Board of Trustees Work Session

Alright. Good evening and welcome to our October 28 work session of the Croton on Hudson Board of Trustees, Mayor Brian Pugh. And the first time of business is a discussion of a proposed local law to amend chapter two six... Two zero six rather, telecommunications towers, to provide for the regulation of wireless facilities. This evening, we're joined by Mike Roberts of the Cohen Law Group, special counsel for the development of this proposed amendment to the code.

Yes. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Mike, for joining us. So do we wanna have Mike kinda just go over his summary? Yes, please. So, Mike, do you wanna start us off by just kind of going over the summary that you put together for the board, and then we can open it up for comments and questions?

Absolutely. Sounds great. And thank you to the board for having me tonight and for meeting our firm. Just by way of introduction for those who may not know who I am or who our firm is, my name is Mike Roberts. I'm an attorney with the Cohen Law Group. We are a law firm that specializes exclusively in representing local governments in, telecommunications issues. So cable, wireless, broadband. We represent exclusively local governments. We don't represent any of the telecom companies themselves. I always like to clarify that, whenever possible. And what we're talking about here tonight is, as mentioned, a revision to chapter two zero six of the village code, really a full repeal and replace of chapter two zero six, the existing, requirements for what are are called telecommunications towers. In the current code, we're called wireless communications facilities in, the proposed local law that we're discussing here. A quick, very high level overview of the applicable law here, which is covered more deeply in the summary as well, But local regulation of wireless facilities in general is governed by federal law, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. So the Telecommunications Act granted local governments, zoning control over the location placement and construction of wireless communications facilities. Now that local control and that zoning authority is subject to a number of enumerated restrictions, and those restrictions are spelled out within the telecommunications act itself, and they've been subsequently, clarified or expanded over the years by FCC order. So, each of those is going to be addressed in some part within, the proposed local law that we have here. There are, as I mentioned, a number of FCC orders. It's not, relevant necessarily for our discussion to go in-depth into each of those, but it does bear discussing the most recent FCC third reporting order relating to small wireless communications facilities. Because what that order did is it created a new type of wireless facility, gave it a federally mandated definition,

which is the small wireless facility. These are facilities, and they are defined strictly by their dimensions. Right? So it's anything where the antenna is three cubic feet or less in volume and the accessory equipment is 27 cubic feet or less in volume, and then the facilities themselves are essentially less than 50 feet in total height, and it placed relatively significant restrictions on local authority over those types of facilities. You may have heard these referred to by other names. Small cells is the most common that's kind of out in the zeitgeist. They are essentially going to be antennas on telephone poles located within the public rights of way. So they are kind of covered by their own section of the local law that we'll discuss here, but that's really the most important order for us to keep in mind. There's another that deals with what are known as shot clocks, those are federally prescribed timeframes in which local governments are required to take certain actions on applications for wireless facilities, including performing an initial review of the application, issuing a notice of completeness or incompleteness, and then issuing a final decision on those applications. Those time frames are each also expressly spelled out within the proposed law that we have here. I'll point you to those kind of when we go through in more detail, but, all of this goes to say that there is a robust body of federal law that governs the regulation of these facilities and in certain instances limits the village's authority over these facilities. So there may be areas that come up in discussion or that have come up in discussion already where there are things the village may want to do that you may not be able to do under federal law, and we can kind of talk through those.

To give a summary of what the actual law is doing, I think this is the most important part for discussion tonight, what we are aiming to do with the new law is to implement a comprehensive regulatory structure over the deployment of these facilities within the village. And we do that by dividing the law into individualized sections addressing each type of wireless facility that you may see. And I'll cover each of those kind of preliminarily, and then we can dive into the the actual regulations for each. But really there's going to be three main types of wireless facility that you're going to see and that are covered in individual sections by the local law. The first is what we call a tower based wireless communications facility. And the tower based wireless communications facility is likely what all of us think of when we think of a cell tower, right? This is a large either lattice style guide or we call monopole cell tower, very tall, located outside of the public rights of way. It is a structure installed strictly for the support of an antenna. These cover the widest range, so they are kind of the backbone of wireless, network, and they are deployed in the smallest numbers, right? They're the most expensive, they're the most difficult to locate, and they are typically the most restricted. You have the broadest authority over these types of facilities, but that's the first type of facility that we would deal with here. The second is what we call a co located wireless communications facility, and you'll see this word colocate, colocated, or colocation come up quite a bit in wireless regulation. What that means is essentially placing an antenna and the associated equipment on a structure that already exists.

Right? So the easiest version of this to think of is putting an antenna on a rooftop. Right? You are not installing a structure to support this antenna. It's something that's already there. Other versions of this that are common are placing antennas on existing towers, you know, an electrical transmission tower, an existing cell tower where you're adding additional antennas, water tanks. If you, you know, probably get get far away from the village out into more rural areas, we've even seen them on things like grain silos. Right? Any tall structure they can be located on. Again, outside of the public rights of way, bigger than a small wireless communications facility. Those are going to be colocated wireless communications facilities. And then we have the small wireless facilities that I mentioned. I've kind of already gone over those, but those are, again, typically located inside the public rights of way, typically on a utility pole. They are occasionally located on light poles or traffic signals, and those are by far the most restrictive. So to walk through the proposed law itself, you know, begins with your general, you know, titles, purpose, and definitions. The majority of the definitions that you'll see here are prescribed by federal law. So there are definitions that are inflexible for the most part, and then we include definitions of the various permits that are implemented here. We're creating or implementing two types of permits here. The first being a wireless permit, would be for facilities outside the public rights of way, and then a wireless encroachment permit for facilities inside the public rights of way. Again, when we talk facilities inside the public rights of way, we are talking about exclusively small wireless facilities. Those are the only types that are permitted in the rights of way under the local law.

The initial kind of substantive section is section two zero six-4A, and this is general requirements for all wireless communications facilities. So whether it's tower based, whether it's colocated, or whether it is small, these requirements would apply to all of them. We like to put them in their own section, most practically because this would be even longer than it already is if we spelled them out in each section individually, but also because there is a great degree of overlap and these are some of the most important things, in terms of both process and oversight, you know, legal protections, things of that nature. So this section establishes the permit process. So both wireless permits and wireless encroachment permits are going to be, valid for a period of five years. There's a requirement that the facility itself be constructed within a year of the issuance of the permit. And then when that permit would expire, there would be a renewal or extension period, available as well. We also include kind of generalized construction safety and code compliance requirements here as well, requirements dealing with how the facility handles wind and ice. These can be tall facilities, they're hanging from something. It is exceedingly rare that one of these would fall down, but we want to make sure that there's confirmation that they are engineered as such in compliance with applicable safety codes. The same with aviation safety. Aviation safety is something that you will likely never have to deal with when it comes to a wireless communications facility because it typically only comes into play when the site is over 200 feet in height. Unless there's some, either airspace issue, typically low flying planes, there may be, FCC requirements that would be involved there. But we want to ensure that

when you get an application for a facility, all of these things are addressed and covered in The U. Code requirements to point to in order to get the necessary information. We also include requirements relating to compliance with FCC regulations dealing with both interference, so that would be interfering with other existing wireless facilities or communications facilities that are nearby, as well as for radio frequency emissions. So the FCC promulgates standards for what are considered to be safe levels of radio frequency emissions. The only thing the village can really do relating to compliance with those standards is to require that the applicant show proof of compliance with the FCC standards. This is something that will be submitted along with an application. There will be a radiofrequency engineering report showing compliance with the applicable FCC standards. If that compliance is shown, you know, it's kind of out of your hands at that point. We also want to ensure that there is, adequate financial security in place. You know, these can be particularly with a macro cell tower. They can be fairly substantial, deployments. They can be pretty big facilities. We want to make sure that the village is insulated financially should

removal or some other obligation of a site fall onto your hands that you would have financial security to draw upon. Say a facility would need to be removed, you would have bonding in place to cover that. Again, something that's exceedingly rare, but we deal in the business of exceedingly rare. We want to make sure that you're covered in any of those instances. Then we of course include, you know, strong insurance and indemnification requirements as well to, provide legal protections to the village here. So I want to point to on page 11, subsection 25, there is, you probably noticed, a chart kind of placed in the middle of this. These are the timeframes, the shot clocks that I mentioned earlier that are prescribed by federal law. Again, there is a shot clock applicable and a different shot clock applicable to each type of wireless communications facility, and they will cover two separate acts. The first is what we call notice of incompleteness. So you receive an application for a new cell tower, for example. We use a tower based facility as an easy example. Federal law gives you thirty days from receipt of that notice to issue a statement of completeness or incompleteness. Right? So you would say we've received your application. We've compared it against the requirements of the local law, we're missing XYZ items. That is a formal notice for the applicant to submit the information that's needed, but it also performs a very important kind of operative task which is it pauses the shot clock as it's running. So you have one hundred and fifty total days to issue a decision on, again, a tower based wireless communications facility, and these are different for each. But once you issue that notice of completeness, that clock stops running. So for whatever time it takes for the applicant to, put together the information you've requested, complete the application and resubmit would not count against your shot clock, timeframe. That can be very critical because when the shot clock does run, one of two things can happen depending on the type of facility. It can either be deemed approved, which is kind of the most frightening, operational outcome because that would mean that the facility is effectively approved, right, without you having made an official determination on it by the virtue of the shop club running out.

