* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] LET YOU KNOW WHEN IT'S WORKING. ALRIGHT. IT'S WORKING ON IT. OKAY. I, I'VE FORGOTTEN. OH, I PRESS THE RECORD BUTTON OR, OH, WE GOT TURN ON. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UM, WELCOME TO THE WORK SESSION OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD MEETING. UH, WE HAVE ONE ITEM FOR THE WORK SESSION TODAY. THAT'S CAROL LEASE, REQUESTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 4 3 4 7 BETO DRIVE. CAN I FIRST KNOW WHO'S HERE? OH, YEAH. SO, UM, TO DO A ROLL CALL RIGHT NOW BY WEBEX, WE HAVE, UH, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, MR. CHAPMAN, MR. MAHONEY, MRS. MCCORMICK, AND MRS. COMERFORD, MS. ALSO VIA WEBEX IS OUR ATTORNEY, JENNIFER POI. SO MISSING OR MISSING ALAN? YES. BOTH OF THEM ARE EXCUSED FOR CHANGING. IS MEGAN ON THE WEBEX? BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE HER ON MINE'S SIDE. I SEE HER ON MINE. SO, AND I WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT TALKING. SO WE CAN HAVE, UH, SO THE AUDIO WORKS OUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO YOU GONNA COME UP AND TALK TO US ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION? THE LAPTOP? YEAH, TALKING TO THE LAPTOP. TALK TO THE LEFT, RIGHT? YES. CAN I TAKE THIS DOWN? I WON'T CONTAMINATE YOU, . THANK YOU. UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ROB PONIK, UH, NUSSBAUMER AND CLARK, OUR OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 3 5 5 6 LAKESHORE ROAD IN HAMBURG AND WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF CAROL AND WARREN LEASE. UH, THEY'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 43 47 BETO DRIVE, AS WELL AS ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEEKER BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THIS BOARD BACK IN JUNE. UH, THE LEASES OWN A PARCEL OF LAND ON BETO DRIVE THAT HAS 175 FEET OF FRONTAGE. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS. ONE OF THE LOTS WILL HAVE LESS THAN 90 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND THEREFORE IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO, UH, HAVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANT A VARIANCE, WHICH THE ZBA DID LAST NIGHT. UM, THE, THE LEASES ON THE, THERE'S GONNA BE A PROPERTY THERE, THE NEW LOT. UH, THEY PLAN TO BUILD A, A NEW HOUSE ON THE HOUSE THAT EXISTS AT 43 47 BETO DRIVE. UH, THEIR SON IS GOING TO LIVE IN. AND, UH, THERE'S AN EXISTING GARAGE YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN, AN EXISTING GARAGE AND SHED LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS PLANS. THEY'RE GONNA BE DEMOLISHED. OKAY. UM, SO THE LEASES ARE HOPING TO, UH, STILL BUILD THIS YEAR, UH, WITH THIS BOARD'S APPROVAL. THEY'LL MOVE ON TO, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, PROPOSED FOR THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER. AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. CAN WE GET A LAYOUT OF THAT PROPOSED HOUSE THAT'S GONNA BE BUILT? UH, WE HAD SOMETHING SIMILAR A FEW YEARS AGO AND, AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS THERE'S, THERE'S TWO HOUSES THAT KIND OF FACE EACH OTHER YEP. ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS. AND THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC DOWN THE ROAD IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO, TO SELL THE HOUSE. SO WE WERE JUST WONDERING. SO I, I THINK WE WANNA SEE HOW IT'S GONNA LOOK, HOW IT'S GONNA BE ORIENTED. ALSO, MR. CLARK, THEY, WITH THAT ONE, THEY HAVE THE ONE YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THEY HAD A SHARED DRIVEWAY. RIGHT? THIS ONE WILL NOT HAVE A SHARED YEAH, IT WON'T HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY. AND THE, IT LOOKS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN I THINK WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK. SO YEAH. THE PLAN IS TO PRO, UH, ORIENT THIS HOUSE TOWARD THE STREET. EXACTLY LIKE THE, UH, ONE ADJACENT TO IT. THEY JOKED LAST NIGHT HERE, THE LEASES WERE HERE WITH THE ZONING BOARD AND THEY JOKED ABOUT THEIR SON IS SUPPORTING THEM TO, THEY WAS GONNA GET A LETTER FROM THE SON THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA LET US LIVE ON THIS LOT RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM. I GUESS THE SONS ARE GONNA LIVE ON EITHER SIDE OF 'EM. SO HOW DO THEY KNOW? DO THEY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE HOUSE WILL LOOK LIKE OR NOT? WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT WHAT THE FOOTPRINT WILL BE? UM, ACTUALLY THEY HAVEN'T SHARED THAT WITH ME, BUT I'M SURE THEY ARE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. [00:05:01] IF THEY'D LIKE TO BREAK GROUND THIS YEAR, I'M SURE THEY CAN GET A FOOTPRINT. WE CAN GET THAT PLOTTED ON THE DRAWING SO THAT THE BOARD CAN SEE THAT. OKAY. AND WE'LL HAVE THAT IN ADVANCE OF THE NEXT MEETING. AND THEN THERE'S A SHED THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN ON BOTH PIECES OF PROPERTY. YEAH, IT STRADDLES THE LOT LINE AND I MENTIONED THAT THE GARAGE AND THE SHED THAT'S THERE ARE GONNA BE DEMOLISHED. OH, OKAY. THE GARAGE YEP. WILL BE THE LOT LINE. THE NEW LOT LINE GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE SHED. RIGHT. AND WE'RE GONNA BE TAKING THE SHED DOWN AND TAKING UP THAT DRIVEWAY IN THE GARAGE. WHAT ABOUT UTILITIES? ARE THEY YEP. UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE STREET. SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE ARE AVAILABLE AT THE STREET. AND, UM, NO EXTENSIONS ACROSS THE PROPERTY ARE GONNA BE REQUIRED JUST CONNECTIONS FOR THE, THE NEW HOME. SO THEY'RE GONNA FEED OFF THE MAIN PORTION? YEAH, THEY'RE GONNA TIE IN INTO THE EXISTING SEWER, SANITARY SEWER AND THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND THE WATER LINE IS THERE. EVERYTHING IS THERE FOR THE NEW TO SUPPORT THE NEW HOME. I, I THINK HIS QUESTION, THEY GONNA HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE UTILITIES FOR THE NEW FARM? YEAH. YES, THEY WILL. THAT HOUSE WILL HAVE ITS OWN UTILITIES. THANK YOU. WELL, THE ONLY ACTIONS WE HAVE, WE HAVE TWO ACTIONS WE COULD, DU AND I, YOU HAVE TWO CALL PUBLIC HEARING FOR IT. AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO, BECAUSE OF NEW YORK STATE'S QUIRKY LAW, YOU HAVE TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BEFORE YOU CAN CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. FOR LARGER PROJECTS, WE TYPICALLY, WE TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, DO TWO OF 'EM THEN. SO WE CAN AT LEAST GET PUBLIC INPUT FIRST. FOR THIS ONE, I WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU WERE READY TONIGHT, WE COULD GO THROUGH PART TWO AND ISSUE A NEXT DECK SO WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT MEETING. IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THEY FORMED A LOT AND THEY'RE BUILDING A HOUSE. EXCUSE ME. IS THERE, IS THAT GONNA BE THE SAME ADDRESS? NO, IT'LL HAVE ITS OWN, IT'S GONNA HAVE ITS OWN ADDRESS. JUST A SHARED DRIVEWAY. NO SHARED, NO SHARED DRIVEWAY. NO SHARED DRIVEWAY. IT'S GONNA HAVE ITS OWN DRIVEWAY, ITS OWN UTILITIES AND ITS OWN PROPERTY ADDRESS. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT DO THE BOARD MEMBERS THINK ABOUT, UH, DREW SAID GOING OVER PART TWO AND THINKING ABOUT A NEGATIVE DECK TONIGHT. UM, THE, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE A NEGATIVE DECK ON, ON THEN TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, THIS IS ON THE WORK SESSION AND NOT RIGHT, NOT THE REGULAR AGENDA. SO I DON'T THINK WE TODAY, THAT'S MY FAULT. THIS SHOULD NOT BE, I PUT IT ON THE WORK SESSION BECAUSE I FORGOT THAT WE ALREADY SAW THIS BEFORE. REMEMBER WE SAW IT IN JULY? YEAH, WE WERE, WE APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD ON JULY 1ST WITH THIS WHEN WE INITIALLY PRESENTED IT. THAT REALLY . OH. SO SO THE NEGATIVE DECK HAS TO BE BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BEFORE IT'S SCHEDULED. BEFORE IT'S SCHEDULED. OH, OKAY. SO THAT, SO THAT, YEAH, WHAT I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST THE ORDER THAT'S THE CASE. WELL, I'VE SEEN TOWNS DO THAT. IT'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO WEEKS TONIGHT AND RIGHT BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR THE NECK DECK, BUT RIGHT. IT'S TECHNICALLY A, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S NOT, BUT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A SECRET DONE. I MEAN, IT COULD DO IT THAT WAY. IF THIS WAS A BIG CONTROVERSIAL SUBDIVISION, I WOULD SAY FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND WHATEVER, BUT IT'S A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. IT'S, WE'RE CREATING A HOUSE. UM, IT DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. I UNDERSTAND. CAITLYN'S QUESTION. TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, AT A WORK SESSION, WE DON'T MAKE ANY FINAL DECISIONS. WE DON'T MAKE ANY DECISIONS AT A WORK SESSION. WELL, YOU CAN DO IT NEXT WEEK IF YOU OR NEXT MEETING WITH YOU. YEAH. WHY DON'T WE DO IT THAT WAY? WHY DON'T, WE'LL PREPARE AND MAKE THAT CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO WEEKS AND WE'LL JUST ISSUE THE N DECK RIGHT BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T LIKE THAT. ANYWAY. I, I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC INPUT BEFORE YOU ISSUE NEG DECK. BUT THAT'S THE QUIRKS IN NEW YORK STATE LAW. WE TRY TO GET 'EM TO CHANGE IT AND THEY WOULDN'T CHANGE IT. WELL, AND I, I THINK AS I WAS SUGGESTING, WE WOULD DO FOR SOME OF THESE CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS, BUT WE'VE GOT THE SAME PROBLEM AS FAR AS PUBLIC INPUT. BEFORE N DECK, WE COULD HAVE A SOMEWHAT INFORMAL PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION AND HAVE AN INPUT. AND HOW WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST BILL WITH BIG PROJECTS IS WE'VE SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING, HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN ISSUED AN N DECK, AND THEN ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON BIG PROJECTS. WE TYPICALLY DO THAT ANYWAY. WE WANNA, 'CAUSE USUALLY THERE'S CHANGES IN THE PLANS ANYWAY. SO, BUT THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD NOW THAT THEY HAVE THOSE AREAS. [00:10:01] SO, BUT I, I LIKE THAT PROCESS. WE, THAT WAY AT LEAST WE TECHNICALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. YOU WOULD JUST WANNA CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO WEEKS? WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO YEAH, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT. UM, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON CAROL LEASE FOR SEPTEMBER 16TH. UH, MOTION BY MR. CLARK. SECOND BY MRS. CU. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OH, EVERYBODY'S MUTED. . OKAY. UH, MOTION CARRIED. AYE. AYE. A THANK YOU. I'M GONNA VOTE NAY ON THAT, BY THE WAY. I JUST DON'T LIKE TRYING TO SKIRT IT. I'D RATHER DO ONE AFTER THE OTHER. WELL, WE ARE GONNA DO ONE AFTER THE OTHER JUST THE SAME DAY. I KNOW, BUT I, I WOULD, IF SOMETHING COMES UP AND WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH A NEGATIVE DECK, THEN WE JUST DON'T HOLD PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TOO. OKAY. I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST SAYING PROCEDURAL PRICING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS. YEP. ALRIGHT. YEP. ANYBODY ELSE? JUST, UM, I THINK BOB, I DID YOU I DID. I THINK YOU WERE MUTED. SO, BOB. GOOD, GOOD. OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S FOUR IN FAVOR OF DOING IT THAT WAY. ONE OPPOSED? CAN WE DO THAT? WELL, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING ON THE WORK SESSION. BUT YOU'VE GOT OTHER BUSINESS THAT YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. NO. YEAH. CAN WE DO THAT? CAN WE TALK ABOUT OTHER BUSINESS NOW INSTEAD OF THE END OF THE NIGHT? YEAH. IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING. SO IF WE'RE ABLE TO TALK, WE TALK ABOUT IT ANYTIME. TALK ABOUT IT, NOT AGENDA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO YOU EVERYBODY GOT THE PELL SIGN INFORMATION? YOU WERE EMAILED IT? YES. SARAH, I THANK YOU. SO YOU HAVE TO REVIEW THIS SIGN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGN SIGNAGE, COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IN THE RA ZONE. SO FOR THIS ONE, AND ALSO FOR CLEARY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW THE SIGN AND JUST KIND OF SIGN OFF ON IT BASICALLY IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT. UM, BECAUSE USUALLY WE, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE APPROVE THE LOCATION AND THEN THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING. BUT IN AN RA DISTRICT, THERE ARE NO SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE TYPICALLY THEIR BUSINESS IS NOT IN AN RA DISTRICT. SO . SO ROGER JUST WANTS YOU TO KIND OF, UH, AFFIRM THAT YOU'VE SEEN IT AND THAT YOU'RE, AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT. THIS ONE HAS BEEN UP FOR SIX WEEKS OR MORE. I, I SEEN A BIG BLACK BAR SEE THE SAME WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SENT THAT OFF, WAS PRINT OUT BLACK? I DON'T SEE WHERE, CAN YOU, CAN YOU, CAN YOU SEE IT? I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT THIS. SO YOU CAN SEE IT CAN GO UP CLOSER TO THE THINGS RIGHT THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'LL WORK. 