikarelli and I have looked at the uh, changes in height for the proposed tower. Uh, we have met twice online with Verizon's radio frequency engineers and we talked engineering, right? Is is what can be done? What's going on? Where's the really important non-negotiable areas? And, you know, some of that is actually on the shore of the lake. Uh, if I had a flashlight and I was trying to shine it

over a piece of furniture, if I was close to that piece of furniture, I really don't have to go very high. But if I get back away from that escarment and I and I try to reach over the top of that sofa, I I have to get higher in order to do that. Terrain is certainly an issue. Uh, loss of signal inside foliage that's around where the tower is located, that's an issue. Uh, all those things are called clutter. So terrain and obstacles are clutter to the radio frequency signal. It has to get up above those in order to be very effective in terms of collocation. Uh the site's being built to have two colloccators. Very perceptive question and I forget who asked that uh question. That means that if someone comes in to colllocate, they're going to have to go lower. And you will see the effect in the propagation plots of what that looks like. It reduces the footprint, the area that the uh base station can uh service and they would have to deal with that or they would have to propose another tower uh or put an extension on the existing tower uh to get it up above so that they get a bigger footprint and that would be a question for the planning board. It would be a question for you uh to go and look through this again to try to figure out what's what's appropriate to do. Are there other ways that these could be

solved? Uh if you if you you know were in an airplane and you were looking at you know from 20,000 ft up you would see a bunch of base stations that are you know scattered throughout the area. There's nothing that says you couldn't put 7 10 15 100 foot towers 90 foot towers in an area. Uh it would be essentially the same cost per tower to put that in. So I'm not going to get into the finances of it. Okay. But you're putting, you know, you're not you're not putting something just on a pole that's 10 or 15 feet up in the air. You're putting a tower that's probably going to be up in the 80 to 90 foot range uh to cover a parochially small area because of the trees and because of the radio frequency obstacles. And every single one of those sites, you're going to be having a hearing like this and you're going to have opposition from residents uh for those. So, you know, minimum impact on the community, uh, and possibly the feasibility of doing something like I just described, those have to be balanced and they have to weigh in. Okay, this this site is a single site. U, it will provide the coverage that Verizon needs to have. There is a gap whether it's capacity or coverage in both of those locations. And the heights that Verizon is proposing

from a engineering point of view looking at the propagation plots uh seems to be that those are the minimum heights that they actually need to get those kind of that kind of service. And one last comment before I uh stand by uh the question is is there really a gap here or is because we're looking at Verizon's information, right? We're looking at propagation plots. We're looking at uh information that comes from about the key performance indicators. There's a lot of that information that you or I can't independently generate. Okay, I don't have access to get inside their switch. I wish I did, but I'm not a hacker. Uh, but if I could get in there and look at those key performance indicators myself, then my guess is I would probably see what they have presented to us uh tonight. There is a website that's called opensignal.com. All one word, open signal. and uh you can load that onto your smartphone and then there are features on that where you can actually look at a map and see what the coverage is for the various carriers. So, Professor Cheryl and I did that uh because we just do that as a matter of course trying to look to see, you know, is there an independent confirmation? Uh it matches pretty well to what's happening in uh Webster North.

Now we don't have that information uh at uh uh Lake Road and County Line Road and that's because there already are some existing sites that are there. Uh so there are some calls that are actually going through there is radio frequency coverage but what I can tell you is the Webster North site uh shows I I actually put their propagation plot and the uh information from open signal.com uh over the top of each other and it almost predicted uh what Verizon has has produced. So, Professor Chikarelli and I, even though he's not here tonight, I'm going to speak for him that that uh we're we're very convinced that the information you're looking at is valid information and uh it could be independently confirmed, but I don't think you need to do that. Uh I I've been involved with doing this type of work probably for the last 30 uh years or so, and early on in that the propagation tools were not very accurate. Uh, currently the propagation tools compared to an actual drive test where you put an antenna on the roof of a car and run it around the roads. We can't get into people's backyards, but we can be on the on the main roads. If you put those things over the top of each other, like the open signal.com uh exercise that I described, uh, you see a very good correlation in present day

between what is being uh, shown in the simulation and what's actually real world uh, measurements. If we were having this conversation 30 years ago, I wouldn't be able to be quite that authoritative about it. Uh there was big discrepancies between the propagation tools and the actual performance. Uh but these days, the reliability of that information is pretty pretty good. So I hope that helps you. Uh and I be happy to answer questions if you have them.

Thank you for that because that was actually going to be one of my questions is where where did you get the data from? Okay.

Came from Verizon. Um, but you were able to at least one of the sites do an independent confirmation.

Um, and that lined up pretty well. Um, over the course of your career doing this, how well does Verizon's data play nicely or line up? You know, [clears throat] follow what I'm asking?

I I I I follow what you're asking. So uh when you when you do this type of work and you engage with the technical folks at on the other side of the fence uh with Verizon you do develop uh some familiarity with who the people are that you're dealing with. Uh so we do have some very honest conversations uh about these sort of things about how accurate is this and and where where are things settling uh settling in. Uh Verizon has been very good uh you know at least at least talking to their technical folks which is you know where professor Chikarelli and I spend our time is talking to their engineers. Uh there has always been a collaborative you know pretty much they're not scared to show us what they can show us. Uh, you know, sometimes they show us some good stuff that that uh, you know, perhaps wasn't actually entered into the record. Like we've seen the video for the for the drone flight, right? It was wasn't just still photographs, but it was actually a rotating drone video uh, that showed us what the tree heights were, which is why we're fairly convinced that to go lower than the proposed height would now start to put those antennas down into the tree line. Uh, you've got four photographs. We've got a north north south east and west uh photograph but those are very representative of what the actual video

shows but I don't think they can easily put that video into record to do that but professor chigarella and I did look at those at those things and there's other things like that that we try to just cross check

uh so I I have a very high confidence that the material that you've been provided is is good not that not just for this particular case but uh for the last couple of decades they've been very straightforward. Thank you. Um, I think this has already been answered, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Uh, tower height and the lease. Ultimately, take the lease aside, regardless of if Verizon decides to lease out or not, the height that is proposed is the height that is necessary for the coverage that has been identified to be able to um to increase coverage, to increase capacity. Correct. Anything lower really isn't going to meet the needs of of the area.

Yeah, that that's our opinion and we actually asked for that material to be put in the record uh so that you had it so that you could also see the comparison, but that's the same materials we looked at. We didn't look at anything different than what you're seeing.

Perfect.