Or in the case of your small wireless communications facilities, they would be, the applicant would be entitled to, seek an injunctive relief in federal court. So seek a court order forcing you to approve the application. So both, outcomes that we'd like to avoid. So when you are considering the procedures, particularly when it comes to the local law, what the application process looks like, it is crucial to not only think are we getting all of the information we need, does this process make sense, but also is it something that we're confident we'll be able to complete within the timeframe required by federal law. So moving on from general into the more specific sections, the first is Section two zero six-five, which deals with tower based wireless communications facilities. And to remind you of what those are, those are your traditional cell towers outside the rights of way. And there are a few open questions here, so I think these would warrant some discussion or consideration whether that be during tonight's session or after the fact. But the tower based wireless communications facility again is permitted only outside of the public rights of way in certain areas of the village. So we we start, you know, subsections a and b are dealing with your permit requirements, but I I wanted to draw your attention to subsection d, which is dealing with location standards. Right? So subsection d one on page 13 states currently the tower based wireless communications facilities are permitted outside the public rights of way in the following zoning districts, and we have a highlighted TBD because we need to determine which zoning districts these facilities would make the most sense in. That is strictly a policy issue and a policy consideration for the village.

Typically, these would be in industrial districts, you know, very large open space districts. The maximum height under the laws currently written is 150 feet. The maximum setback from adjacent property lines and buildings is at least the height of the tower, maybe a little bit more. So you want to consider where adequate lot space would exist for these facilities. We've also included in the most recent draft here, an exemption for village owned property. So there may be instances where, certain village owned property would be attractive for these sites. The village feels it would make sense, regardless of the district. So we've kind of carved out the ability for the village to make that determination in subsection d two on a case by case basis. They're not to be permitted in areas where utilities are underground. There would likely be very little overlap here, but in case there are some isolated spaces with underground utilities, obviously a large cell tower would be quite out of place in those areas. And then subsection D4 dealing with, setback from areas with certain uses, Those are specifically residences, daycares, houses of worship, and parkland, right? Those are areas that we put in the draft, something to consider. I urge you to consider the reasoning behind the setback and what the justification for setback for many of these facilities might be. Certainly there are permissible reasons and there are impermissible reasons under federal law. Point you back to the radio frequency emissions question, that we discussed earlier, but worth considering as well, you know, whether those, locations make sense as written, if there needs to be any alteration. The location of tower based facilities really is going to be your primary concern. Then as we go through, there are requirements relating to, you know, lot size, the design of the facility itself, ensuring that it is as minimally

intrusive as a large cell tower can be, dealing with fencing and screening, how the accessory equipment, and we say accessory equipment, you know, the, ground mounted, whether it be equipment cabinets or buildings, how those are located, what they look like, and their permissible sizes, and then dealing with the additional information that we would need for the application, particularly, you know, compliance with health and safety requirements. I want to note specifically, and I'll try to keep things moving along as best I can because I know this is quite a bit of information and time, but I wanna draw you specifically to subsection l on page 16 dealing with colocation and siting. One thing that we try to encourage throughout the local law is to minimize the number of new structures to the extent that we possibly can. Right? Because the most the most intrusive version of a wireless facility is something where they're putting up a new structure for it. Right? So an antenna located on something that already exists is our best case scenario, whether that be co located wireless communications facility or co located small wireless communications facility. So prior to being permitted to apply for and construct a tower based wireless communications facility, there is a requirement that the applicant show that they have made an effort to locate this facility on something that already exists, right? That it is, impossible technologically and financially to actually place this on an existing facility as an initial hurdle for the consideration of a tower based wireless communications facility because we don't want these to be someone's first option, right, because they are going to be again the most intrusive. Given the topography and the layout of the village, it's not something I would anticipate that you would see in any great numbers,

but it is something that we want to address and ensure that there is some limitation in terms of applicant's ability to immediately build a tower based wireless communications facility without showing actual need and actual kind of technological impossibility of locating somewhere else. Moving on to subsection two zero six dash six, these are your colocated wireless communications facilities, and this is on page 17 it begins. Again, these are located outside the public rights of way on existing structures. They are subject to the wireless permit. We start with your application materials required. But for location, again, subsection D, this is on page 19, we are in the current draft permitting these in all zones subject to the requirements of this section, right? And the kind of policy reasoning behind this typically is that we want to again encourage as much as we can the lesser or the least intrusive versions. So locating on something that already exists, if we give a wider ability to do this, then it may, and typically does serve to limit the location someone will be looking for a cell tower or a small cell on a new utility pole. So casting a wider net, affords applicants more, options for these less intrusive, versions of wireless communications facilities. It does not give them carte blanche to build one of these anywhere they want to. There are still quite a bit of restrictions in terms of design, location, maximum height, accessory equipment requirements and code compliance within this section as well. But it does allow them a bit broader net than they would for the tower based wireless communications facilities. So, one design requirement to draw you to here and then much of this is repetitive of the tower based requirements, but subsection H2

on Page 20, allows for a maximum of 15 feet above the pre existing height of the structure on which they're located. So that's going to be kind of your max height number that you would see for these. For colocated facilities, you do have a fairly great degree of control over these. So if you see any of these requirements outside of timing, shot clocks, radio frequency emissions, things like that that you feel would need to be adjusted or altered in any way, you would likely have the ability to do that to some degree provided those adjustments are technically feasible. Moving on to two zero six seven, seven, this is your requirements for small wireless communications facilities. This introduces the wireless encroachment permit, which again is restricted to the public rights of way. And these facilities are bit more varied than the others, right? So there are really three or four different versions of this that you might see if they mirror each other, but you could potentially see a small wireless communications facility, an antenna on a new pole or a replacement pole in the public rights of way, so that's your first version, co located on an existing pole in the public rights of way on a new pole or replacement pole outside of the public rights of way, or co located on an existing pole outside of the public rights of way. So all of these versions are possible for a small wireless communications facility. The right of way is 95% to 99% of the time where these are going to be located because it is the most attractive version legally and financially for the companies that are constructing these facilities. Right? So the fees that are applicable to small wireless communications facilities on a recurring basis in the public rights of are capped by federal law,

to a maximum of $270 per site per year. So that is typically, far less than they would be paying a, private landowner for a lease outside of the public rights of way. So, it also allows them to be as close as possible to, the users of the network, and these facilities do have by far the smallest radius of coverage, and are deployed in greater numbers to cover a similar area. They are most often deployed in very dense and populous areas where there's a high demand for wireless service. So central business districts, some residential areas, anywhere where people congregate campuses, business parks, hospitals, things of that nature, you know, that are kind of targeted, facilities. In the current draft of the local law, are permitted in all zoning districts within the public rights of way and then outside of the public rights of way, particularly those that require a new or replacement pole. So again, these are typically going to be utility pole, as their support structure. They, continue to have a kind of TBD subsection B3 on page 21 where we would typically echo the districts for tower based facilities, maybe include a bit more in terms of siting opportunity for these because they are again 50 feet or less in height, they can be less intrusive. A few things to note with small wireless communications facilities is that your application procedures and code requirements need to be far more, direct and, specific than they do for others. Right? So for these facilities and for others, the application materials that you will be requesting all need to be expressly spelled out within the code in order for you to be able to request them after the fact. So if an application submitted and it's missing something that you need, you need to be able to point to code requirements that

proactively request that information. Right? If you say, hey, we've just decided that we need this information that's not in the code, you have a difficult time requesting that information out of fact. So we've tried to spell out as best we can every piece of information you could possibly desire when it comes to an application like this for any of the facilities, but again, particularly important for small wireless communications facilities. And the second element of that is dealing with the design of these facilities themselves. So federal law requires that design requirements for small wireless communications facilities must be published in advance. Right? So unlike tower based and colocated wireless communications facilities where you can be subjective, you can be a bit vague and decide on a case by case basis what each facility needs to look like. Federal law does require that you have published design standards for these. So there is an accompanying document here. We point to the design standards in the requirements for small wireless communications facilities here, but the design standards themselves are in an accompanying document, detailing, you know, what the design of the facility needs to look like. So I would encourage you to deeply consider, you know, what we want these things to look like. You know, staff, has worked with us and done a really great job on, some pretty comprehensive, excuse me, requirements for small wireless communications facilities. But I do like to point out that anything we have needs to be published in advance as best possible. Again, we, a unique part of the small wireless communications facility section is subsection k on page 23, which deals with reimbursement for use of the public rights of way. This is the only facility that's located in the public rights of way. You are permitted to charge a recurring annual fee for that, but it is again capped by federal law at $270

per site per year. There is a limited ability to go above and beyond that, but it would require a comprehensive cost study be performed showing that your actual costs are above that $270 per site per year. Your application fees for these facilities are capped as well, by federal law. So there's a fee schedule accompanying this that would that explains each of the the fee caps that you would have for small wireless communications facilities. Just to to quickly go through the next few, and then I'm sure, you know, you all have questions and comments, two zero six dash eight establishes an appeals process that goes through, the board of trustees if if someone feels they have been wronged by the decision of the planning board. Section two zero six dash nine establishes requirements related to breach and termination as well as violations and penalties, including up to fines and revocation of the permits should someone violate the terms of the local law and fail to cure the violation upon receipt of notice. One final one and then I can stop talking and turn it over to all of you, Section two zero six-ten infrastructure controlled by the village. So there is the possibility, right, that a wireless carrier would seek to locate an antenna or some wireless communications infrastructure on infrastructure controlled by the village, whether that be village property, for a cell tower, whether that be the telephone poles or light poles in the public rights of way. Anything that you might own, we wanted to add language clarifying that this does not grant anyone the ability to do any of that by virtue of the local law, but that would be subject to negotiation of an agreement with the village in order to utilize any of that infrastructure. Right? And that is because federal law very clearly delineates the difference between what they call your regulatory authority and your proprietary authority. Right? So your... The things you can regulatory fashion, so imposing legal requirements, imposing code requirements are governed by the telecom act I mentioned. They're governed by these FCC orders. When you're acting in a proprietary fashion as a lessor of your property, you have far greater control because this is a proprietary interest. So we wanted to make that delineation between the two. You are not in any way forced to allow wireless carriers to use village property. It is something that is, within your option, and you have a great degree of proprietary control over that. So with all of that said, I think, my

explanation of the summary was probably longer than the summary itself. But, any questions you all have, I'd I'd be happy to to clarify or answer those.