'CAUSE IT'S REFLECTIVE, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT WORKS. THAT WORKS. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . YEAH. THE EMAIL COMES OUT. THIS BLACK, I CAN'T SEE THE LETTER. SURE. SO ROGER'S JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR YEP. IT'S SIGNING OFF ON IT. BASICALLY FROM OUR STANDPOINT, IT IS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. IT'S AN RA, IT'S NOT INTERNALLY LIT. IT'S A NICE GROUND MOUNTED SIGN. IT'S A SMALLER SIZE SIGN. IT'S PROBABLY NOT A BAD THING FOR A, FOR A WINERY ABOUT THAT SIZE. LEAST THE PEOPLE KNOW WHERE IT IS. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT OBTRUSIVE. IT'S NOT, IT'S PRETTY, IT'S PRETTY STANDARD SIGN. I WAS WORRIED THEY WERE GONNA DO SOMETHING WITH LIGHTS OR INTERNALLY LIT SOMETHING. NO, IT'S, UH, ROGER USUALLY TAKES CARE OF THIS, BUT HE HAS NO STANDARDS. SO HOW DO PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT IT? YEAH. HAVE Y'ALL SEEN IT? HAVE YOU GONE OUT THERE? YEAH, I WENT, SORRY. I SAID I WENT OUT THERE. IT MOST TIMES IT DOES, DOESN'T IT? YEAH. SO IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO IT? I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION. I MEAN, IF IT WAS NOT IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, DOES IT [00:15:01] CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED SET DISTANCE SETBACKS AND VISIBILITY CONSTRAINTS? YES. YES. THEY MEASURED THAT. THEY DID ALL THE MEASURING. IT LOOKS NICE. HMM. OKAY. WELL IF NO ONE'S OBJECTING, THEN YEAH. REALLY NEED A TECHNICAL APPROVAL. WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER. BUT ROGER'S LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT. SAYING, IS THAT OKAY? IS THAT WHAT YOU ENVISION THERE WHEN YOU APPROVE? SO YOU'RE ALL OKAY WITH IT? I'M ASSUMING SOMEBODY SPEAK. EVERYBODY OKAY WITH IT? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE OKAY. OKAY. IT'S GOOD. IT'S GOOD. OKAY. IT'S GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. OKAY. THE O THE OTHER ONE IS THE, UM, 360 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THIS POLE BARN AT THE CORNER OF, UH, HOWARD ROAD AND SOUTH PARK. UM, THE REASON WHY ROGER WOULD LIKE TO DO A, OR IS WONDERING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO A SITE PLAN WAIVER IS BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL ADDITION, BUT IT'S IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE. THIS MAN DOESN'T DO ANY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OUT OF THAT POLE BARN ANYMORE. I GUESS HE USED TO, BUT HE IS RETIRED AND SO NOW IT'S JUST HE STORES HIS PERSONAL BELONGINGS IN THERE AND NEEDS A LITTLE MORE ROOM. ARE YOU GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE THE LIEN TO FROM THE STREET? I DON'T, UH, YOU HAVE THE, THE, AND I MEAN TYPICALLY THESE ARE WAIVERS BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. BUT BE IF, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF LIKE A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE OR IT'S IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE. THAT'S WHY ROGER SAID A SAFELINE WAIVER MIGHT BE WARRANTED OR, OR YOUR REVIEW OF IT. I HAVE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. BACK IN, UH, , HE HAD TO GET VARIANCE, UH, BECAUSE HE WAS TOO CLOSE TO BOTH AND HE ALSO NEEDED TO GET A WAIVER FROM THE PLANNING POINT BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. WILL HE HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN? WE DON'T HAVE THE OVERLAY DISTRICT ANYMORE AND I'M ASSUMING THAT ROGER'S OKAY WITH WHERE THE ADDITION IS BECAUSE IF YOU, IF, IF A PROJECT REQUIRES A VARIANCE, YOU CAN'T GET A SITE PLAN WAIVER. SO I'M ASSUMING HE'S OKAY WITH THIS. THAT'S WHY I WANT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT THE LAST YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE THE SOUTH PARK OVERLAY ANYMORE. NO, I GO ABOUT THE VARIANCE. DID HE SO THAT, WELL HE NEEDED A VARIANCE 'CAUSE HE WASN'T 40 FEET FROM SOUTH PARK, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 40 FEET ANYMORE. WELL IF THIS IT BE MORE TOWARDS SOUTH . I'M SORRY. IT'D BE MORE TOWARDS SOUTH PARK. YEAH, IT, IT'D BE CLOSER TO SOUTH PARK THAN IT WAS BEFORE. WELL, OKAY. WELL IT'S STILL WITHIN THE, UM, IT'S STILL WITHIN THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA RECOMMEND A SITE PLAN WAIVER WHERE BILL, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, THE TOWN ENGINEER AND SARAH WOULD'VE TO SIGN THAT SITE PLAN WAIVER. THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD HAVE IS THAT IF WE'RE GONNA DO A SITE PLAN WAIVER, WE WOULD DO THE SAME THING FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WE NEED TO NOTE IN THE FILE FOR THE SITE PLAN WAIVER THAT THIS IS FOR A NON-COMMERCIAL USE. SO IF SOMEONE BUYS THE BUILDING IN THE FUTURE AND WANTS A CONVERTED TO A COMMERCIAL USE, HE OR SHE'S GONNA COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WELL, THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN EITHER WAY BECAUSE RIGHT. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD NOTE IT IN THE FILE THAT, AND NOT IT ON ANYTHING THAT IF, IF SOMEBODY'S BUYING THE PROPERTY, THEY'LL DO THE RESEARCH, GO TO THE TOWN'S FILES AND SEE THAT IF WE'RE NOT AROUND THAT THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE FILE THAT SAYS THIS IS NOT APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL USE ANYMORE. I MEAN, IF IT WAS A COMMERCIAL USE, WE'D HAVE, WE'D HAVE FULL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WE'D BE DOING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE THINGS WE'D NORMALLY DO UNDER THAT. SO HE WANTS TO DO A SMALL ADDITION FOR PERSONAL STORAGE, THAT'S FINE. BUT IT'S GOTTA REMAIN PERSONAL STORAGE. SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN DOING A SITE PLAN. WAIVER [00:20:04] COMMENTS, ANYBODY I THINK IN THIS CONDITION I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH CYCLING WAIVER AND THIS SITUATION IS PUT THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS ON IT. IT'S A PRETTY MINOR DEVELOPMENT ATTACHED. AND, AND WITH THAT, YOU'RE LOOKING TO GIVE BILL DIRECTION. 