So what what they're asking for is the absolute minimum to pro what they're asking for is the absolute minimum to provide coverage, not necessarily for the densification of the network. Yeah, this is yeah, those those heights that are being proposed are at or near, you know, I try to fudge that just a little bit, right? It if it was two feet lower or two feet higher, it's not going to make a huge difference, right? That that that antenna center line is what they need to offload the adjacent sites for capacity issues, but particularly in Webster North to provide new coverage because there's areas there that just don't have any coverage at all.

Okay. Thank you. does um you know you drive through the aderondex the Catskills um there are cell towers that have um provided awful aesthetic but aesthetic uh enhancements [snorts] to try and hide them. Um do those enhancements affect the coverage area?

If if we're talking low band, it doesn't affect it so much. uh it's it's feasible to do that. There are a lot of stealth sites that are in the area uh at low band. Uh now when you go to the mid-band, it's higher frequency. So putting the artificial limbs on on the trees and putting leaves out in front of the antennas. So you know these are plastic, right? So that they don't actually absorb the uh uh energy. Uh but it turns out that those do enough things with defraction of the radio waves to disrupt how the antenna was designed to perform. So there is some degradation and we have Verizon I say we Verizon put a site in in Pittsver. It's a stealth site that's in a bell tower in uh the the town of Pittsver and uh was a very nice uh site. It works pretty well for for low band, but uh for the midband uh there are some problems. And there's problems when you have a a dialectric material, plastic material, and you try to shoot a signal sideways through that material. If you're shooting straight on, it's way radar uh systems, you see those rotating, you know, radar beams or the big domes that are the weather radar, that signal is shooting straight through that plastic material, but when it shoots through at an angle, uh there's there's very bad things that happen to the radio signal. But that's

that's part of the RF engineering, and that's one of the reasons stealth sites are uh not preferred. But if they're necessary, there's some degradation in technical performance for the advantage of an aesthetic improvement. A 135 ft artificial tree, okay, may may be a little bit questionable. Okay. Or 125 foot artificial tree might be a little bit question standing by itself, but that's a m matter for the planning board and for you folks to consider.

Understood. Other questions from the board before I open up to the public? I would say that any type of at that height, if you're going to create a fake tree, it's going to stick out as fake tree anyhow. In my opinion, worse than a monopole would be,

but that's an opinion, not a question.

Other questions before I [clears throat] open up to the public? Not

yet.

So, I'd like to open up to the public who whoever may want to speak for or against this project.

Which one? [snorts] Um when you when you come up if

can can I have them come up for either site and just specify which site John?

Yeah that's fine.

Okay. So just specify what site you are speaking for or against?

Webster North.

Webster North. Thank you. [clears throat]

Hi.

Can we before the public starts? We just for the minutes I think it's cleaner if we keep them separate for the public hearings.

Okay. Then let's do Webster North then first since you're the first one up.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep.

Uh my name is Jared Pashard. I [cough] live at 632 Pine Lakes Trail and I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of Webster Presbyterian Church. They have heard of the opposition to this cell phone tower. No one really wants it in their backyard. They understand that and they are very sympathetic to the community and they would like to make this offer to both the town, the zoning, the planning board and Verizon that the Webster Presbyterian Church located at 550 Webster Road would be very open to the cell phone tower being put on their property. That I hope you consider. They have a a a decentsized piece of property and it would really virtually affect very limited amount of houses. I think only one home and even that's questionable. So, I hope this board takes that to consideration and Verizon does as well because this is a very generous offer from this comm my church and um it might help alleviate some of the anxiety that that homeowners are having.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Others who want to speak for or against uh Webster North,

come on up. Speak your name and address.

My name is Barbara Robbins and I live at 1205 Wildflower Drive in Webster and I had submitted a petition with 95 signatures to the town planning board. And I actually was the only person who walked around the neighborhood and spoke to all of the residents and obtained signatures from people. And the individuals that had problems with their cell phone coverage were all Verizon customers. There were no other carriers that expressed individuals that expressed issues with their coverage other than Verizon. I know a few people um after talking with um Verizon, they offered them the additional uh boosters to put into their homes so that it would help them. There were other individuals that

said no matter if they had something in their house or not, if they stood in a corner, they couldn't get coverage unless they walked out their front door. It's not that we don't want people in our neighborhood to have coverage because I feel that's important for anybody who wants to have a cell phone, but our neighborhood is made up of very large trees. And that is part of why we purchased the home that we did 24 years ago. My husband, when we were looking to move from the Maplewood neighborhood to out here to Webster, he didn't want to look for a new development because we didn't want a six-foot tree in our yard. We wanted a tree that was taller than our home. And we don't want to see, you know, the trees be cut down or in a few years if this tower that's 139 ft, you know, 39 ft above what the town has right now as the height for towers and things. Um, are they going to have to go in and cut down trees? The gentleman over here, John, he asked attorney Smith a question

about what happens when the trees continue to grow. It really that Verizon didn't need to come back and ask for additional approval if the height of the tower or the pole was increased. It would just be that they could just increase it at random. When I walk out my front door at 1205 Wildflower Drive, I'm going to see that tower across the street. We thought that having it camouflage [clears throat] was going to be an option. We had not heard nor have I read anything where it ever stated, you know, that it impeded the um the radio frequency. So, that in and of itself is another concern. I know people that live up the street from us, they have a pool in their backyard. Um, this tower is going to be right off the side of their yard. They own about three and a half or 4 acres and it's just not something that's really conducive. We don't even realize if where this tower is looking to be built. Are they going to be clearing out a lot

of the um trees that are in that property in order to get this back in there?

So, uh one thing I want to address, if Verizon has to go taller, they do have to come back to the zoning board to go taller.

They do.

Yep. because the motion will be for us uh for this particular tower will be for a height of it was I think it's 139 ft. Um so if they want to go another 10 ft taller because the trees have grown they will have to come back to the zoning board for that. I they probably don't have to go to the planning board, but they will have to come back to the zoning board because the the height the zoning board is restricting it to that height.

Okay. So,

and because they're leasing the land from the owner, I doubt whether their lease gives them approval to trim down the trees to whatever height they want, but that would be between Verizon and the land owner,

but it's unlikely that they would. I would very much encourage though for them to look at the Presbyterian site. I mean, we do walk around the block. It is probably something that still could be seen, but it wouldn't be in the direct area and it wouldn't have all kinds of forest that's going to affect it.

Y understood.

Thank you.