Sure.

Mike, Len Simon here. Thank you so much for the for the draft and the great presentation, and I hope things are going well in Pittsburgh. Used to used to work there. I kinda miss it. Oh, wonderful. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So just a few real quick questions, and I I think you answered the... My first one in your last comments, but I just wanted to double check on that. So we have the location standards that you've that you've, I think, very effectively articulated on page 13. I happen to like that 500 foot. That's that's almost two football fields for a distance from residents, business, churches, or schools. So so I think that's... I I think that's something we we really wanna focus on. But then when we get all the way towards the end, when we're in section 10 on the municipal infrastructure, you... Are you are you saying that we could negotiate, a a perhaps, longer distance or or or different distance, if, if we wanted to with respect to a tower?

So not not necessarily. The the section for village infrastructure really would be in a scenario where, say, Verizon would approach the village and say, hey. We found a great spot for building an... A 90 foot cell tower. Right? And it is on a lot owned by the village. That section states that they are not entitled by right under the local law to do that, that you would negotiate a lease for them to locate that facility on the village property if you chose to do so. Right. Right? Now the terms of that lease could be effectively anything. Right? But you wouldn't be able to necessarily increase anything included in the local law unless it was on village owned property. For anyone else's property, private property, public rights of way, the

the controlling requirements would be compliance with the local law as written. This would be strictly for village properties. So so If they're on your property, you can negotiate in effectively anything you'd like. Exactly. So the location standards, you know, apply to all, but we have a little flexibility on, on village owned property. Terrific. Yes. Yeah. Correct. Fantastic. Real real real quick. These are these are somewhat depart from the language, but I just wanted to kinda just get your sense because it it it relates to the reality of of trying to implement these. From the work that you're doing with other communities around the country, what what are you seeing with respect to colocation and small cell success? It's something we're very interested in. You know, we've been told from, you know, time to time, perhaps not by the best informed folks, but we've been told, oh, you're too small or the companies don't wanna really do that. But here we are. We've been on pause for a few years on this. So so I'd love to get a fresh perspective from you on on what the potential might be, for a community of, of our size and location.

Yeah. So what we find typically is that there's kind of a two pronged, analysis that you would have when evaluating the success that you would have with any wireless communication facilities. Right? So first is always going to be demand. Right? So any wireless carrier's first analysis is going to be, is there network demand here? Are there users of our network that are trying to access it that are either unable to access the network itself or are having their network experience downgraded in some fashion. Small cells in particular, what they seek to address typically are gaps in capacity rather than gaps in coverage. So I mentioned that they're typically deployed in very dense areas. Right? That is because the problem that they're addressing is folks who have no problem getting onto Verizon's network, AT and T's network, T Mobile's network, but they are experiencing very slow data speeds. They are having calls dropped because there are too many people trying to access it at the same time. Right? So the analysis that any of these carriers are gonna perform first and foremost is is that demand there? The other would be is there a gap in coverage, which is less common but kind of more existentially important, right, because that's where folks are simply unable to access the network in its entirety. That issue crops up more in areas of very varied topography, so, you know, hills and valleys that can cause issues or areas where there is not a lot of population density and towers simply don't reach that far. So that's kind of the level one analysis. The second prong that we typically see is what is the likelihood and effectiveness of getting an application from start to finish. Right? So how friendly... How, and not even necessarily friendly because my concern is not typically friendliness to wireless carriers. It's more on the municipal side. Right? But really how

clearly spelled out and efficient and effective is the process that a local government has in place. Right? So something like what we're doing here can be very helpful because any applicant can look at the code, can look at, you know, the type of facility they're looking to deploy and where and know exactly what they need to do. That can be very, very helpful. Right? If the question is going beyond that to can we reach out to Verizon or T Mobile or AT and T and say, hey, we'd love to have a facility, we see kind of mixed success with that. Right? Because it comes down to, again, the initial question of do they feel they need it? You can you can call them up and say, hey, we'll give you a great deal on village property. You know, we we have a code in place. We'd love to have you here. But if they run the numbers and say the ROI is not there, you know, you still have a hard time convincing them to do it. So, again, it's a bit of a balancing act in terms of what you would you would

look at for success for a given facility. Yeah. And and on that, you know, this is, of course, getting, you know, way ahead of ourselves a little bit. But Yeah. Yeah. Do you start that with a conversation with the carriers or the so called developers, or do you you go ahead and do an RFP and just say we're interested in colocation, we're interested in small sale, and and see what kind of, response you get from the marketplace?

We've we've done both. And it... And there there are different, benefits and downfalls to each. Right? So what the RFP allows for is casting a wide net that may go beyond carriers. Right? Because there are... You know, I I keep mentioning AT and T, Verizon, and T Mobile. Those are your your three cell carriers that we have in the country. Anyone else that operates, you may have heard of others, you know, Mint Mobile, US Cellular, they all operate off those carriers' networks. So the network is at its core AT and T, T Mobile, and Verizon, everyone else is leasing space from them. But beyond those three, you also have, tower companies, wireless infrastructure providers, and these are companies that either build infrastructure on behalf of one of those big three companies or even build it kind of on a speculative basis. Right? So folks who say, hey, we think this could be a good spot. We think we can market the tower to somebody if we get it up, or we can market a rooftop to somebody, whatever the case might be. The RFP kind of pulls all those people. Right? Reaching out to individual carriers, is far more direct, and can answer your questions a lot faster and a lot more directly, but again, has a much, more neatly defined ROI formula associated with it. So there's far less, hey. This this might work. We think it might be a good opportunity, and it's going to be Verizon saying our formula says this. If the ROI is not there, we're just not gonna do it. So, again, cost and benefits to each of them. Gotcha. We've had we've had success with both, but the carriers wanting to be there is gonna be your most successful successful approach always. Thanks, Mike. And last one, from me.

I think I heard you say that in terms of in terms of location locational, issues that the trend line is is more towards, the light industrial industrial zones, in in... Within the community. Is that is that correct?

Correct. For tower based wireless facilities, yes. Again, these... They're typically going to be as tall as the carrier can build it because the taller it is, the more coverage it has. The... Or excuse me, the local law, I'm speaking with Pennsylvania language with ordinances, but the local law says, a maximum height of a 150 feet. So where would that make sense really is the question. It does require as written, you know, the minimum functional height Yep. But it's a possibility about 250 feet. So residential area, no one's gonna like that probably. But industrial, commercial, open space, parks, things like that where you can have a big structure like that that makes sense is typically what we see. But industrial is kind of the number one culprit, right, in terms of where local governments feel it's appropriate.

Okay. Well, Mike, thanks very much both for the draft and your your great answers. Appreciate it. Thank you for the questions. You bet.

Mayor, did you wanna go? I have questions, but if... Okay. Hi, Stacey. Nice to meet you. Well... I know our our law was thirty years old and federal wireless communication laws changed. So thank you for getting us up to modern day and also reflecting small cells. I do have questions about some of the drafting. So first the 500 foot residential restriction has an exception. Who decides whether an exception is warranted? How does that work?

So the exception would be, decided by, excuse me, the, the the board when the application... Or excuse me, the village planning board when I say the board when the application comes in. Right? And the exceptions would be typically decided in a context where an applicant would show that there is some technical infeasibility, which is the term that we use in the industry, meaning that the facility wouldn't work somewhere else. Right? It essentially has to be here to fill a gap in coverage that's been identified, and that is permitted by federal law as well. So the Telecommunications Act allows for that type of exception. If you in fact deny an application for a facility where the applicant has said, you know, this is the only possible place for it, we have a material gap in coverage, oftentimes you'll see that they would challenge that denial both through the appeals process and the law, but if that, appeals process fails, they can challenge it in court as well as a violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act. So the exception would would be through the village planning board in that context of technical infeasibility.

And do they, provide independently verified engineering evidence, or does that have to be in our planning... In our laws that we require that?

So they they provide engineering evidence. It would be, you know, through engineers employed by the applicants. Right?

But we would want it to be independent, you know, not

Yeah. So independent verification, can be complicated. We certainly can add in requirements like that, certainly through the appeals process as well, that that independent, engineering verification would be requested. It would depend what you would want that to look like. Right? Whether it be simply clarifying that it would be independent, verification in the context as written here or whether you would have... Wanna have kind of a second layer of it, I think that would be the question that we would need to to deal with.