'CAUSE BILL'S GOTTA SIGN THE SITE PLAN WAIVER. IF YOU GUYS HAVE CONCERNS, BILL CAN MAKE SURE THOSE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN WAIVER IS SIGNED. SO YOU'RE GIVING DIRECTION TO BILL IF YOU'RE GOING TO, IF YOU'RE GONNA RECOMMEND A SITE PLAN WAIVER, MAKE SURE YOU GIVE HIM DIRECTION ON WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE HE SIGNS THAT. AS FAR AS CONDITIONS, WHAT WHAT I THINK WOULD, THEY WOULD BE, UM, THERE, THERE'S TREES BEHIND IT. I WOULDN'T WANT ANY OF THOSE TREES REMOVED. RIGHT. WE'D WANT THE SIDES AND THE ROOF TO MATCH THE SIDES AND THE ROOF OF THE CURRENT POLE BAR. WE DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S LIKE THEY GOT A DARK GRAY SIDES AND LIGHT GRAY ROOF. WE WANT, WOULDN'T WANT 'EM TO HAVE RED SIDES AND A BLUE ROOF. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO, UM, ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT ANYBODY? WELL LET'S FIRST, UH, SO, SO CAITLIN IS OKAY WITH A SITE PLAN WAIVER. UH, WHAT DOES EVERYBODY ELSE THINK? THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE. CAN YOU GUYS SEE THAT? THE EMAIL? I'VE EMAILED THEM ALL. YEP. YEAH, WE GOT, WE GOT THESE EMAILS, BUT THIS IS AERIAL. OH, OKAY. THIS IS GOOGLE EARTH. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. SO WHAT BILL'S TALKING ABOUT? THE ADDITIONS GOING, WHOOP BACK HERE. AND THERE'S SOME TREES BACK HERE. TRY TO KEEP AS MANY OF THOSE TREES AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. I GOT, I ALSO GOT A PLAN VIEW IF YOU WANNA SEE THAT. UH, UP, UP, UP HIGHER. UP HIGHER. THERE IT IS. THERE IT IS. OKAY. SO IT'S OVER HERE. OOPS, I'M ON THE WRONG SIDE. YOU SEE WHERE IT IS? RIGHT? HE'S GOING OFF THE BACK. WHOOP, RIGHT BACK HERE. THINK IT'S REVERSED. OKAY. IS THIS GENTLEMAN GONNA HAVE TO REONE HIS HOME IF HE WANTS TO SELL IT AT SOME POINT? OR WOULD HE NEED A REZONING? IT'S INTERESTING, IT'S ZONE COMMERCIAL SO HE COULD SELL IT COMMERCIALLY. WHAT WE HAVE TO NOTE IS THAT WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THERE. WE DON'T KNOW PARKING, WHATEVER. WE'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, HE'S USING IT FOR PERSONAL USE AT THIS POINT. ROGER WOULD NEVER LET SOMEONE, RIGHT? SO IF SOMEONE BUYS IT, THEY HAVE TO KNOW THAT IF THEY'RE PUTTING A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN THERE, THEY GOTTA COME BACK AND GET APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. AND THAT'S GOTTA BE NOTED ON THERE. AND ROGER WOULD CATCH IT. CASE ROGER'S NOT AROUND, WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THE FILES. SO, UH, DENNIS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SITE PLAN WAIVER? I HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN ROGER. HE A PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT, BOB? YEAH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, MEGAN. I'M GOOD WITH IT. OKAY. SO WE WILL, WE'LL LET THEM DO THE SITE PLAN WAIVER. THE CONDITIONS WILL BE THAT THE BUILDING HAS TO MATCH THE EXISTING BARN. IT CAN'T CUT DOWN ANY TREES. AND, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD AND IF THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT GOES IN THERE, IT HAS TO, UH, COME BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR APPROVAL IN THE FUTURE. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WITH OTHER BUSINESS? MM-HMM. NO. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT ABOUT SIX MINUTES BEFORE SEVEN O'CLOCK. BILL, YOU BILL QUESTION? YES. WELL, WHO ENFORCES THAT? WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS HE SELLS IT. WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO? CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO SO THAT'D BE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE WOULD WELL IF HE SELLS IT, THEN THAT GOES THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT, THEN IT COMES BACK TO US. YEAH. AND HOW THEY WOULD CATCH THAT WOULD BE IF SOMEONE BOUGHT THE BUILDING AND IF THEIR ATTORNEY DIDN'T DO DUE DILIGENCE AND FIND OUT THAT, THAT, SAY HE BOUGHT THE BUILDING AND THAT PERSON CAME IN AND, AND WANTED TO CONVERT IT INTO A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, THE TOWN WOULD SAY, NOPE, YOU'RE NOT APPROVED. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A APPROVAL OF ANY BUSINESS THAT WE'RE GOING THERE. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO NOTE IT IN THE FILE BECAUSE BILL, ROGER, [00:25:01] MYSELF, OTHERS MAY NOT BE AROUND. IT COULD BE 10 YEARS FROM NOW. IT'S GOTTA BE A NOTE IN THE FILE THAT, THAT THEY PULL OUT AND SAY, HEY, THIS HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SHOULD KNOW THAT TOO. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. NOW THEY'D HAVE TO GET A CO TO CONVERT IT TO A COMMERCIAL USE AND IT'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING ORDER. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. OKAY. TEXT FROM BUNCH OF TURNING IT DOWN. HOW'S EVERYBODY DOING ON THEIR TRAINING THIS YEAR? SHOW ANYBODY DON'T HAVE THEIR FOUR HOURS. NEW YORK STATE MAY WAIVE THAT FOR THE YEAR. UM, A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. BUT LET'S NOT WAIT FOR THAT. EVERYBODY OKAY. ON THEIR FOUR HOURS OF TRAINING? 'CAUSE THERE IS SOME ONLINE STUFF THAT'S COMING UP. I CAN SEND PEOPLE IF THEY WANNA DO SOME ONLINE STUFF, A PAA BUNCH OF THE PLACES THEY'RE DOING. SURE. I'LL ALWAYS TAKE THE ONLINE STUFF. IF YOU HAVE MORE, I WOULD NORMALLY WILLING TO TAKE SOME. SURE. I I WILL GET YOU ONLINE STUFF THAT'S COMING UP OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. 'CAUSE NOW THEY'RE COMING OUT WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF ONLINE STUFF FOR, FOR PLANNERS AND STUFF. SO I'LL FORWARD THAT TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. YOU DECIDE, REMEMBER UNTIL THE STATE WAIVES IT OR THE TOWN WAIVES IT, YOU DO HAVE A FOUR HOUR REQUIREMENT EACH YEAR. AND SOME OF YOU HAVE CARRIED OVER HOURS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS TOO. OKAY. IF YOU NEED TO KNOW. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK SARAH'S BEEN PUT IN CHARGE OF THAT. OR IS IT NOW STILL IT'S STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. YEP. HAS ANYBODY HEARD ANY MORE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AND WE'LL, WE ELLE WITH WHAT? I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS PRETTY OFFICIAL NOW THAT WE'LL BE PLANNING EACH DONE. WE, NO ONE'S TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT AT ALL, BUT I HEAR, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GONNA WORK. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS THAT WE'RE TAKING OVER THE PLANNING FROM PLACE OVER. OH YEAH, I'VE READ THAT. READ THAT IN THE PAPER. BUT I'VE GOT NO INPUT ON THAT. I ASSUME IF WE'RE TAKING IT OVER THAT IF THEY GET A PROJECT IN BLAZEDALE, YOU WOULD BE REVIEWING THE PROJECT FROM BLAZE MAIL. BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE CONTRACTOR ARRANGEMENT IS. WELL, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CODE, THEIR OWN ZONING. IT'S ALL DIFFERENT FROM OURS. RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIND OUT. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE. SARAH DOESN'T KNOW ANYMORE. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SIT WITH A SUPERVISOR AND FIND OUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE DEAL IS, WHAT THEY WORKED OUT. I FIGURE SOMEBODY WILL LET US KNOW AT SOME POINT. YEAH. SO DON'T KNOW. ALL I KNOW IS WHEN I READ IN THE PAPER, OH, CAMMY JUST SAID THAT TOM MOORE PASTOR RESOLUTION ON MONDAY NIGHT THAT IT'S GONNA HAPPEN. YEAH, I SAW IN THE PAPER THAT THEY'VE PASSED THE RESOLUTION. YEAH. WE'LL HAVE TO WORK OUT THE LOGISTICS OF IT. I MEAN, I ASSUME IT IMPACTS THAT AGENDA FOR THE, UH, . I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU. WAS THAT ON THE BOARD MEETING AGENDA MONDAY? YES. WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THAT? ANYTHING? NO, UH, THE TOWN BOARD DID PASS A RESOLUTION THAT TOWN OF HAMBURG IS TAKING ON THE VILLAGE PLANNING SERVICES, BUT THERE WERE NO DETAIL. RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU DANNY. I ASSUME THEY'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS. I GOT NINE. JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HAVING TROUBLE HEARING SOMETIMES. SO. [00:30:16] RIGHT. SEVEN O'CLOCK. SO DO IT FROM HERE. WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MEETING, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD. LET ROOM PLEASE RISE FOR PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE BY PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVIDUAL WITH THE ROUTINE JUSTICE LIKES TSHIRT. YEAH, I LIKE YOUR T-SHIRT. KAMY. WHAT'S IT SAY? STAND UP. LET'S SEE THAT SHIRT. LOOK. I'M, SHE TRIES TO SPELL ENGINEER THREE TIMES. I'M AN ENGINEER. OH, THAT'S NICE. I'M GOOD WITH MATH. ALRIGHT, FIRST ITEM ON THANK WAS A GIFT FROM MY HUSBAND. UH, FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BRANDON WILLIAMS REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A TRAILER SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS AT 4 2 4 5 MCKINLEY PARKWAY. SEAN'S NOT HERE, SO I GUESS I'M YOU'RE DOING IT. CAN THEY SEE THE, CAN THEY SEE THE BOARD IF I PUT OVER THERE? NO. WELL, NO. NO. OKAY. THEY'VE GOT, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE THE NEW ONE. OKAY. SHOULD I TURN THIS AROUND? DO YOU WANT TURN? NO, THAT'S WAY HE CAN. OR DO I PUT IT SIDEWAYS SO YOU CAN TALK TO THEM? AND WHERE DO I HAVE TO LOOK THERE? YEAH, WHEREVER YOU WANT THERE IN THE LAPTOP. GOT IT. OH, I SEE MYSELF. OKAY. . OKAY. I'M, UH, CHRIS WOOD WITH CARINO WOOD MORRIS. WE'RE THE ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECT. UH, WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH FOR THE LOE TRAILERS PROJECT. THAT'S AT, UH, MCKINLEY PARKWAY. IT'S AT THE SIDE OF THE OLD PERKINS SLASH LA TOCA. UM, AS WE EXPLAINED BEFORE, THE UH, BUILDING'S GONNA REMAIN MAINLY AS IS WITH, UH, THE ADDITION OF SOME OVERHEAD DOORS ON THE BACK AND SOME COSMETIC UPGRADES ON THE OUTSIDE. UH, THE PROPOSED TRAILERS WOULD OCCUPY THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. NOT PROPOSING TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL BLACKTOP OR MAKE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UM, ALL WE'RE DO, ALL WE ARE ADDING IS A, A VINYL SPLIT RAIL FENCE AROUND THERE WITH A COUPLE SECURITY GATES TO KEEP, UH, PEOPLE OUT DURING NON-BUSINESS HOURS. UM, I DID SUBMIT A UPDATED PLAN THAT HAS THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ON IT VERSUS THE EXISTING TREES. UM, AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM, UH, FROM LAST MONTH. AND UH, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER 'EM. SO ON, ON THE PLAN YOU SENT US, THERE'S SQUARES OF XS. THAT'S WHERE THE TRAILERS ARE GONNA BE. THOSE ARE THE TRAILERS. CORRECT. AND AGAIN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LANDSCAPE TYPE TRAILERS ARE NOT, THEY'RE NOT CAMPING TRAILERS. RIGHT. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE SMALLER? THE BUILDING IS JUST GONNA BE FOR OFFICE USE. THEY'LL BE, UH, THERE'LL BE A TRAILER REPAIR WILL BE IN THERE IN THE BACK. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ADDING THE OVERHEAD DOORS. THERE'LL BE A SHOWROOM IN THERE THAT HAS LIKE A TRAILER ACCESSORIES AND THERE'LL BE THEIR OFFICES ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE, UH, THE, THE SMALL AMOUNT OF CUSTOMER PARKING SPACES THAT WE HAVE, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T GET A LOT OF, UH, DRIVE UP CUSTOMERS TO, TO THE BUSINESS SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DRIVE UP CUSTOMERS. WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL TO ADD MORE LANDSCAPING TO SCREEN, UH, IN MCKINLEY PARKWAY AND SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS? WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK I MENTIONED LAST TIME IT, IT'S SORT OF LIKE A, A CAR DEALERSHIP BUT NOT A CAR DEALERSHIP WHERE VISIBILITY FROM THE ROAD IS IMPORTANT TO THEM. AND A LOT OF THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S OUT THERE WAS PUT IN WHEN PERKINS WAS BUILT. AND THOSE TREES ARE VERY MATURE AND THEY'RE VERY SUBSTANTIAL. SO I THINK TO ADD AND TRY TO SCREEN MORE FROM MCKINLEY WOULD KIND OF HINDER THE SITE. THAT'S PROBABLY ONE REASON WHY IT SAID VACANT FOR SO LONG. IT DOESN'T HAVE VERY GOOD VISIBILITY AS IT IS. WELL, THAT, THAT ALSO DO YOU, HOW ABOUT A TYPICAL OF THE FENCE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? WHAT'S [00:35:01] THAT? UH, YOU HAVE A TYPICAL OR A EXAMPLE OF A FENCE. IT IS A, IT IS A SPLIT RAIL FENCE. BUT RATHER THAN BEING MADE OUTTA WOOD, IT'S MADE OUTTA VINYL AND IT'S WHITE. IT'S FOUR FEET HIGH SHORT. SO FOUR FEET HIGH, TWO WHITE BEAMS ACROSS TWO, TWO HORIZONTAL AND THEN POSTS AT EVERY SIX OR EIGHT FEET. IT'S MORE FOR, UH, SECURITY PURPOSES, JUST SO NOBODY FEELS THE NEED TO DRIVE AND HOOK ONTO A TRAILER AND STEAL IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. ON, ON BILL'S ISSUE, AS YOU GUYS READ MY MEMO, THAT'S MY BIGGEST ISSUE. THE ISSUE HERE IS THE FACT THAT THE ZBA DID GRANT A USE VARIANCE, BUT TYPICALLY, EVEN IF THIS WAS ZONED C TWO, THIS WOULD BE A USE THAT SOMETIMES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THIS AREA, BUT WOULD BE. AND WE ALSO HAVE A AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS OF SCREENING AND WHATEVER USES LIKE THIS. SO I THINK THERE'S A COMPROMISE BETWEEN, BETWEEN THE APPLICANT NOT WANTING VISIBILITY FOR HIS TRAILERS AND US IMPROVING THE AESTHETICS OF THE CORNER. 