Does anybody else want to speak for or against uh the North site? Hi folks, Kevin Lockard, [clears throat] town of Webster Street. Why don't we just make a local law that says that the town boards can do whatever they want around here? I've haven't seen this much theatrics around a town board in well, probably a few weeks. But you guys are doing this big theatrical performance tonight, I guess, about whether to approve a 39 ft variance or an area variance. You guys know what you have to do because the town code dictates what your decisions have to be. So, I knew the outcome of this meeting prior to coming into this meeting, and you guys know the outcome of this meeting prior to coming into this meeting. So, why the three-hour long theatrical performance, I suppose, is my question. It's not really being fair to folks. Now, we do [clears throat] have to make sure that we supplement the record and that it's diligently pursued, for lack of a better term. So, I think that you guys

are required to go and inspect the Presbyterian Church on Webster Road to determine whether it's less intrusive. There's a real hardship here regarding the residents over on Wildflower. All the neighboring houses are going to have their property values diminished because of the aesthetics and because of the the perception of the cell phone tower. So the least that you could that you folks can do and I know there's a lot of talking from Verizon. There's we have an independent contractor with lots of information. But what you guys need to do is actually very simple, which is deny the deny the height variance for these folks because I'm look I'm looking at you guys and I'm thinking these guys work for the developers. That's what that's what I think when I see you guys here and I look at you guys. I think these folks work for the developers because it's so clear in our town code that there is a maximum height allowance of developments in the town of Webster

for 100 ft. But somehow the town code doesn't apply to Verizon Wireless. And there's a discussion, will more micro towers produce more hardship if they build micro towers to fulfill the to fill in the coverage gap. I don't think that's the point that the residents are trying to make. I think they're saying first of all, follow the town code as it's written, which is really like your number one job description. Follow the town code. Second, fulfill make sure to diligently fulfill the record, which yeah, i.e. go and inspect the press. I think you're actually required to go and inspect the Webster Road Presbyterian Church site at this point. So when you know go and do that, please. Because if that if that results in less hardship, that's what you need to be doing. The third issue, and I'm just going to restate it before closing, is as far as the 39 foot height variance, we should we should end that argument, end that whole discussion right now. Absolutely not.

Because again, our town code says 100 foot max. So what's the deal? Why are you having this argument saying the developers and you guys shouldn't have to follow our town code? It is so it could not be clearer. Follow our town code. And guess what? We're going to have to change our town code so that cell towers cannot be built on residential properties because that's what caused this whole dilemma for these residents to begin with. For some reason, the town code says that the cell towers can be built on residential properties.

Can can you limit your comments to the application?

Sure, John. What's what what what comment is not relative to the application?

I'm not answering your questions. I'm asking you to limit yours because it's 10 10:10. We can call the meeting rather have the public be heard. So just keep your comments limited to the application. It would be helpful.

What what comment was not limited to the application?

Unfortunately, I don't have to answer your questions, but I'm just asking if you would

You're answering John. You're answering a question right now. I didn't ask Kevin. Do you have any more comments?

Call the next speaker. Did did you guys understand what is expected of you tonight?

Kevin, we understand what's expected of us. Do you have any more comments for us?

I'll trust that you guys will do the right thing. Thank you guys.

Um, any any additional comments for Webster North?

Yeah. My name is Mark Robbins. I'm uh Barb's husband. I live at 1205 Wildflower. And I just wanted to uh clarify something for John. He he uh you asked a question earlier about the the town's um location on Wildflower Drive. Um I guess there's a water treatment plant that was originally considered. Um that's only about 250 or so feet away from what's being proposed now. And it's not clear to me and I I would like an answer specifically why why [clears throat] the town rejected that. I mean, it's their right, you know, it's, you know, as was stated legislatively, but we didn't get an answer technically why that was turned down from that particular site initially.

So, I just wanted to clarify that it's only a few hundred feet away from what's being proposed.

Yeah.

So, you know, when the town board voted, they didn't each board member didn't have to give his or her reasons,

right? My guess is if you went back and you looked at the tape, you could probably surmise, if not individually, collectively what what the stated reasons were. And it and it may very well be if you were to call the individual town board members, at least two of which are new, I believe, I don't believe voted on that. So, three of them, if you were to call them and ask them, they they may tell you. I don't know whether they will or not. But the the reason why I had asked the question was if the town considered to revisit it. And I'm not saying that they're interested or not interested, how it compares with the proposed site. And I guess for whatever reason, I was surprised to learn that apparently the proposed site from Verizon standpoint and coverage and capacity apparently is superior. I don't know by how much, if it's just slight or it's significant to what they're uh proposing now,

but it is a high at this wild flower site. I think there was a difference of 10 ft, wasn't there?

Well, we're going to we're going to allow we're going to allow the uh applicant to come back and answer any of the questions that that they choose to.

Any additional comments for Webster North? So, we'll stick with Webster North. Um let's see. That's true.

Cool.

Public on the other.

Yeah. We can answer.

Okay.

What are we going to do with Webster North though? If if you go to Lake Road, what you going to make that you're going to go back and make a determination? Then

let me ask the board. Does the board want to hear comments for um hear comments for um the other uh was it uh Lake Road? Again, I'm trying to

Yeah,

get get all all the comments in so we can move this along. Is there

Let let me make a suggestion.

It's 10:15, I think, out of courteousness to the public. Why don't we switch gears and let the public speak on the other site? So, at least if we have to close the public hearing because of the lateness of the hour, we can do that. And hopefully the applicant will have enough time this evening or if not at the next date to to answer any concerns. But I think I don't know if the public wants to come back again. Um to me it would make more sense to let them speak now.

I would agree with John. I'm good.

Okay. Hi.

Are we okay with that, Josh and Erica?

I think in the interest of clarity for the minutes moving forward, you should make a determination to close the public hearing for the Wildflower Drive and then go into the Lake Road.

Yeah. To close. Yeah, absolutely.

Great.

So, um, with that, we're going to close the public hearing or public, uh, session for Webster North. will open up uh public comments for Lake Road. So, does anybody want to speak for or against Lake Road? Come on up.

Yep.

Show of hands of how many people are going to speak on Lake Road.

So, one more one more.

Okay.

I'm it.