Okay. And then... So this local law, two zero six two, right, doesn't pertain to any property owned or controlled by the village of Croton. So are wireless facilities on village owned property intended to be exempt from chapter two zero six? And would the 500 foot residential restriction apply to a tower on village property?

Great question. So, yes, it would intend for village property to be effectively exempt in the context that the village would be able to make that determination.

Right? Why did So we... Why is that? Why did you put that in there?

Right. So the reason that we included that was to provide the village flexibility in terms of locating facilities in areas that the village has made a determination that village owned property would make sense for the facility, but, it may not meet all of the requirements. Typically, would be the zone requirements, right, for a facility that's limited to specific zones. But that, requirement can be narrowed and tailored as the village would see fit. Right? If you feel that there are additional requirements that should apply, you know, that's a policy determination for the village to decide.

Yeah. And, I mean, I'll just I'll just add that generally, the village is not constrained by its own laws. Right? I mean, we don't have to necessarily follow the zoning, the underlying zoning in a certain district. You know, we're exempt from the noise ordinance. Right? You know, because generally speaking, we are doing things for the betterment of the community. But notwithstanding that, the village owns the property. So even though the law exempts us from it, nothing could still be done without this board approving it. Right? You would still have to... But isn't it going to the planning board? No. No. Because you would have to you would have to approve the lease The land. The lease of the property. Correct. Yeah. So the the tower application would go to the planning board, but you have to approve the lease for the property, which would have to happen first before it could go to the planning board.

Yep. That could.

I guess what concerns me is that we have 75 or so parcels, and, you know, some of them are, like, in r a fives and... You know? So what is our process to determine, setbacks for for that? You know? And if it's small wireless facility opportunity, you know, how do we just make sure that it's not too close to somebody's home or... You know?

Yeah. I mean, I think that those are things that we can take into account as we And would be on a case by case basis. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, just frankly, I mean, nobody nobody has... People have approached us for putting up towers. Mhmm. Right? And people have approached us for colocations. Right? We have one that's just finishing here at this building. Nobody has approached us about small cell. You know, my understanding is that we are just too small of a community for them to be interested in that. They're more focused on larger cities. Not... That's not to say that we shouldn't plan for it, is why we're doing this. Right? But it... It's not it's not something that is occurring actively at this point.

So... I'm new to the board. And, what happened in 2022 with the Hessian Hills pump station? And, you know, I know that residents expressed substantial concern. So how does this new law, you know, affect that at all from potentially revisiting that again?

Can that come up again? Yes. The answer the answer is yes. Yeah. So, I mean, that obviously, as as you just said, right, it didn't really move forward because there were a lot of there were a lot of issues. Right? I mean, the... Our law was very outdated. You know, there were... We wanted to investigate. We wanted to ensure our our laws were up to date before we moved forward with it. So it hasn't... There there hasn't been any action on it in years. So, yeah, I I don't know if that company is still interested in that or not. I... Like I said, I haven't spoken to them in in quite some time. The need the need is still there. Right? Service is still bad. So, I mean, there's definitely Hessian Hills. Yeah. So

But there's nothing in this law or protections that could prevent that from happening again.

Right? Is that what you're saying? Well, they would still have to come back here to you Mhmm. To make a determination.

And then they would have to go through the planning board process. So all the protections of the law are still in effect. Mhmm. The only thing would be that if somebody we would... We, as owner of the village property, are able to cite it somewhere that a private landowner is not able to cite it. Mhmm. Yep. Okay.

And then the radio frequency compliance. So I know in the contract you have that they provide certain compliance with radio frequency, but do we have a requirement that they're gonna be testing that and giving us, like, independent frequency RF data, you know, maybe pre, during? Are are there time frames that we're requiring that from a provider?

Yeah. So, again, radio frequency emissions generally are are fairly restrictively governed by federal law. Right? So the standards are coming from the FCC. Local authority over compliance with those standards is pretty limited. So, as written, proof of compliance is required with the application for the facility, and the village is permitted to periodically request proof of continued compliance. So it would be on a on a request basis from the village perspective. Certain facilities I'll note are are exempt from, recurring periodic submission of radio frequency emissions, information based on a case by case basis from the FCC. So again, it's a dimensional, issue for those facilities. The FCC would exempt them, and they're typically smaller facilities or facilities where the antennas are... It's one or the other where they're very high, right? So they're so far away from, any person that they would not, have any possibility of, causing a negative effect to everyone. Right? So, again, as written, proof of compliance is required, and that would be a radio frequency engineering report verifying with, you know, engineer certification that the facility will comply with FCC standards along with the application and then the ability to be permitted to request ongoing proof of compliance with that... Those requirements as well. I will note that any violation of FCC radio frequency requirements is met with extreme force from the FCC because they take it very seriously. So failure to be in compliance on a continued basis is grounds for losing a company's FCC license Right. Not

allow them to operate anymore. So That's good to know. I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure we're requiring that. I'll just I'll just add in don't know. Yeah. I'll just add in that our practice has been that, you know, because our current, under our current law, the permits expire every five years, which is the same under the proposed law. So every five years, we ask them to present the data that shows that they're remaining in compliance. So we have been we have been doing that on a on a That's good. Yeah. On a regular interval.

Is it anything we wanna do more frequently than five years? Are there any best practices out there where place... You know, locations require, RF compliance certification more frequently?

Yeah. Best practices, I would say, would be fairly consistent with the five year time frame. Right? The the facilities don't change a whole lot in in terms of their operation. The compliance reports and information that you'll receive along with the application detail their compliance at operational levels, so normal operational levels, and far beyond that as well. So they're required to comply with the FCC standards both at normal operational level and should something happen where they would go beyond that they would need to be within safety compliance for that level as well. So we typically see along with the permit process upon expiration recertification of everything including the radio frequency. That's what we would typically see, in terms of the time frame. Anything, more frequent than that, is typically, you know, a bit of overkill, I would say, in terms of how these facilities would actually operate.

Okay. Thank you. And just the last thing. I wanna just give the floor to other questions, but I... Residents received notice, but the process for participation from the public, I feel, needs some clarification. The draft requires mailed notice to property owners within 200 feet of a proposed facility and posting at the site. And it also provides appeals to the board of trustees but requires appeals within two business days of the planning board's written decision. What... How can two business days be sufficient for residents to prepare an appeal?

It's not it's not residents. It would be the applicant appealing. Right, Mike? Yeah. Correct.

Correct. Okay. The deal would be for the applicant. Residents would voice their concerns typically through the public meeting process.

Through the public what process? Meeting process. The hearings. At the planning board. Correct. The hearings. Yes. So there'd be a public hearing that would be held at the planning board and, you know, various... And and and specifically,

if it was for our... If if it was a property that the village owned, they would also be able to come to your meetings. Hearing. Yeah. Correct. I'm sure it is clear in the way it was written, but that is how I... That was gonna be a question asked also. My read of it gave me the impression that residents had two business days. Exactly. So I don't know Okay. We can make that clear. I just wanna make sure that that's clear because we both read it the same way. Yeah. That was actually... As I said, that was one of my questions. So I just wanna... I'm... As I said, I'm sure that's how it's drafted,

but it definitely wasn't clear Right. To me. It's if the applicant is aggrieved by a decision or a condition or

I just think if both of us read it that way that that Yeah. That I'd like to revisit it. Okay.

And then just my last is, you know, with the shot clock, I'm... I feel like we've learned a lot about... Well, we've benefited from our new planner, right, that that you hired and we all hired. And, you know, and I feel like they've added a lot of value in the process of reviewing a complicated application. So I'm just curious about if it's a large tower or... And let's say an application is submitted, it... In this contract... In this in this, yeah, in this law, it says it's going to the planning board. But who is... Who's reviewing...

Yeah. Is it the engineer that's reviewing it? Yeah. They're accepted by the village engineer. Okay. So they would go through that... Because they're going to the planning board. So they would go through the same process where the attorney looks at them, the planner will look at them,

and then determine if If it's complete. Correct. And can be scheduled for the hearing. So that was... Do we need...

So we don't need to spell that out at all in the No. No. Because it's just our process

is established by the law. Yeah. So you can't... For example, it makes no sense. Sorry, but I'm just gonna chime in here. It makes no sense for them to have said you have time to determine if it's complete, but the shot clock goes from the date it's received, which

Yeah. But I think really shortens that shot clock. But I think... I mean, because we did actually go through this with the AT and T application for this building. If you find out that they didn't do something, it... They have this process, and I'm sure Mike can explain it, where it's it's told, basically. Yeah. But it's told for the period until they get you the materials back, but it does not reset the clock. That's... No. But it pauses it. So if it takes them three weeks to get what you need, for example, right, that you haven't lost those three weeks, it's just paused Right. From the day you tell them that you need whatever it might be. And if you have thirty days,

then when you get it back, you have whatever that remaining is to Yeah. Review And so do do we, as a board, have the right partners to be working with the engineer and evaluating these contracts

from... Yeah. I mean, that's gonna... You know, I mean, I I... Frankly, I haven't spoken to Lori Lee or Valerie about their experience with, you know, reviewing Tough codes. Yeah. Reviewing those type of applications because we we haven't

gotten we haven't gotten tons of them. Right? I mean, so... Or any, really. So... But I would point out just on page 17 section s, we we have that broad power to retain additional experts Yeah.