'CAUSE THIS IS TYPICALLY NOT A USE THAT WOULD GO AT THIS LOCATION. WE CAN'T CHANGE THE, WHAT DOES EBA GRANTED A USE BRANCH UNDER THEIR LAWS AND WHATEVER. SO WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT. BUT WE AS A PLANNING BOARD AND A PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUST UNDERSTAND THAT TYPICALLY THIS TYPE OF USE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THIS AREA. SO WE HAVE, CAN WE AESTHETICALLY MAKE IT FIT INTO THE AREA A LITTLE BETTER? I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, THE PETITIONER WOULD BE A AMENABLE TO PUT IN SOME LOW SHRUBS AND STUFF. RIGHT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPROVING THAT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT MAKING IT COMPLETELY INVISIBLE. RIGHT. I MEAN, BUT IT SHOULD BE IMPROVED AESTHETICALLY. I MEAN THE SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS KIND OF NICE. IT KIND OF IS MORE, YOU KNOW, BUT YOU COULD DO SOME THINGS ALONG THERE TO IMPROVE THE AESTHETICS OF IT. I'M NOT LOOKING AT SCREENING THE WHOLE THING. I MEAN OBVIOUSLY IT'S A, THE VERY HEAVILY TRAVELED INTERSECTION, BUT YOU KNOW, IT, IT SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT STANDARD TO IT. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE EQUIPMENT JUST SITTING OUTSIDE. TYPICALLY THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN THE C ONE ZONE. TYPICALLY EVEN TRAILER SALES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT ARE TYPICALLY ONLY ALLOWED CERTAIN AREAS IN THE C TWO AREAS. AND, AND WE HAVE STANDARDS FOR THOSE THINGS. WE HAVE SOME PRETTY STRONG STANDARDS. SO THEY GRANTED THE USE FOR, I CAN'T, WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT, BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE AESTHETICALLY IT FITS INTO THIS AREA A LITTLE BETTER. YEAH. SO, ALRIGHT. SO MAYBE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT MEETING YOU, WELL THEN THE PLANNING BOARD, WHAT WOULD THE PLANNING BOARD LIKE TO SEE? I'M GIVING YOU IDEAS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UM, I LIKE THE IDEA OF MORE BUSHES THAN TREES. 'CAUSE TREES OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU DO SOME BUSHES, YOU DO SOME LANDSCAPED ISLANDS. YOU DO OTHER THINGS TO JUST IMPROVE THE AESTHETICS. ACTUALLY IT'LL HELP THE APPLICANT 'CAUSE IT'LL GRAB YOUR EYE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN, HEY, LOOK OVER HERE. AND THEY DO SELL TRAILERS. WE ARE, AND WE ARE PROPOSING A MONUMENT SIGN. SO WE COULD PROBABLY DO SOME PLANTINGS AROUND THE BOTTOM OF THE MONUMENT SIGN ALSO. UM, THERE, THERE ARE FIVE OR SIX OR SEVEN PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL TREES OUT IN THE FRONT. UM, SO WE, WE'D BE IN AGREEMENT TO DOING SOME SHRUBS OR, AND THAT, THAT SIGN THAT'S AT THE, LIKE THE CURVE BETWEEN THE LEY AND SOUTHWESTERN, THE THE NEW MONUMENT SIGN. YEAH. RIGHT. SO WHAT, WHAT DO THE BOARD MEMBERS THINK ABOUT, UH, ANY, ANYTHING WE SHOULD ADD TO THIS? ALL RIGHT. CAN I JUST ASK THAT THE TRAILERS I THE SAME, I LIKE THE IDEA OF SHRUBS. UM, I MEAN I LOOKED UP SOME LIKE GOOGLE IMAGE RESULTS ON THE FENCE, BUT I MEAN, IF YOU COULD JUST BRING AN EXAMPLE OF A FENCE OR SOME S THAT WOULD, I CAN, I CAN EMAIL, UH, I CAN EMAIL A CUT SHEET OF THE FENCE RIGHT. TO SARAH AND THEN SHE CAN DISTRIBUTE TO YOU GUYS. RIGHT. SHOW US KIND OF A PLAN TO DO THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT HERE. THE FENCE, HERE'S THE TRAILERS BEHIND, AND THEN MAYBE SHOW US THAT WE CAN DO SOME, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA GO THAT CRAZY. COME ON. THAT'S LITTLE HANDS SKETCH. . UM, SO I, I THINK TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, WHERE THE TRAILERS, WHERE WERE THE EXIT? SO THIS IS WHERE PERKINS USED TO BE ON MCKINLEY AND SOUTHWESTERN, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE EXIT, THE ENTRANCE IS GONNA BE FROM, FROM MCKINLEY WHAT WE'D SAY IS THE BACK TOWARDS WHERE WALMART USED TO BE. MM-HMM . THERE'S A SIGNAL. SO, SO THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND THE EXIT WOULD BE FOR, UM, THE PEOPLE COMING IN TO BUY THE TRAILER AND THE TRAILERS. RIGHT. AND THEY DO, THEY DO HAVE ACCESS ON THE, THE BIG TREE ROAD, THE OLD BIG TREE ROAD SIDE THAT THEY KIND OF CUT OFF. YOU WOULD GET TO IT FROM, FROM BIG TREE ROAD. YOU KNOW HOW YOU OH, OKAY. I SEE. YEAH, RIGHT. THERE'S AN ENTRANCE EXIT, GO BEHIND IT. AND THEN IN RIGHT, RIGHT. IF YOU GO DOWN THAT OLD PART OF BIG CREEK ROAD, THAT INTERSECTS WITH THE NEW PART THAT CURVES AROUND THE NEW SIGNAL. SO THEY HAVE ACCESS THERE AND THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SIGNAL AT MCKINLEY AND THE, THE TOPS PLAZA BILL, I KNOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MEETING, BUT WE HAVE A QUESTION SHE ALREADY WOULDN'T MIND. THAT WAS HER QUESTION. THAT WAS THAT WAS HER QUESTION. YEAH. OKAY. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THAT ASK LATER. AND PLEASE COME AND LOOK AT IT. WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MEETING. WE'RE WE'RE [00:40:01] GIVING 'EM SOME DIRECTION. WE TAKE A LOOK AT, I KNOW YOU LIVE. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD? THANK, I'M JUST WONDERING, THERE'S NO DIMENSIONS FOR THE SIGNAGE. WHAT THE, THE SIGNAGE? WELL, IT'S MARKED ON THE PLANTS, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THE SIDES. WELL TYPICALLY THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW. THAT'S THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. IT CAN'T EXCEED COMMERCIAL. YEAH, IT CAN'T EXCEED SIX, SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. AND IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN 16 SQUARE FEET EACH SIDE. RIGHT, RIGHT. IT'S GOTTA BE GROUND MOUNTED AND IT CAN'T BE INTERNALLY LIT. I BELIEVE THIS IS GONNA BE ONLY RIGHT? I BELIEVE. YEAH. WE'LL DOUBLE IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE'LL ASK WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SO YOU KNOW WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE ON THE CORNER. RIGHT. AND THE REASON WE HAD THE OTHER SIGN IS BECAUSE THAT'S AN RA NOT A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THERE WERE NO STANDARDS. SO THAT'S WHY THAT CAME IN FRONT OF US. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WAS JUST THINKING MORE WITH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND LANDSCAPING. I KIND OF WANTED TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTIONS WE WERE IN THAT AREA. AGAIN, I CAN, RIGHT. OKAY. MM-HMM . PLAN, IN PLAN VIEW. I CAN, I CAN PUT ON THERE WHAT THE ACTUAL SIGNED DIMENSIONS WILL BE. SO WE'LL KNOW WHAT THE PLANTING AREA'S GONNA BE. BUT, UM, THE SIGN I WOULD, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE PROBABLY WILL BE SIX FEET HIGH. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE MAXIMUM WE CAN GO JUST TO GIVE SOME VISIBILITY. UM, THAT, THAT SIX FEET WOULD INCLUDE THE SIGN BASE ALSO. AND YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED 16 SQUARE FEET EACH SIDE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, BY FOUR, FOUR BY FOUR, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR EASY MATH. BUT, AND THEN YOU HAVE SIGNAGE. YOU'RE ALLOWED ON THE BUILDING, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GONNA CHANGE THE, ON THE BUILDING, RIGHT. CHRIS? CHRIS? YES. I CAN'T SEE AT, I CAN SEE ON THE DIAGRAM WHAT'S THE TURNING RADIUS OF THE ENTRANCES? HOW, HOW, HOW WIDE ARE THEY? HOW WIDE ARE THE, THE DRIVEWAYS INTO THE SITE? THE TURNING RADIUS. OH, THE TURNING, THE TURNING RADIUS IS GOING OUT THE BACK, LIKE YOU WOULD CALL THE BACKSIDE, THE BIG, BIG TREE ROAD. THOSE, THOSE TURN TURNING RADIUSES ARE PRETTY EXCESSIVE. THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN EXCESS OF 30 FEET RADIUS, WHICH NORMALLY IN A REGULAR PARKING LOT WE HAVE 12 FEET OR 15 FEET. SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD SIZE. SO WHAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM, FROM NICK TO, TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE CORNER? FROM, FROM OUR SITE TO THE SIGNAL AT MCKINLEY? YEAH. THE, THE DISTANCE, UH, YEAH, FROM THE DRYWALL. IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 200 FEET TO THE SIGNAL. UH, OKAY. ALRIGHT. I CAN'T, I I DON'T MEAN TO ASK, I CAN'T TELL HIM DIAGRAM, RIGHT. THAT RIGHT. I DID, I THINK WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION I SUBMITTED AN AERIAL THAT KIND OF SHOWS WHERE THE SITE IS IN CONTEXT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. I DIDN'T BRING THAT WITH ME TONIGHT, BUT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE THAT. OKAY. I, I MIGHT THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M ASSUMING FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THEY'LL BRING IN THE, THE MERCHANDISE IN THE BACK AND NOT OFF OF MCKINLEY. IT, IT'S WAY LESS CIRCUITOUS ROUTE IF YOU COME OFF OF THE BACK AND THEN GO ON THE BIG TREE AND THEN GO TO THE SIGNAL RIGHT. THAN IT IS TO CIRCLE THROUGH THE PARKING. PLUS IT'S, IT'S A RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT ENTRANCE ON, ON MCKINLEY. CORRECT. NOT SIGNALED. WHAT'S THAT? SAY IT SIGNALED BUT ISN'T IT? WE WE DO HAVE A DIRECT ACCESS ALSO RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT. RIGHT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS DOWN OVER HERE IS SIGNAL. THERE'S A SIGNAL. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THEY, THEY, THEY PROBABLY MOST LIKELY WOULD BRING IT IN FROM THE BACK. RIGHT. AND THE BIG TREE ROADSIDE. ARE YOU OKAY SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH. SWITCH PLACES THERE, CHRIS. OKAY, HERE? YES. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON BRANDON WILLIAMS FOR SEPTEMBER 16TH. A MOTION BY MR. CLARK. SECOND. SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY. MOTION CARRIED. SO NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS GLEN WETZEL REQUESTING REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION ON BOSTON STATE ROAD. SO WE'VE GOT, WE GOT TWO EMAILS, NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR, UH, SUBDIVISION, BUT ON A DIFFERENT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION. BUT BOTH OF THEM ASK SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS. SO I WANT TO GO OVER THOSE RIGHT NOW. THIS CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, THIS ISN'T A CLUSTER. A-P-P-U-D. YEAH, THIS ISN'T, OH, THIS ONE ISN'T, IS IT? THAT WAS A PD. SO MY AGENDA SAYS CLUSTER SUBDIVISION RIGHT ON IT. WHICH ONE? THAT'S MY FAULT NUMBER TWO. OH, WELL THAT'S [00:45:01] MY FAULT. OKAY, WELL, I'LL SAVE THOSE QUESTIONS TILL WE DO GET TO THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, BUT SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE AGENDA DID SAY CLUSTER. I THAT'S FAULT. FAULT. THAT WAS STRANGE OF YOU TWO. OKAY. MY FAULT. SORRY. THIS IS JUST THE ONE WE APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION. YEAH, THAT'S CHRIS. THAT'S ME. I'M GONNA GET PAID. I'M GONNA GET PAID. SEAN'S PAY ALSO. I KNOW. WHERE'S SEAN? BUT, UH, AGAIN, WE WERE HERE, WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH FOR THIS. WHEN WE WERE ASKING IS THE, THE SIDEWALK THAT WAS APPROVED ON BOSTON STATE ROAD FROM THE, UH, WHERE THE ROAD INTERSECTS BOSTON STATE ROAD UP TO MCKINLEY PARKWAY ALLOWED TO BE ELIMINATED? UH, A COUPLE REASONS. UM, THE NEAREST SIDEWALK THAT WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE, ON THE VILLAGE SIDE IS A THOUSAND FEET AWAY, PLUS OR MINUS. AND, UH, ALSO WHEN THE SIDEWALK CROSSES IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AS TO THE WEST OF US, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO HIS FRONT WINDOW. AND I BELIEVE HE SUBMITTED A LETTER ALSO TO REQUEST THAT, UH, THAT SIDEWALK BE ELIMINATED. THEY DO. THE RESIDENT, IF THEY DID WANNA WALK TO THE VILLAGE, THEY COULD USE THE EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS A PAVED DRIVEWAY, 20 FEET WIDE. IT GOES UP TO MCKINLEY AND ALIGNS WITH, UH, GRANDVIEW AVENUE. UM, IF, IF, IF THEY WANTED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, WALK TO THE VILLAGE, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING FROM THE LAST TIME THEY WERE OUTSTANDING. NO. WANNA SWITCH. YEAH. SO THE, THE ISSUE THAT WE, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I REMEMBER BEING OUT THERE IS, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING WE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY THEY WERE AT THE SITE PLAN. AND THE CHAIRMAN O'CONNELL THOUGHT THAT THEY SHOULD BE THERE TO HOOK UP THE TOWN VILLAGE. RIGHT. SO, AND, AND WE WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO HOOK UP WITH THE VILLAGE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE, UH, SIDEWALK. THAT'S WHEN WE PROPOSED A WALKWAY AROUND THE GATE, WHICH WAS CLOSER TO THE SIDE STREET THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT, WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE LIKELY TO USE IF THEY WERE GOING FROM THE SUBDIVISION TO THE VILLAGE AND THEY WERE WALKING. UM, I THINK ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE HAVE TO DECIDE TONIGHT IS WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CHANGE. AND, UH, JENNIFER, DID YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON THAT? SURE. THANK YOU. SO OUR