Hi, I'm David Rasmmanson. I'm an attorney. I'm representing my daughter-in-law and son, Kelly and Daniel Rasmuson. They live at 1890 Lake Road. Kelly's here in the audience. Um, they live at 1890 Lake Road which is directly across the Lake Road proposed facility. Um, couple comments and I'll I I'll recognize the lateness of the hour. Um, [clears throat] the planning board is still deliberating on this. Council made a comment that has been fully vetted and I I don't know that she intended it, but I think that the the insinuation was that it's all done before the planning board. It is not. It is being vetted. It is being argued. It is still being presented and there has been no decision made. So I would suggest to you that any decision by this board at this point would be premature and unless and until the planning board makes some makes some uh deliberation or some decision on it or if you were to make a decision that you would do so conditioned upon what the planning port may or may not do. I certainly wouldn't want anything prejuditial to happen here with respect

to the planning board's uh deliberate deliberative process. [clears throat] Now, one of the tests that council and I agree with her that they have to meet is that the project as proposed must have a minimal intrusion intrusion on the community. They haven't they haven't even addressed that. They are so far from being being able to establish minimal intrusion on this site. This site has the maximum intrusion. It's out in the open. It's out there for the whole neighborhood to see. There are no trees, no buffering, no nothing on it. Plus, it's situated right on the corner of the on the National Scenic Byway, the Great Wake Se Scenic Trail. It is a National Scenic Highway, and this is going to be built right on it. Now, the scenic byway is administered by the New York State Department of Transportation. I've spoken to them. I've given the information to Mr. Artus and I and I believe he has reached out to DOT. They're concerned about it. They have concerns about this being on the National Scenic Byway. Also, when there's an intrusion on an aesthetic resource such as this, the National Scenic Byway is defined as an aesthetic resource. The DEEC strongly

recommends that any the deliberative process include a visual impact study that's very detailed to minimize the visual impact of the project. That hasn't been done as far as I know. The lead agency in the secret process would take responsibility for that and I think it should be done here. Finally, I think windmill farms controls this search area. I think more inquiry needs needs to be made in into what availability they have. They've cited a conservation easement. I've researched the conservation easement. It doesn't preclude this use. It could be taken out of the conservation easement and and this use could be put farther back on the property. So, I think a lot more due diligence needs to be done on this search area. So, with that, I'll close my comments for tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Bob Jansen. I live on County Line Road directly across from where this is going to be. If you could find the picture, I think it's either 140 or 125 in the pages. Um, give you a sense of what I'll be looking at. Um, it is a visual intrusion. Um,

keep going. Oops.

This says Webster North.

Is that Oh, yeah. I need a Lake Road. Anyway, um in 1996, 30 years ago, um the Federal Communications Commission um had hearings and came up with recommendations um on cell phone cell tower uh placement. Um their recommendation 30 years ago was 1,600 ft from a residence. My house will be about 300 325. Uh the Rasmusen's probably about the same um given where they're going to locate this thing right at the corner. Um the issue of coverage, um I have the exact difference from what your coverage is. I've got Verizon telling me I don't have coverage and I have coverage every day. I use my phone all day long. I was out on my mower all afternoon, got headphones on, Wi-Fi, and I'm listening to music off Verizon. I'm a Verizon customer. So I I I don't understand and my neighbors tell me they use their phones, they work from home, they're getting coverage all day long. So the idea that there's no coverage is kind of

specious. More importantly, if you look at the maps they've got, um you look at their marketing map, they tell everybody that wants to buy Verizon, we got great coverage. 5G, I'm sitting in Vi 5G and 4G is all the area south and east of me. all of in Ontario, the other side of County Line Road from where this tower is going to be. And if we look around, we've got a tower on Dean's Parkway. Milk Plants's got a tower. Bolter's got a tower. There's four Mile Creek's got a tower. Gana's got a tower. If they build a tower at the corner of Lake Road, 50% of the coverage for that tower is Lake Ontario. Not many people out there. there. I realized it from Boers probably needed maybe an emergency, but the reality is 60 maybe more percent is south and east of where the maps show that that what they want to call a dead zone. But it can't have it both ways. You either have coverage and the maps they market with and sell with say fine, we got all the coverage you need to buy the coverage and it's oh well you don't have coverage there. And I think it's time to get that straight.

I I'm not quite untechical, but I don't know low m low band, mid-band, and I doubt that any of you do really understand it either. Um, I was out in my yard. I have five acres. I'm surrounded by trees, a lot of them dead ash, but I've got a lot of huge cottonwood trees, big ones, tall ones. And I never lost coverage once. I can drive around in my car all the time out there and I can have all the coverage I want. I think the argument that there's no coverage and it's maxed out and it's not available just and I understand there's been a study done looked at Verizon's data. Well, if you're looking at their data, what do you expect to find? You're going to find them saying this is the problem. And I'm not saying they're lying, but I'm not saying either that it's true. I think there needs to be an actual coverage done and check it. Take their word for it. That's fine. But I think they did it by having all the equipment. Let's get someone to do it and show with real equipment. Yes, they're absolutely right. But I can tell you I use my phone all the time. My neighbors do. They all

tell me they use good coverage. And something's wrong. I don't know who to believe, but it's not Verizon. Thank you. Does anybody want to speak for or against uh Lake Road? And with that, we're going to uh close the public um public portion of of this. Um do have a question, Steve. Right. Is that

Mr. Jensen?

Mr. J. Mr. Jensen. John, it's Johnson. Sorry.

Johnson. Um you mentioned earlier when you were just when you were talking that you know Verizon if Verizon kept with the 100 foot towers uh they'd have to put more in basically to hit the same coverage. I know I'm pretty sure we weren't you weren't asked to study how many more towers but you've done this a long time. If you were to throw a dart at at a wall, how many more towers would be necessary to to make the same coverage? Again, it it's a guess and I understand that, but how many more towers?

Yeah. So, so uh one of the u things that has been done when they have to densify and this is for any of the carriers, right? If they have one particular tower, what they would do is lower the height of that tower and put six more around the periphery.

Okay.

So, you know, lack lacking

specifics

information, right, that that probably we would take one tower and make it into uh seven.

Gotcha. So, so with that right from a from an impact um h one could argue one tower at 139 ft is less impactful than seven towers at 100 ft. So okay

and there would be also I mean keep keep in mind there's a cost uh implication here too which you know something you need to consider because there there they are a public utility and there is case law from the New York court of appeals that uh speaks to those kind of issues. It was it was about a nuclear power station that was never built uh but a municipality wanted to do some improvements uh to that particular uh power station. It increased the cost to I think 20% more than what it was being proposed. New York Court of Appeals struck that down. Uh the site was never built. Okay. But that's probably the closest we have to uh you know something dealing with a public utility and the increased cost. Would a 5% increase be reasonable? I don't really know the answer to that question. That's all speculation.

Okay.

Mr. Johnson, the I want to go back to the Verizon data for a minute.

Sure. Have you ever I think you may have spoke in your first presentation about that that there's a trust factor. Have you ever had occasion to request the data that would address the figures that they're showing in the exhibits?