That the applicant pays for. So... Yeah. So if we wanted to retain, you know, Mike's Mike's firm to help us again, we could do that. Right? You know? I didn't read and I it... My... It would have been my mistake that that the applicant would pay for that. Yeah. That... That's standard practice. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's... You know, they... Applicant pays. You highlighted it. Alright. Yeah. We make sure... We put that in all our the part I want. Yeah.

Yeah. So that was, you know, a question is just, you know, do do we feel like we have the best resources for you and, you know, to to be able to get the best guidance Yeah. No. Definitely. Things within the shot clock and, you know...

Yep. We'll definitely... Yeah. One... We'll make we'll make sure that everybody is comfortable with these type of applications. And if they're not, then we'll make sure we have the right people

on standby if we need them. And then the... This whole idea of the design, standards must be published in advance?

Yeah. So we did... There was some sort of auxiliary document that was that was put together for this, for the law. So I will make sure that that's

Oh. Located and shared. Yeah. Maybe the VEB or... I don't know if there are other groups of committees that could look at that. Design standards literally

what this thing could look like? Yeah. We we don't want... You... Basically, you don't want a... Like, the fake tree type of If you don't. Tower. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Hypothetically.

Yeah. So you stealth. I've seen flagpoles,

Yeah. So it it gives it it gives standards for the... For poles. It gives standards for the small cell, you know, what type of colors, that sort of thing. Mhmm. So... Okay. Maybe we could put it in front of the VEB if that... Yeah. I I don't I don't think they look... I don't think they looked at it because we did... You know, we put this together a couple of years ago, so I don't think they looked at it at the time. I mean, we were looking at it. I mean, there was... There's all kinds of examples of They were?

Clocks. They were? Is that what you said? Mm-mm. There were there were no... We just had this... I'm sorry. Oh, they... No. Oh, I see. We said there were no minutes. There were no minutes. I'm sorry, trustee Simon. I didn't mean to cut you off. Just of of what we were saying about the VEB. There were no they may have discussed it, but between 2018 and just recently There were doesn't look... I don't know I don't know. They didn't keep minutes. Right. And so now we're back to that practice, but if it was discussed, I don't Yeah. I don't know how we would go about doing that.

Go go ahead. I I did something else I wanted to say, but go ahead, Glenn. Oh, no. I was just saying, you know, the the world of colocation is very broad. This is a colocation in effect Correct. This building on on the roof. Roofs, you know, are in general are a colocation, so we need to look at that. You know, theoretically, water towers, if we, you know, if you got the right one. Clocks or if you've got tower clocks, you know, things like that. Staples.

Staples. Yeah. There... We have one. One thing I'll note if if... Sorry to interrupt, but for the the design documents and the publish in advance requirement, that's strictly for your small wireless facilities. Right? So the only thing you need to publish design standards for that are, so direct and comprehensive are the small wireless communications facilities. Colocated and tower based, can be, far more subjective in implementation, right, because they're so site specific. As, you know, one of the trustees, aptly observed there, you want to and should take them on a case by case basis. There's no way to say we want them all to look like this, right, because the colocation on a rooftop is going to look completely different than the colocation on an electrical tower, than the one on the steeple, Right? So those you do not need to worry about addressing each version of those. Small cells, you know, you're addressing, again, an antenna on a pole in the public rights of way. That's where you really want to kind of focus your design efforts on and what we want those to look like. Because

they're they're more frequent. Right. They have to be spaced closer together, so you wanna know what the design

potential and limitations are. Yes. And and much more visible just by virtue of that. Okay. They're in the

of way. Yeah. Light poles and things like that where you get the rapid.

And, Mike, can you tell me at the small cell installations, is an equipment cabinet or an equipment suitcase or whatever they're called required for each and every antenna or is it less frequent? I know at the base of every monopole or installation I've ever seen, there's an enclosure with equipment oftentimes with a backup generator, etcetera, etcetera. So what would be the equipment required for each, small cell installation?

Yes. It's a it's a great question. There would be equipment cabinet of some kind required for each facility, so each pole would have one. Typically, you know, if there were multiple on a single pole, the cabinets can be shared. It's not frequent that there are multiple on a single pole because the the poles are pretty small. Right? So you would have typically a pole mounted, what they call a Charles shroud, which is a rectangular box that has the equipment inside of it, and it would contain, a power supply, a radio transmission, box, as well as emergency shutoff for public safety. So that all would be typically included within the box. At times, the emergency shutoff is located outside of the box depending on the village's preference for where the the the box itself is located. Right? So on the next to every pole? No. No. So we don't permit ground mounted accessory equipment for a number of reasons unless you specifically request that it be ground mounted because there would be ADA compliance issues. There would be other issues like that. It's it's not dissimilar from what you might see in a typical cable TV setup in a neighborhood or something. Something like that. It's it's it's almost exactly the same. The boxes can be a little bit larger. You know, cable just has typically power associated with it. So these... Again, you have 27 cubic feet in volume, so it can be larger, but they're not, you know, they're not wasting space, and they're not wasting money on the boxes.

So can can I just ask, like, a much more basic question than all these, like, brilliant technical questions everybody's asking? Can you just... Can we just say out loud why we're talking about this right now and why this has come back up and it's been redrafted and we, at at a point, had a telecommunications advisory... Ad hoc advisory committee. Can we just sort of, like, give a little bit more, like, historical context of how we got to where we are today and why we're talking about this today and maybe, like, what's right in front of us about decisions that are gonna have to be made, which is... Would be why this conversation is happening. Yeah. Well, I mean, there's no decisions that you need to be made tonight or even... I mean, No. Know, Not at all. Just sort of to, like, put all of this... Because this is, like, so much to be Yeah. You know, processing and consuming and, you know, to even It's complicated. Come up with these great technical questions that I don't have any of. But I'd like to sort of take one gigantic step back and just put it into a more global context.

Well, I mean... Yeah. So I'll try to be succinct. Right? I mean, we Please. We we started this process three or, three or four years ago. We hired a firm, Televate, to conduct a a study of the village, which provided data that showed where self-service was lacking. We did a draft of a local law at that time, and we did a survey of the public. And... Right? I mean, the survey of the public showed that a vast majority felt that service was sub subpar and wanted to see improvements. And so based on based on the data that we had and, the survey results, the board moved forward with, a local law. And there was a lot of feedback from the public, right, on that local law, and so it went through some iterations. And, eventually, we had... We switched legal firms. Right? And so we had a second, firm draft the legislation, and there were still a lot of comments and feedback and, re... You know, redos basically of that law. And so, at that point, the board decided to seek a special counsel that solely dealt with this topic. Right? And so this is the only thing that they do. And so, we had been working with Mike's firm on our cable franchises, so it was kind of a natural fit to to use their firm for helping us draft this law. And, you know, so they've been working on it. This law was finished in late spring, the draft, but we've had lots of other matters that we've had to deal with. You know, the biggest one, you know, legislatively, at least, being the seeker updates. So so this this has really been the first opportunity that we've had to kind of bring this back to the board.

So hopefully that was

succinct enough. So there's not an apple... There's not a application or a lease deal or something happening right now that is the reason for this conversation happening tonight. No. Like I like I said, I have not spoken to the company that was

interested at, Hessian Hills Right. In in,

I I would say, at least a year. Because that that one... That is particularly something that people feel very strongly about. Correct. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, no, there's

there's... I... Like I said, I have not spoken to them. There's no... There's nothing imminent.

Okay. That was... Timing was something that I was curious about. Okay. And as we get closer to something that needing to make a decision, would we go back to a a telecommunications advisory committee? Is that something we would think about reconvening? I know it was ad hoc. I believe in the past, it wasn't like a formalized committee like any of the other committees, but I think there is interest among residents on this topic. So I just don't know if that is something when we do have a more pressing reason to be discussing it, if that's something we'll be

re exploring. You mean in terms of the blanks and the four considerations

that are still in here in brackets?... When this becomes something that's more real with an actual application or a conversation, not just a Yeah. Continuing to move this... You know, all of all the things on your list, something that we're talking about moving forward. Really a decision for the for the mayor to make. I mean, I will just say that part... The the main part of having that telecom,

the the TAC, right, was they were working with that consulting firm. And so that consulting firm has has completed their work. So, I don't know if there is necessarily a reason to reconstitute that group. Obviously, people who are interested will have ample opportunity to share their their thoughts and, you know, what they think the legislation should look like with the board.

Like, in the location standards, that part of it that's open, and and Mike has pointed out in a couple of places The zoning? For you to consider. Yeah.

Yeah. Well... But I mean, that... Those are decisions for the board to make. Correct. And anyone That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Then I don't think that there's a need for a TAC for the adoption of legislation here. I think that if there was a place, it would be in the event that the board wanted to proactively, seek to address the coverage issues in the village by, soliciting proposals and, doing an RFP and or a request for proposals or RFI, request for interest or information as sometimes known. And there may be value in an

advisory group for that, but I think that's a separate conversation. What we've done with some of our other projects where we bring bring them in to look at the RFP responses.