Uh I in this particular case you mean

no ever in your 30 years that you've been doing this?

Well Oh yeah. So, so the present individuals were not involved in a case that goes back probably 20 years ago. Uh there was a site that was being proposed in the town of Lockport out to the west of here. Uh was a huge uh tower. If I remember right, it was about 150 ft 180 ft uh tall. and uh the propagation plots that were supplied were not uh uh convincing me that actually that was what was was needed. And I pushed back on that quite a bit and it was an attorney who was representing the site from from out of the area and a different RF engineer than who was involved here. And um I got a phone call one day from uh one of the other RF engineers that said he was taking over that site. And I asked him, you know, what what had happened? Why why are you, you know, swapping in and uh things? He said, "Let's let's just leave it at the fact that I'm I I'm on the case now." And he sent me some propagation plots. And I, if I'm going to remember, it was like 120 ft, maybe 110 ft, uh, was what they were going to propose because that would actually accomplish the

Well, my my question is,

yeah,

have you made that request in other cases that you Okay.

Yes. Yes. And have the carriers readily provided them to you?

Forget about the word readily for a minute. Have they been provided to you?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, so particularly Verizon.

Okay. But but in this case, you did not request them.

I I I'm trying to understand what data you're referring to. You you're you're talking about for lower height analysis. No, the data that uh

capacity

the capacity and the coverage data

that that was the information that was provided in the application materials.

So I I'm trying to address the the last gentleman that was opposed.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

And we talked earlier about data that you were relying on that you didn't have visibility to.

Okay.

Right.

Yeah.

Which data is that? Okay, that that would be the coverage. So, we're talking about Lake Road with that particular comment. Uh my report uh said that there is ubiquitous coverage of 700 megahertz. That's low band. Uh but at times capacity for the number of users that are trying to use that particular spectrum is being exceeded. And he so he so right now he'd be drawing signal off of one of the adjacent towers. when you're listening to music, uh there's a buffering that occurs, right? Is that when the system is available to do it, it will download, you know, ahead of where you're actually listening. And then when there's a drop, the buffering actually starts to catch up with the point where the phone has stopped downloading that information, but the music keeps playing. But during that period of time, it can re-buffer when the system becomes available, and it'll buffer some more a little bit further out. So from a user's point of view, it may not be at all apparent that the connection was dropped for a substantial period of time.

Was there any data that you needed from Verizon that you would have liked to have had but didn't receive or has not have that asked for?

No, that no, the information that was provided in the application is what we typically asked for. We asked for cleaner plots because we wanted to be able to read the captioning. We wanted to actually see what the uh numerical information was and they provided cleaner plots of those of those data but it wasn't different data.

Substantive data that Verizon relied upon for their conclusions that you verified you were not without any of the underpinning data if you will the native data

correct

upon which the conclusions were.

Yeah. We don't we don't have the raw data because that's what comes from the switch. But that raw data is plotted on those plots.

But but also that data that was provided to you, there was no red flags that you saw in that data as you did 20 years ago with that other other project.

That's correct.

I think that's what you were you were asking, right? So, so you didn't need to ask Verizon for any additional information because the information that you had, you were able to verify at least the one site which gave you a comfort level for both sites.

Uh, correct, correct, correct. Although, you know, I I have to add this that uh we didn't try to generate that empirical data to compare it to,

right? We're looking at the information. When you have saturated sites, and this is a very typical scenario on a lot of locations, when you have saturated sites, you start to see those key performance indicators start to ramp up and start to either go over or or substantially go over the 100% mark.

Yeah. And you were able to verify that against the opensignal.com, which is a open readily available data as well. That's that that's right.

At least for the one site. I think the other site you weren't able to is what you mentioned,

right? Because because again that those are sample points. I mean when you do crowdsource data uh you're calling a lot of information from a lot of users uh to try to establish okay what's the typical statistical performance of the system in that area. Uh we couldn't see the type of information we'd have liked to see for for lake road from open signal. However, when I looked at open signals information for uh Webster North, uh there was almost a match.

Understood. When you uh one of the criteria that [clears throat] uh one of the neighbors spoke about as well as um Miss Smith, this um minimal intrusion does is that part of your expertise or is it not? That's an aesthetic uh judgment that has to be made by the planning board.

That's why I'm asking that question. So, it's it's it's a lay person's Well,

it's not necessarily your Bailey Wick.

Correct. Correct. Because my my my perception of minimal intrusion might be I want to have really great cell service.

Well, I think minimal intrusion it's two-tiered. there's minimal intrusion in the area where that's lacking the capacity and the coverage and then there's a second tier at the actual site that was determined to be minimally intrusive how minimally intrusive it is what they're putting up.

Sure.

And but on on the first tier that is in your wheelhouse, right?

Yeah. If if if there is a need for actually wireless services, so that would be the establishment of a significant uh coverage or service gap in the area. That's that's what Professor Cheryl

did you opine that out of and I I forget what Miss Smith said for um for each location how many there were to choose from, but you're opining that the sites that were here for tonight were the most minimally intrusive of

Oh, you're not. No, [clears throat] no. That this according to the application materials of all the sites that Verizon looked at, there was only one that was viable either technically uh or landowner uh agreement. Right? So, we pushed them on that particular point. In fact, in our first report, we noted that uh the boards were being presented with only one option that there were no other options. And when you're talking about something being [clears throat] minimally intrusive, I mean, the implication is you're comparing it to something Right? And there's nothing else to be comparing it to because that was the only site that was available. Now it comes the question is the minimally intrusive height is that the minimum height for performance? So we looked at that and we gave you a finding on that. Okay.

I have a followup question but I'll ask Miss Smith. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. You're welcome.

So, could could I just follow up on this minimally truth? You probably have a list that you want to go and respond to, I'm assuming.

I'll I'll I'm happy to start with your questions.

Okay. And I could be easily the densest one in the room here, so forgive me.

I'm sure that's not true. We did find out that cell phone service

I've never I've never dropped a call. It goes right through my my ears.

The on the minimally intrusive following up on what Mr. Johnson just said, if there was a site where you couldn't get a lease, maybe you didn't want to pay what the land owner wanted. Is it is a takeaway possibly that that site could have been less intrusive but for Verizon's unwillingness to pay a price?

I don't know if I did a good job with that question.

No. And I, you know, I I think I'll note, you know, we [clears throat] we have gone through that exercise and and maybe I'll say it differently, right? I I think there's no disagreement that being on the tree line in the back of the farm would be less intrusive than the site that's being proposed. Right. So there there is, you know, I I don't believe that we take issue with that of of having the tower so that it abuts the tree line um would be a better position for it to be in. And and candidly, we don't want a controversial site, right? we would love to go where it is easier to build.

Um, but the landlord declined and said we couldn't go there for farming operations or conservation easement operations. So, you know, from Verizon's perspective, we want to be in easy sites. We want to be in sites that are easy for a planning board to say yes to or easy for a ZBAH to say yes to. You're you're indicating though that on the Windmill farm site the undesirable piece of it or or or the it was blocked because of other reasons not dollars and cents. It was a conservation easement or some other reason

correct and and candidly what the reason is we have to defer to the landlord. So I'm using right we we have more reasoning on the windmill farms. Let me ask you the question this way.

Were there other sites where you you weren't deferring to the landlord, but Verizon was making a business decision. I don't want to we don't want to pay X. The land owner wants too much.

So, there is in in the record there is a site selection analysis that goes through the re the reason why those choices declined to lease with us. Often they don't want to engage in lease negotiations. There are there are instances where they never respond when you knock on the door and and leave a card and send a certified mail. So it's they are for a variety of reasons that are not just

and were there reasons in this selection process where Verizon chose not to negotiate based upon terms. I would I don't want to misspeak. It is set forth in the record. My my understanding is no. There were only instances that either I'm I'm saying that in a negative way. Either the landlords did not respond or did not engage in negotiations with Verizon. They said no in this particular instance.

Last question on this issue. when when you talk in terms of of case law, Verizon or a utility reserves the right that even though a location might be less intrusive, they reserve the ability to not be required at that location based upon the three criteria that you gave us if they feel they're paying a price they don't want to pay.

There is very strong case law that a a telecommunications provider does not have to pay above market rates or something that does not make the business case work. Whether it's a lease a a length of lease term that's not acceptable. Um if it's a rent that's above market. So yes, there is strong case law that says and and I'm saying this to be transparent, not not in a negative way, but a [clears throat] a zoning board can't dictate business terms that a telecomunications provider goes with.

You're representing to the best of your knowledge in this case.

Correct. Yes.

There wasn't a le a more minimally intrusive location

that Verizon turned away from. Cor

because

correct

it was greater than market rate.

Correct. But I do have our site selection specialist that can talk about the site selection.

Yeah. I and again I'm not trying to invite more information than we need. It's late. I I just as I understand this more refined. I just wanted to see whether

Yes. I Nico Facy for the record. Um [clears throat] I have the unfortunate job of trying to find sites. I think what you're trying to ask was there another, you know, landlord interested but wasn't able to get a deal because of a because of finances. The short answer is no. The farm is the only interested party. Um, and we we contact people the same way. Everyone is the same. Knock on the doors. We leave letters in their mailboxes. We send certified mail. Um, people who aren't interested, they just most times they don't contact you. People who have some interest, they'll call you. they'll try to solicit more information. Um, and then the ones that are interested, they'll call you right back and say, "Hey, let's talk about this." But in this case, the only interested party was the windmill farms. So, the short answer is no. There was no one else that was interested and we couldn't get a deal done because of finances. What happens in an area? Say you have 10 lots or land that you want to go look at. Everybody turns Verizon down. How do

you start back at square one?

We just don't stop. The problem doesn't go away because we don't find a location right away. And you know, case in point, Webster North has been around for we've been trying to solve it for we've been working with the town for three years. So because the problem exists, it's not going to go away. Okay. So Verizon kind of has to fix it. So short answer is we we have to stay you know we go back we try again know maybe you know somebody sells their property you have a new owner someone you know may be interested at a later time. So some sites take longer but we it just don't problem doesn't go away doesn't solve itself. So we have to kind of stay on the case until we can find something.

Quick so quick question. Um, looking at the graphic up on the uh screen, the circle represents the ideal location. Somewhere inside that red circle represents the ideal location for the cell tower. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So, to um one of the residents that came up uh speaking about the Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church site was outside of that red circle. So it was not in an ideal location for the Verizon tower.

Um,

correct. So the church is outside and we actually, like I said, because we've been working on the site for so long for Webster specifically, we looked at multiple locations outside of the search area, which we typically do not do. But that church was vetted by our RF engineer and it simply doesn't work. It's it's way too far outside the area.

Okay.

This does not represent No, this one does not. No, I understand that. But when the graphic was up here, I took a look to see where the Presbyterian Church was in relation to that circle and it didn't that circle didn't cross 250. So, I have a question regarding uh the conservation area. Did you [sighs] I don't know if this gentleman that spoke a while ago said that you can build a a a cell tower in a conservation area. I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm basing it on what he just said and I don't know if you know if that's true or not. But if I'm thinking that if [clears throat] the farmer is of the opinion that he can't do anything with that because it's a conservation area. I'm wondering if if he's cor if this gentleman over here is correct. Could we have a discussion? Is it possible to have a discussion because it everybody seems to have admitted that the conservation area would be a better location for the tower. Uh what I can say is the the landlord has come in and actually met with the board um regarding his entire property.

So I mean Verizon can't force him to put us in a location, right? We're leasing a small area of his property and where we are is the only area that he has available for lease.

But I'm not I don't think I'm making myself clear. I I think if I'm understanding this correct, he may not think that he can lease the uh lease a piece of that conservation area to because it is in fact a conservation area.

So that he has told us no based on and we have a supplemental lettering

as well. So we've already asked him multiple times about that area and he said [clears throat] no.

Okay. If I can also speak to the minimal intrus intrusion um exhibit K of the lake I know we're like bouncing around. Exhibit K of the Lake Road um application in in no way do I want to to minimize the testimony that you heard. Um but I I do want to note that the area that this is located does have a significant amount of electrical utilities. um transversing the area. So this is not you know I I guess I also don't want to give the impression of there is nothing on this parcel but for the cell phone tower that's about to be there. There are other utilities that are located on this site and that is part of the the the the viewshed when one is driving down Lake Road. So it's it's not um it's not uncluttered. It is a cluttered area that a cell phone tower will also go in to the extent of you know landscaping

around the base to hide the equipment that is done routinely. Um but you know when looking at these various sites I do just want to raise that note of it's it's not a completely empty field and the cell phone tower is the only thing that will be in it. There are other utilities and electrical lines that that are in that viewshed. it it will be the only thing that is over 100 ft taller.

Very no. Very very true. Right. I I just don't to to have the impression of there's nothing there and there will be something there.