I think the concern is the age of your existing law and also the fact that it does not take into consideration the small installations, which if someone were to come in tomorrow with an application for a small installation of any kind, you don't have any provisions in here to review that. Mhmm. And, I know from a couple of other communities where that has come up, it's it's sort of a dangerous place to be after the, you know, the... It's after the horse has left the barn, so so to speak. So Yeah. And and it is a proactive thing you do need to consider. And would we, you know Yeah. But I mean, the law Could a small could a small

network be proposed under our current rules? Or an under... It's...

Our law is silent on them because they didn't exist thirty years ago. That's correct. But more more to the attorney's point, the the current law allows towers in all zoning districts. Right. So somebody could go to Michael's Lane and say, want... If they could convince somebody to sell them their house, they could put up a tower. Right? I mean, you know, so it it is important that we address this. Mhmm. So...

And when are we going to address the zoning districts?

Well, so I don't think we wanna... You know, we've already spent almost an hour and a half on this tonight, so I don't think we wanna... We'll have to have another work session on it. But we did wanna get this back on Yeah. The the radar so that we could have some initial conversations on it. So could that be a specific question that we start with next time trying to nail down what those Yeah. I think it has be. Yeah. Yeah. Because I think that that is

something that's making, you know, a concern. I I don't wanna say it's making me nervous, but I'm concerned about the fact that, not necessarily on Michael's Lane, but there are plenty of places in the village where there are plea... You know, places where that reasonably could happen. Yeah. Is this some... Does this information live on the projects page? Where is all the... You mentioned a historical document earlier.

Where can people go to all of the... So that there... This law is not numbered yet, so I don't have I don't have it up on the proposed law page as of right now. But the old proposed law, which is where the survey and the and the Okay. And the study, that's on the proposed laws laws page. And this is now available as a public record. So Yeah. On the agenda. The agenda. Of course, the televate study is part of Correct. That's that's... Yeah. So if you go to the if you go to the proposed laws page on the website I don't know where that is. On on the board of trustees page. So Okay. Go to board of trustees and then proposed laws, You will find the telecommunications law there. Okay. The former one. Yes. Correct. Not current one. Yeah.

So... Oh, there we go. Okay. Yeah. The current one would be... Okay. I would not have known where to find that. Yeah. So thank you for telling me. The current one is in this agenda. Yeah. Right. But it's hard to go through agendas. But now seeing where the proposed laws are, and that's where all this historical information is is helpful. Okay. Thank you. The draft, in effect, we put aside. Correct.

That would... Yeah. So that... But it's still it's still up on the... On that page for now. So...

Okay.

And so... And the revenue for this is capped by the FCC

for the village? The permit fees. The permit. Yeah. Right. So that's... That would be sep... That's separate from whatever lease agreement the village may or may not make with Mhmm. Somebody. Mhmm. Yeah. The the the...

What's capped is the small facilities per site per year. Uh-huh. That has a cap. Okay. But, again, you don't have a small cell facilities provision Right. Right. Right now. So so you wouldn't even be entitled to collect that or review that. The tower.

Is... Mike, is there a cap on the permit fees for towers or is it just small cell?

No. Just small cells. So, again, the caps are strictly for small cells and the rights of way. It's an application fee cap depending on the type of facility and then $270 per site per year in total annual recurring fees. So that would be for use of the rights of way, and attachment to village infrastructure if they attach to village infrastructure and the rights of way. I always suggest just make it be $270 Don't overthink it, and divide between the two. But for anything on village property outside the rights of way that's not a small cell, It is a negotiated term, you know, you get what you can negotiate into it. There's no So we don't Again, that... I mentioned that proprietary distinction. That's We do. We do. Okay. So I I don't Okay. I don't remember what they are. No. It's fine. Yeah. But they're they're they're

they're quite... I think the fee for Like a a new tower is something like $10,000 and then Okay. For... And that and that would be... That's just the... That's the permit fee. And then that they would have to pay whatever escrow fees for the professional services related to the attorney and the planner and... Yeah.

So... Thank you. Yep.

Alright. Very good. So on to our next agenda item. Mike, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Take care. We'll talk soon. Have a good night.

Being Even on the Zoom. Yep. Mayor being recused on this issue. I'll be joining the the audience and come back for the benediction.

Okay.

Peace be with you. Thank you for doing that. Thank you.

Alright. And now we proceed to further discussion of local law number 10 of 2026 to amend, chapter two thirty of the village code to update provisions related to domestic and farm animals.

Yep. Manager, attorney, do you wanna introduce the revised guide? Just a minute. Sure. You want me to... Yeah. Please. Yeah. So I just wanted to be upfront that, there Disclose it. Disclose two two items. I had signed a petition a while back that the board of trustees revisit the animal law as proposed. I was also on the zoning board when a translation of... Related to foul was brought up. Two things which I don't think will interfere with my setting up here as a board of trustee. Thank you.

So, in regards to this law, so this is a bit of a recap. Right? The board has been discussing this for, a number of months now, and we held a public hearing on this law on September 2. And so for the past, you know, almost two months, we have been, you know, meeting with the attorney and discussing how to make revisions to this law based on all the feedback that has, been received by the board. And so, this is the latest version that is part of the agenda backup, and I'll just kind of briefly, go over what has changed. So, specifically, right, we we made in section two thirty dash 40 j, right, we made it clear that this... The law was only for animals housed outside. Right? It did not apply to animals... Domestic animals that are kept in... Within a a residence, so it would not apply to fish or your reptiles or anything like that. We did change, in, 40 j number two. We changed the ratio, the numbers, so that they would be in quantities of six. So when, you know, when six, 12, 18, and 24,

that's for chickens and ducks. We changed the setbacks so that no chickens or ducks shall be penned or housed within 10 feet of the nearest primary dwelling or adjacent properties in the RA 5 and the RB, and then it's 25 feet of the nearest primary dwelling on adjacent properties in all of the districts. The change as well.

We add Numbers of numbers of chick

Yeah. Correct. That's what I was saying. So we we we changed that to be in quantities of six. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. We added a subsection e to this law that prohibits the slaughter of chickens or ducks in all zoning districts. In terms of farm animals, we changed for cattle and... I think it was cattle and horses. Right? We changed from one to two so that you can have a maximum of two horses and other large farm animals on a two... On two acres, and you can have a maximum of two cattle on five acres. And then in section... Sorry. Where are we? We are in section 40 j number five. We added in a section that deals with a process to, appeal to the zoning board of appeals for grandfathering. Right? If you are current... If you currently keep or harbor any sort of fully flighted birds, including but not limited to geese, swans, or pigeons, you can seek a hearing at the zoning board of appeals for the request for grandfathering. And,

you know, the zoning board will make a decision. And in no case shall the zoning board permit the owner or possessor of the fully flighted birds to increase or add to the number currently maintained or permit flight based exercise or training from the place of confinement. So those were the, those were the main changes to this law from, September.

I'm sure if there's lots to discuss. Yes. Okay. And, you all... Were you able to circulate it with some of the, outside experts that we'd discussed?

I reached out to Cornell multiple times. I have not gotten a callback from them as of, you know, the end of end of today. Okay. So I will... I'll continue to follow-up with them.

Yes. I can. Anyone else want to say? You go. Thank you.

We've been down this road so many times.

It's not easy. I'm new to to this whole thing. Some initial thoughts that I have that I'm concerned with, which I know mister Healy... Manager Healy is looking into. Because whether or not it's humane to restrict flighted bird from flying.

That was the request of the

Cornell. Yeah. Yeah. So that's why Yeah. I know he's looking into return Yeah. Return back. So that definitely be good to hear about that. Some other concerns I have with this, and by the way, none of this affects me personally. So it's... I'm kinda coming at this from a outsider's point of view. That there's a lot of, like, different things going on here that I think are well intended and are looking out for public safety and all that. Mhmm. But I feel like there's also some things that are not being discussed. I think there's a lot of people that are concerned with commercialization of food and where their food's coming from. So I think we should be really careful with how we limit how people are getting their food and what sort of animals they wanna raise or if it's for eggs, if it's for fun, if it's for food. I don't think that... I think we should have a bigger discussion about if there's an interest in the community or raising their own food or if we should just have outright bans, which I don't know if that's the right thing for Croton. Maybe it is. But I think that the community should decide if there should be specific bans that are in there or not.

Such as?

If someone want... You know, is raising... If someone is a... You know, comes from... If they're... If it's important to them to raise fresh chicken for their family Okay. They should... You know, there's... There may be a limit or not in sight, but maybe they should be able to slaughter their own chicken or whatever animal that is in a... In accordance with New York State law and any other recommendations by the board and community. So things like that, like, I think it should be... If there's no interest, then... And if everyone agrees that there should be an outright ban, then maybe that's what it is. But I don't think that we as a board solely can make that decision for people in the village.

And just to come up because you had asked me to look in this. There there is an exception, in the law for you to raise, for your own consumption. There are pretty strict regulations on what you can do, but this prohibition on the slaughter, would would actually prohibit that which otherwise is, permitted by law.

Got it. Yeah. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Yeah. Anything else? I think I went over... I I guess one other thing would be, in terms of pigeons, I think it's a really... I didn't really know much about pigeons until this whole discussion. And I think it's a really interesting hobby, if that's what we call it, especially in a highly technological world where it's something that's very physical rather than being on your phone. So I think that it should be discussed in terms of allowing pigeons potentially if there's an interest in it and some sort of educational thing The people are interested in learning more about it. Because it it is kind of a fascinating world. Not one that I have any experience with, but... And in terms of grandfathering, I think that we should strongly consider whether or not we should be truly making decision on our own or if it... Or if it's with the zoning board. I think we should discuss that further other than pushing it off to another board.