I mean it's typical telephone poles that are are there currently right. Yes. Yeah. No certain transformers and things of that nature. It's not

Yeah.

125 ft but it is

there are other there is other infrastructure that's located on this parcel.

Okay. Um,

it's a 7.8 acre plot. It's at the very end of the farm. It's leased out every year to another farmer for planting. Worst comes to worst. And I didn't get a chance to show you the picture that I'll be looking at. Talk about intrusion. This tower could easily be moved south 100 150 200 feet more where it doesn't sit right next to the road doesn't intrude exactly in our 125 ft it's going to be an ice

how friendly are you with the farmer can you convince them? Uh, no. [laughter] And I can tell you, well, I won't because I can't back it up with that. [laughter] There's there's a desire by members of the farm to not have to look at that tower. Well, that's they dumped it off to us.

And from the minimal intrusion issue, the real estate hit to the people who live right next to that tower is estimated to run from 10 to 30% of the value of their property. In my case, that's 50 to $150,000 when I go to sell my home. So, there is a maximum intrusion. It's going to affect all the values. One developer has already lost one sale of the development that's trying to do on Lake Brook right across the street. Um there's a lot of impact here. isn't just that we don't want to tell

and and it's that's what we're trying to we're trying to weigh and I I appreciate the comments.

Um other questions from the board. I don't mean to cut you off but obviously I mean it

it's late.

It's late right? Um

can I just say something? My name is Kathy Pomponio and I'm the project manager. We've been through this conservation easement issue with the planning board. We have taken the planning board's comments about the conservation easement which was very extensively explained in a letter to that board. Um we have taken that and met again with the property owner on site to try to see if there was any way that we could move that tower. We have gone above and beyond. We have taken the property owner to meet in a work session with the chairman of the planning board, the town supervisor um in Verizon, and he has extensively explained why he cannot put this tower on any other portion of his property. We have tried. We have tried multiple

times. It is not a financial issue. There are things that you cannot see that are in the ground related to irrigation that prevent this from going anywhere else. We have extensively exhausted that conservation easement. Um, our attorneys have looked at it. We have spoken extensively with all of the parties about it. Um, and obviously we wouldn't be here for either one of these facilities if it wasn't necessary. Verizon doesn't expend the capital on something that isn't necessary.

Appreciate that.

You recognize we have a job to do, right?

I I I completely understand and I understand your questions, but I wanted you to understand that we have already met with the town,

right? But it it it sounds as though

I don't know if you appreciate we have a job to do. I I do understand your job.

We're an independent board from the town board and the planning board. So, we're performing our due diligence.

And I just wanted to add to that. I wanted you to know that's I wanted you to know how extensively we have researched that conservation easement.

Do you mind? I mean,

can you summarize the reasons why the conservation easement area is not

It's all explained in that letter. There's a letter. I don't have it in front of me.

It's all explained in the letter.

Was that supplied to this board? Was that letter supplied to this board?

Yeah, I don't believe so.

Yes, it's exhibit T of the application, the supplemental materials that was

um dated March 31st.

So, that's the letter from the landlord.

It's And even after that letter came out, we went and met with him.

We brought him to the work session so that he could explain

for this board. Can you summarize just quickly summarize?

Oh, go ahead. I have it.

I'm I'm wary of I'm wary of doing so because I don't want to misspeak what the conservation ement says, but the the crux of the letter is

there's infrastructure in the ground. There are farm operations that they renting right leasing to us. They will never lease to us in an area that will impede their farming operations. That's their going concern.

They also have um conservation easements I believe both with the USDA and then also with private companies that they contract with. I think they mentioned KURG Dr. Pepper is one of the entities that they contract with and they have to abide by certain standards and certain procedures. So by them allowing the tower on their their contract with that entity essentially is broken and then they would lose that

what whatever the correct benefit of that is

and and to the extent of could that be amended is there ways around it you know I I don't want to speak to that but I I can't imagine leasing to Verizon they would make that business decision versus Kirk Dr. pepper or you know a 100 by 100 foot lease area versus Kur Dr. Pepper or the conservation easement. So I I guess I I wouldn't want the impression of

they can't break the conservation easement or it is in such a way that it can't be interpreted one way or the other but

they're not willing to.

I couldn't imagine a business right there's no business case for that. So

regardless they're not willing to.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay. Thank you. I yeah, we don't have to get any further into it unless anybody on the board wants to. Okay.

Um

I think Miss Smith had something she wanted to address.

I think candidly the one I had was the 550 Webster, but I believe that Nico tied that up nicely.

Okay. I do have a question regarding uh Webster North. The trees. Uh there was a question of how many trees are potentially going to be cut down to accommodate the cell cell site.

So where is located and it's on the site plan which I think is Q to the big application. Um [clears throat] there it it was chosen on the site there's a clearing on the site. So it was chosen on the site to really minimize the tree clearing. It was uh

there's only a handful

site. Yes, thank you. Cited in such a way and the goal is not to cut down trees. That is uh the goal is to to preserve the trees. It's an candidly an additional expense to to remove trees. So the goal of the construction is always to make as little impact as possible.

That was that was it. Right.

Back up.

Back up. Right there.

Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. And looking at the aerial that that area is

Yeah.

Fairly open. We did meet out on site with your environmental specialists,

the con the conservation board.

Conservation board. We did meet with Okay.

in the rain that day. Um and we did mark the trees that there's just minimal

Can you speak into the mic? Sorry.

I'm sorry.

It wasn't being picked up.

So, we did meet out with your conservation board on a very rainy evening in the spring. Um and we marked the trees that were to be removed. There were a handful. Not very many at all.

Okay. Um, other question I have is the scenic byway. Um, I don't know what kind of impact that has with New York State. Um, I'm assuming, uh, some due diligence has happened by Verizon. Uh, can you explain that?

Yes. And we actually we do provide the visual addendum that's put out by the DEEC. Um trying to see my tile straight.

Yeah. Sorry bouncing bouncing all over on you on on the two sites.

Oh, it feels like it's a pop quiz. It's like oh yeah, I have the answer to that one. Um so in the seeker form, which is exhibit H to the environmental assessment form, we do supply a visual addendum,

different site. Erica, you're on uh Webster North. You got to go to Lake Road.

The Lake Road application, the one that we have on the drive is not the full drive, so I can't pull that up right now.

Okay.