Thank you.

I think that's all I have. So, attorney, you're saying that absent subsection e, it is in fact the default right now would be that it is permissible to slaughter, chickens and other fowl being raised here for home consumption? Correct. Okay. With

certain restrictions that are set forth in the law itself. Yes.

Could you generally summarize them?

Yeah. I did. I I think I sent that research back to everyone.

I don't... Would that include things like must be done in a humane and sanitary manner that does not create a public health hazard or an environmental nuisance? Yes. And and that that it is restricted.

It cannot be, sold or offered for sale to others outside of the, residential unit... The family unit that lives on the property where it's being raised. And also, in, you know, in many cases, they... You could take the animals to a a private butchering facility as long as then you return with the food to be consumed back to your personal space. So it doesn't have to be on-site slaughter, but in some cases, people who are generally qualified in this realm could slaughter on their property for personal consumption.

Mhmm. I I think we should strongly consider putting too many restrictions on that process and let people decide so we're not adding to the cost of their food.

So absent the expert guidance of Cornell or another, let's say, comparable entity, I don't really have a lot to add to the conversation at the moment other than this, question of slaughter for home consumption consumption, which I didn't really think about until this came up and until we received the attorney's guidance that that's actually the default. So I guess we have before us a live question about whether or not that's a provision we wanna have in the code prohibiting slaughter or not.

I'll just... I'll add in that I did do some research just to see how other communities. Mhmm. Thank you. It it seems like there's not too many communities that outright... You know, that spell it out clearly in their code. I did see that Peekskill, excuse me, Peekskill, Tarrytown, and Ryebrook have bans on slaughtering chickens in residential areas. So... But that, you know, that leaves many other communities where it's either unclear or they they just don't They default. Yeah. They just... They default to the state law. So...

I'm sorry, sir. You you may not.

So I think there's anybody else. Yeah.

I mean, I know we chatted about the law, and we were concerned about a number of things. One, it's still not kind of a... Still an issue, I think, on both sides. We're continuing to receive lots of feedback. Yeah. Yeah. Which is, you know, I just... It's heartbreaking to be up here, you know, in an elected position that, you know, we're not paid to be here. It's it's a heartbreaking situation on... It's it's very difficult. And, you know, I'm I'm not prepared to move this forward without more discussion. I know we talked as a board about an advice of counsel with trustee Berger, you know, that we were concerned if this new version of the law was cruel to flighted animals, right, grandfathered. You know, we were concerned about that. And, you know, at the same time, we're also and and and by the way, I did read that Newcastle has a code that has different grandfathering restrictions. And, you know, I could have made a mistake, but it it seemed to be their e code in the town of Newcastle

that, you know, no property owner shall be permitted to establish new use for keeping, maintenance, breeding, flying pigeons. But all pigeons shall be confined to the loft except for limited periods necessary for exercise, training, and competition. So it was it was a little different than what we had, but at the same time, I'm really concerned with the situation that we have in in that part of town with longtime residents and a nuisance. Right? I mean, like, we don't let dogs off a leash, right, and go in neighbors' yards and, you know, and and hang out and do whatever. So, you know, I understand there's a culture associated with pigeons, and it's very fascinating. It is. And... You know? But I am concerned about the experience that that, you know, the letters that we're receiving. Right? So I'm wondering if there's something different that we could tackle the issue, kinda put this law on pause and, you know, I don't know. Trustee Slippen, if you wanna...

Yeah. So I... I mean, obviously, we've all... We've spent a lot of time talking about this. We've heard from lots of neighbors. And we do have some outstanding information that we don't have from Cornell, about, you you know, how to humanely provide for these animals. But the thing that, as we approach local law 10, what is now standing out to me is that we have a very specific situation that is impacting our discussions around this that I think we need to separate out from the greater law. We have a situation between two neighbors who And it might be a few other homes. Right. But, you know, basically, it's it's a sit... It's a very specific situation that is now impacting the way we're approaching, you know, a a a a legislative decision for 8,000 residents, and I'm really uncomfortable with that. I'm uncomfortable with the situation between these two neighbors and how we got there because they're both suffering in different ways from the current situation and what the outcome of that situation is gonna be. And so I want to be able to make a good decision for all the other parts of this law, which we agree we have to update because it's outdated and it doesn't make, you know, for all the reasons we have to do that. But I I would like us to find a way to isolate the situation to help the people who are impacted specifically by the pigeon situation, whether they're in favor of it or against it, to navigate through that so then we can make the best decision for the entire village without that holding us back. And that's really where I'm struggling. I wanna do what's right for both of these neighbors. I hear what they're both saying, and I feel for them both. I I don't need to go into all the details of why I am so empathetic with both sides, but I am. And us making this decision about cows and horses and chickens and all this other stuff, when, you know, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the pigeons between a couple of houses. So I don't know how we isolate that and move forward, but that's what I'd like to do. I I... I'll just throw... I would like to help those neighbors figure out a way to make this work. One neighbor wants something, one way... And and I don't know what's appropriate for us to do, how that situation is mediated, what's... What... You know, I don't know how that looks.

But just like putting blinders on and and moving forward with this law, knowing all the things that we know, how many emails did we get today? We got we got emails from both those neighbors today. Very well thought out, very passionate emails from the two people most impacted by this today. I can't just put blinders on and say, let's make a great decision about horses and cows and whether we should slaughter chickens in the backyard. It's just moving forward that way does not make sense to me. So I I would love to just make a decision on this, but I I don't know how I would make a decision. I don't know how I would possibly make a decision on it. And then if we're able to take that out of the process, then trustee Simon can join us back at the dais, and we can have a conversation that's not specifically... Like, where we are right now is too laser focused on one micro situation in the village, and that's a... I think it's a bad way to be deciding laws for the whole village completely. So I don't know where we go from that or if anybody else agrees with me and just wants to go, but, like, local law 10 is... Has become about pigeons and that's really not what it's about. So how do we get this back to a place where we can have a reasonable conversation about it and help our neighbors who we care about. We have longtime neighbors, new neighbors. There's gotta be a way that we can be help... We can be we can be being more reasonable about this or something. Not to say that I don't think we're being unreasonable about it, but I...

How do you make... I I couldn't possibly cast a vote one way or the other even to just move this forward at this point. So Mhmm. Then probably... So that's probably gonna be unpopular, but that's where I'm at. Well, it's a lot to unpack.

Couple things. I I mean, there are no laws that are being broken at this point. Right? So there's no... This is a civil matter between two neighbors, if that's if that's what we wanna address. So there's really no role for the village in in that specific aspect. I think it's actually not a bad idea. I I don't know what the what the attorney would say. I think we should try to get as much of this law passed as we can because the... We could have a situation come up with another kind of animal in next week. Right? You know, let's have... Let's get what we can agreed upon and get it done. You know? So, I mean, this has been going on for months and months and months, and the board needs to make some decisions. We, the staff and the attorney, we can't make the decisions for you guys. So, I mean, we're more than happy to do whatever research you want us to do and contact people and get you facts and do all that. But, ultimately, the four of you sitting here have to make the decision as to what direction you wanna go.

Yeah. But we're... We've now gotten into grandfathering pigeons. Like, that's not really That was the direction that we were given. But that's not really what this law is about. It's because we have this situation. It's right. It's like we we were in the process of developing

a law to regulate animals, and we have a live controversy with regards to a specific animal population. I don't, you know And the definition how. Of course, that's at the foreground of this conversation. I mean, it is what it is. There's no way of cutting around that.

But but I think there is because as

as term we just to not have pigeons regulated in this at all, and then... I mean, I guess that... But think Chris is the man... We can do that, but is that is that the idea? Right? That's... You know, is the idea that we...... Wish is,

can we resolve the the issue with the neighbors?

That's not our that's not our role. That's not our... That's not the village's place. We are not we're not mediators. Right? I mean, if they... They can do that on their own. But like I said, there's no law being broken. There's no enforcement that we need to take. There's no... Well, there's... Let's put it this way. There's no... I mean, I guess there's no village law. Theoretically, you could imagine a civil complaint. I mean, you're... Well, yeah. But I mean, that... It could be a civil matter. That's what I said. Right? Yeah. But that's not for us to resolve? Correct.

And I... At this point, the way that the law has been drafted, I don't know that you could excise because now you are limiting the keeping of birds to chickens and ducks. So by virtue of adopting this even if you excise to the rest of this out, the interpretation would be that all other birds are banned. So when you when you had a draft in front of you that that specifically had that language of banning, you received public comments and you decided to go back to the drawing board. And so this new version, really was in response to the public's comments. And we, you know, we tried to... I tried to, look at what the options were, and now I I I have Newcastles open in front of me, which is certainly broader in allowing grandfathering. You know, we we added the language about the no exercise or training from the home base as a way to compromise the the flying schedules. We need some expert advice on on how far that you could push this or how far you... Unless you return to a van,

you know, you really need to solve the definitions and you need to solve the the overall matter, I think, before you could take

this. I I mean, I don't know. I I don't know how you...... Looking at looking at the definition of domestic animals. Right? You said domestic animals are defined as any companion animal or pet normally maintained in or near the households of the owner or person who cares for such animals. So, I mean, I think one could make an argument, right, theoretically. So, I mean, you know, again, if this is the... We we need direction from the board. If the board wants us, we could delete section five entirely, and we could delete subsection e that talks about the slaughter. And then you just have a law that deals with chickens and ducks and farm animals and, you know, makes it clear that, nothing is supposed to be penned within 50 feet of a neighboring property. Of a neighboring... Dwelling... Primary dwelling. Yeah. Know. Thank you.

It's... You're saying it's not the village's responsibility because it's a civil matter. But I guess I think about how it all transpired and the channels it went through. And I'm not saying we're culpable or I'm not... You know, I just think the village has been in... Involved. And I would I would love to see, you know, I don't know whether our resources can help, you know, with some mitigation.

I mean, you say you say we could involve open to it, but We gave we gave factual information that's... That remains factual. Right? I mean, that... People call every day and ask about Yeah. What they're allowed to do and what they're not allowed to do. Right? I mean, so Right. That the staff gave the information that they that they...

That was correct. And then the zen... Then the zoning board made a determination.

Correct. Again, right, which is That's takes us to where we are today. Right? Which is the... All those things happened. They're in the past. They are what they are. So we have the option... I mean, we have a number of options. Right? But there's the idea of kind of trying to excise the pigeon question from the amendment or not Mhmm. Or dropping, you know, slaughter because I think that's a, you know, a new issue at least from at least my understanding. It's new for us, at least new for me. Right? That the default is it's permissible.

We can... On that topic, we can add the provisions specifically from the law that, indicate the regulation and the and the restrictions on that. But that's just that one topic that you raised. And, clearly, it can be known by the verbiage in the law... In the state law, which says it has to be for personal consumption. It has to be... Like, all of those standard regulations can be repeated here or you can state that any slaughter must comply with, and then we can refer to the law. But that provision of it was an interesting Mhmm. Topic that you raised. But it... That doesn't solve what you would like to do in terms of Right. Limiting to ducks and chickens, which Yeah. By virtue of that, would return to the ban. Yeah. I mean, absent,

hearing from Cornell or, again, an entity of comparable expertise, I I really don't think that I'm in a position. I don't how anyone else feels to make a decision on flooded birds. I mean, the other Tonight. I mean, obviously, they will... We will have an answer at some point.

So is it the consensus that this is not ready for a public hearing

until I don't think anyone thinks it's ready for public hearing. No. No. No.

Just wanted to see... Yeah. No. No. It's on the record, emphatically.

Yes. Thank you for the clarifying question, Teri. You know, we had questions about if it was cruel. We all did, and the manager's waiting to hear. I would ask if you could look at the the the the code in... Of Newcastle.

Yeah. And like I said, that is Thank you. More permissive. So I just... I I would be happy to do that. It is. It's... It it still has restrictions. Yep. I have I have it open on my screen. I don't think it would be perceived as

cruel. Okay.

I don't know that it it... Solves the alleged impacts that have raised the alarm, but I'm happy to to help you with that language and get that language out to all of you.

I'm also concerned about the zoning board of appeals being the first place that neighbors would go to resolve a dispute. Okay.

But I... You know? Well, that... It's... That's not. Right? Is that... Are you talking about the language that's in the law? Yes. And that would be for the grandfathering. Yeah. That's not for that's not for a dispute. That's if somebody has them and wants to

get them grandfathered, they would go to the zoning board. And I think that trustee Berger mentioned that he he thought that that should be a public hearing at the board of trustees. Am am I speaking incorrectly? Is that what you were...

Well, partially, yes. That's a little more complicated. Yeah. I I from that, but... Yes. I mean, that's a fair point, but I would say that's pretty inconsistent with the overall thrust of Village public policy. We've, empower the planning board to make special permit determinations, but we would be taking back one and only one land use, responsibility, which would be the, sighting of, flighted birds

that are grandfathered. This had to do with the grandfathering Right. Consideration,

which now That... That's my point is that, like That would go to the zoning board. Yeah. But I think trustee Berger's point is that it should not go to the zoning board. It should be the board of trustees. That's what I'm that's what

your position? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

The first But, again, we're, you know, we're kind of we're we're kind of looking... What's what's the saying? We're looking at the forest through the trees here because we don't even... People are not even agreeing on whether or not they want to...... True. Yeah. So, I mean, we real... We really need to get... I know. And I I... Listen. I don't envy you. I know this is a very difficult decision, but we just need to have some sort of guidance. I mean, if if the answer tonight is we don't wanna do anything until we hear from Cornell something. Then that can be the answer. Right? But just, you know, let us know what it is that

that we can do. That's my point of view, but I would also like to make as much progress in the areas where we can tonight. And if it's also the case that no one has any further thoughts, with regards to the regulation of the actual culling of animals,

so be it, but we do have that as an issue. We have we have three as I... I've some... I'm just taking notes. One is the slaughtering for personal consumption. One is the the the grandfathering in general and the conditions on the grandfathering that we thought would assist with impacts that being no, no exercise or, training from the residential... In the residential district from the homing. And the third was whether if you were gonna consider grandfathering, that appeal would go to the zoning board or here to the board of trustees. So those are the three Mhmm. Sort of areas that we've been discussing.

So are we waiting on... In terms of like flighted birds being allowed to fly, if that's how they've always been. Are we waiting... Are you guys comfortable waiting if it's to get a discussion... An answer from corner?

Well, I mean, I don't think we can move forward until we get that answer. So I don't... Like, regardless of anything else... I think we could we could move forward if the decision was to just take the pigeon thing out of the law completely. If that's if that's how people feel and we just don't... We don't address it at all,

we could move forward with the rest of the laws. I don't know that you can I I I think that that wouldn't be, the most productive or efficient use of time? Right? Like That was It would be more... Sure. Sure. Sure. Saying that. Yeah. It's more likely that we'll have an answer from Cornell at some point in the next few days or weeks I would hope so. Versus successfully redraft the law and adopt it.

And if the attorney could share the New Castle code as well. Absolutely.

Because it may... If Cornell came back and said what you're proposing is not the best practice Right. It may be that Newcastle's proposals are better practice. Yeah. I I don't know, but I can get the information out to each of you.

Thank you.

And, again, we're not taking this anywhere to a public hearing, but I'll... And I've made my point before. But unequivocally, I do not... You know, I'm open to the idea of maybe, the grandfathering decision isn't made by the ZBA. It is unequivocally should not come to the board of trustees. We've empowered our land use boards. We set the policy, and then the land use boards where applicable, review the applications and make a decision. It should not be any other way. And the exception should not be the grandfathered sighting of flighted birds.

That's my view. Mhmm. Say the last part. Sorry. The the,

grandfathering of, flighted bird uses. Of of all the land use applications for a board of trustees to consider, that seems to be one of... Not not the... Not where I would start. And especially after the direction we've gone is a pretty dramatic reversal in our in our policy.

And sorry. This is a stupid question, but the the... So the the the clause that we're talking about is related to land use. This? It's land use. Yes. Because that's what the mayor is saying. Accessory. It's an accessory use. It's an accessory use since going in your zoning code. Yeah.

I mean... Yeah. And just, you know, at the risk of delivering the point, right, it's like we're setting the code, and then we're being asked to interpret our code and apply it to a specific... It would be, again, like, if in addition to being the board of trustees, it would be like if we were also the village court simultaneously. I mean, it's not. Okay. That... That's the way I see it.

I see what you're saying.

I know... We have, like, a pet... Dog registry. I think that's what it is. That state law requires a a Dog license. Dog licensing. We we handle it locally, but it's a state law. Got it. So if we if we... If for some reason we were to allow flighted birds to fly as they wish, Would... Is there some reason to have, like, an animal bird registered to make sure that they have, like, shots and they're healthy and stuff like that? Because if they are gonna fly, we wanna make sure they have... I don't I don't know if birds get shots or vaccines. I'm not really sure. I I think that the gentleman who testified

that evening who has the flock indicated that they do get regular vaccines and checkups, etcetera. But I don't know that to be the case one way or the other.

Is our dog registry, does that allow?

Do you have to, like, follow-up with vaccines and try You can't get a license unless you have a rabies shot.

It doesn't... It's not... There's no follow-up? If you you get... Well, you get a reminder every year. If you feel the dog, you get a... Yeah.

Yeah. So you have to every year to renew it. You have to produce the certification from your vet or whoever administered the shots.

Certainly, like, the health is one issue, but the other is the cooing noise and the crap everywhere when they're perched and hanging out during training. So that is

Yeah. I think that the public health question has more or less been resolved. It's really, at this point, a question of nuisance Yeah. In management of that or mitigation.

Right. Yeah. And that it's it's entirely possible that as laypeople, what we've added as potential mitigation is not effective or appropriate. And so Cornell would be able to assist you Yeah. With understanding that. Mhmm. I I have to admit that the language we bandied about and we inserted, we are laypeople. So Mhmm. I would also benefit from Yeah. Thank you. Having the Cornell extension opine.

Well, it feels like we're, like, in a bit of a holding pattern, but I will... You know, obviously, we wait to hear back from our, trusted experts, but also on the other questions. I think we also just need to think iron about them for a bit because some of them are new questions that have not been in the discourse until very recently. Okay. Anything else? No. Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you.

Yes.