All right. So, it is so the visual addendum that that was referenced that is provided. It is noted as being near the the byway, but there is other infrastructure that's in the byway um and would be part of the secret determination, which is is there potential for significant adverse environmental impact on a protected viewshed and for the small portion and and again I'm not minimizing the impact felt by the neighbors but to the small portion of the national byway of having one of very many cell phone towers. The Gana Tower is also visible from there are many towers that are visible from

the byway. It is the byway that it is one of the areas we're trying to serve. Um you know from from the visual addendum to me the only logical conclusion would be there is not the potential for significant adverse environmental impact to that shed. But that is something that would be considered as part of the secret determination. Well, also when you're considering a byway, it's because it's a sequential thing. It's not a site.

It's generally a roadway, Route 66. Yep.

Or the Seaway Trail where it's sequential.

And if you're traveling at it at 55 miles an hour, there's a lot different visual impact than if you're living across the street from it.

For sure. So that's that's the um [snorts] the basis for when you determine something in a byway, not necessarily if you stop and look at it. It's what's the impact as you're going with the speed limit up and down the road.

So um I asked uh I think uh doc is it Dr. Johnson um regarding um aesthetic improvements. Um, right. So, being out in an open field, uh, is there screening, whether it be vegetative screening or other types of screening that would be utilized to help improve uh, visual impacts, uh, specifically for Lake Road because Web North is going to be [clears throat]

surrounded by by vegetation. Um but is there anything being provided for visual impact support for uh Lake Road?

Certainly having vegetative screening around the equipment base as you correctly pointed out we we can't screen right the the entire tower but it is very common to put landscaping around the equipment location. um there it will be screened by a fence but then additional vegetation arborites can be planted on the exterior of the fence to help even further mitigate that that visual impact. So certainly that's something that is is done with regularity. Um I'm I don't I can't point you exactly whether it is proposed here, but could be a condition of an approval uh to have that screening put in as a vegetative um vegetative screening around the equipment.

Thank you. Um, I heard that having the uh uh this the stealth tower, if you will, which you know, you see 120 foot tower with uh sparsely uh placed branches uh sticks out like a saw thumb, but so does a uh gray tower. Um, I don't know the answer to this other than So, I'm going to ask it. Do does color help with um cell tower um aesthetics, if you will, as you're driving by on a byway.

Better question is, is there a way to camouflage the tower itself via paint?

Thank you. So, as a Rochester native, I'm sad to say this, but the gray sky actually is is the camouflage. It is it it does typically um blend into our our gray sky. So, the galvanized that color is chosen to to blend in with the with the gray sky.

Okay.

Um I I don't I can't think of a color that would be less

intrusive than that. And of course, at night time it

you wouldn't see it. It's not lit. It's not over 200 ft. Um, I think from and I I think Kathy's going to speak to this. You know, from a from a stealthing perspective, I think I think I know Kathy's heard every choice or question under the sun. It is difficult to identify a structure that is actually stealththed and then the added weight of a of the tree infrastructure makes it bulkier.

Okay. Well, you have to understand too that if you're talking about a tree, you can't you're actually going to put 10 feet more onto [clears throat] the height of the tower because you have to make the tree look realistic with a cone above the antennas. So, you're adding 10 feet to the top of the structure automatically. And that's a pretty tall tree to begin with. Um, so that's it doesn't really, I don't think, jive with with what you're trying to accomplish. Stealththing is very specific to the situation. It only works in certain instances.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's now 11:00 p.m. So, I'm requesting that the board, if the board doesn't feel comfortable making a decision tonight that we table this until the next meeting, um, at this point, the questions are repeating. So if no decision, if the board's not comfortable, I request that we table until next month's meeting.

So I I guess um

so let

Thank you.

I'll ask the board if they have um any additional questions first. Um at this point, the public public session is closed. Um, does the board have any additional questions that they want to ask tonight?

I'm good for tonight, but I I I there's a lot more that needs to be discussed.

Okay. So, you have more more discussion that you want to go through then, Chris?

There there might be more to help me make a better decision. Okay. I for one would like to know what the planning board is, what planning board changes might be occurring to the site which might impact any decision we make tonight if we were to vote on it.

Okay. Does anybody else have other um may I guess ultimately most of my questions have been answered. Um are there does the board have other questions that they want to ask? If so, then I would agree that we should table the the remaining portion of this till uh till the next meeting.

I'd like it tabled only because of what Chris just said. I'd like to hear what the planning board

Okay.

has to say about it.

So, if I haven't closed I think I've closed both. I have closed both. So, public hearing uh public uh comment has been closed on both. Um we are going to table this until uh next month's uh so se October's meeting.

Um so can I uh I make a motion to table

the Verizon cell tower uh Lake Road and Verizon Cell Tower Webster North until October 14th.

Second.

All those in favor? Hi.

This so-called shot clock is it was it 150 days?

It is 150 days. We have extended if you'll note our application. One of them is January. Uh we we have extended until I believe after the town board meeting in October with the expectation of returning to the planning board meeting and then perhaps the ZBA meeting for this. Um we also need a a special permit from the town board. So you've been tracking.

So zoning board is October 14th.

The town board is likely

October 6th

in the the second I'm sorry. The second town board meeting of the month is what we

September

second.

I'm sorry. You're right. You're speaking of the planning board. Yes. The planning board would be the Tuesday before the ZBA meeting. We have agreed to extend the shot clock to after the second town board meeting of the month in October. But but do request and and we'll note um we expressed this at the planning board of the the FCC and the the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is put into place because this is a difficult choice, right? It's put into place because this is a controversial topic. But Congress and the and and through the rules promulgated by the FCC, the goal of the Telecommunications Act was to encourage rapid deployment of telecommunications facilities across the country. So it we have things like preeemption for um RF effects of health or perceived effects perceived health effects of RF on health. um that's been

fully preempted because that is an area that the telecommunic that Congress and the FCC have identified as this is something that is universal across the country and something that cannot

be addressed. So the shot clock is one of those items of

you have the authority as the applicant to um stay extended. We we do have the authority and we have done so. But the note being we are appreciative of the town continuing to move through this process and and request it continues at a a good clip as this has been.

The the applicant believes the town's acting in good faith at this point.

Yes. Of course. Yes. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you. We'll see you next time.

I appreciate your time. Thank you for letting me go past 10.

Okay. Yep. Um, do we need to look at the minutes?

So, this is being tabled

till October 14th.

Okay. Everybody

and we voted on that.

Yes, that's been voted on.

All right. [cough and clears throat]

Minutes.

All right. I have minutes for the August 11th zoning board meeting.

Has everyone had an opportunity to review those?

Yes.

Then I'll make a motion to approve them.

Second.

All those in favor? I

have a good motion there.

Thanks for sticking around.

Okay, with that I make a motion to uh end our meeting.

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.