CODE DOES NOT ACTUALLY REFERENCE WHETHER A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED FOR A REVISION OF A SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SO GENERALLY THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE, IS THIS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF THE INITIAL APPROVAL TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING? AND WHAT IS, WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED THE CONTROVERSIAL IN THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS CONSIDERED? SO I WENT BACK TO THE MINUTES FROM THE INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING. SIDEWALKS WERE NOT MENTIONED BY ANY RESIDENTS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO IT IS REALLY UP TO THIS BOARD OF WHETHER YOU DEEMED THE SIDEWALKS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AS IT'S NOT CHANGING THE ACTUAL PLAT THAT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED. OUR CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU TO DECIDE IF YOU THINK THAT THIS CHANGE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE PUBLIC INPUT. SO WHAT DO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THINK ABOUT THAT? DO WE THINK THIS CHANGE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT WE HAVE TO DO ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING OR, BECAUSE AT THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC HEARING, NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MENTIONED SIDEWALKS. SHOULD WE WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING? AND ONE OTHER ISSUE, JENNIFER MENTIONED THAT THE PLAT IS NOT CHANGING. IF, IF THIS PLAT WAS CHANGING THAT THEY HAD TO REFILE THE PLAT, YOU DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS AN ENGINEERING REQUIREMENT OF TECHNICALLY OF THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE TO WAIVE. SIDEWALK SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRE LESS WAIVE. WE WAIVED THE ONES ON MCKINLEY. WE DID NOT WAIVE THE ONE ON BOSTON STATE ROAD. THEY'RE ASKED US NOW TO RECHANGE OUR AND WAIVE THE ONES ON, ON THE BOSTON STATE ROAD. SO IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PLAT. IF THEY HAD TO REFILE THE PLAT, WE'VE HAD NO QUESTION HERE. YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING. JENNIFER'S GIVEN YOU THE PLUSES AND MINUSES YOU COULD DO EITHER WAY. IT DOESN'T MATTER. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S DEFINITIVE. IF YOU CHANGE THE PLAT. WHAT A BARNICK BOB. I, I SHE WA BILL. IS IT THE SIDEWALK DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE, RIGHT? I MEAN, WHERE DOES IT GO? NO PLACE. RIGHT. DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE. RIGHT. THE INTENTION WAS THAT SOMETIME IT MIGHT GO SOMEWHERE, BUT I THINK WHAT WE, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WITH THIS IS THE JOG AROUND THE GATE TO ATTACH TO SOMEPLACE IN THE FUTURE, UM, HOPE HOPEFULLY THAT MEETS WHAT THE [00:50:01] PLANNING BOARD INTENDED WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY PUT THE SIDEWALK IN. UM, WHAT DO YOU THINK? UH, DENNIS? WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT CH AROUND THERE ON THE, UH, ON THE , RIGHT? I'M NOT SIDEWALK I'M NOT SAYING THAT, THAT WE, WE WERE GONNA VOTE TO, TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN TODAY. I WE'RE FIGURING OUT WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK WE NEED TO DO TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING. SO YOU THINK WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT, OR YOU THINK JUST THE GETTING A PICTURE WOULD BE, I DON'T KNOW, BILL. I MEAN, IF WE'RE FOR IN THE WAY THAT PEOPLE, UH, GET AROUND, WE TAKE SOME INPUT FROM THEM. ALL RIGHT. NOT NOTIFYING NEIGHBOR. SO, UM, YEAH. OKAY. MEGAN, THE LAST PUBLIC, BOB, SORRY, IF YOU WOULD MAKE A COMMENT. GO AHEAD MEGAN. GO AHEAD. OKAY. IS ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC LIST? NO. IS ANYBODY HERE TODAY FOR THE SIDEWALK? OKAY. NO, UNDERSTAND TOO, IF WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, WE, WE ONLY GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS, RIGHT? WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. AGAIN, THERE WAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF ISSUES WITH THE SUBDIVISION. THE ONLY ISSUE IS THE SIDEWALKS. AND WE'D HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE SIDEWALK WHETHER TO WAVE THE SIDEWALK ON BOSTON STATE ROAD. SO JUST BE CAREFUL WITH THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NOTIFY HIM. RIGHT. BUT DREW IS CORRECT THERE. THAT'S ALL WE'D BE ABLE TO DISCUSS. AND IT'S NOT CHANGING THE PLAT AT ALL. RIGHT? SO THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE STRICTLY, STRICTLY ON THE SIDEWALK, RIGHT? AS MENTIONED BEFORE AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, NO, NO DISCUSSION OF THE SIDEWALK WAS BROUGHT UP. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. WE JUST DON'T. RIGHT. NOT THE SIDEWALK. SO, UM, YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON IT, MEGAN, OR WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT. IF WE, I GUESS PART ME IS SITTING HERE LOOKING AT WE WAVE THE SIDEWALK. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE IF WE WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIDEWALK? WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT PART OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. LIKE, I THINK I GAINED SO MUCH INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SO MUCH INSIGHT ON HOW TO PROBLEM SOLVE AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. HMM. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS WHAT WOULD BE OPTIONS, LIKE WHAT WOULD BE THE BENEFIT OF A PUBLIC HEARING VERSUS NOT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? RIGHT. UM, I MEAN, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE COMING BACK AGAIN NEXT MONTH, I DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING APP, IT'LL BE VERY SHORT. IT'LL BE LIKE NOBODY TALKING. THAT'S TRUE. ALRIGHT, SO YOU, SO YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OR ? OKAY, SO THAT'S, SO YOU AND DENNIS, I'LL, I'LL GO WITH YOU AND DENNIS IS SO WE DON'T MAKE IT TWO TO TWO, AND WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, AND ALL WE DO IS PUT A NOTICE IN THE PAPER. WE'RE NOT NOTIFYING ANYBODY, WE'RE JUST SAYING, AND THE NOTICE SHOULD BE, NOTICE SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS ON BOSTON STATE ROAD, RIGHT? MM-HMM . SO NO ONE GETS THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GONNA REHASH ISSUES AND MAKE SURE WHEN WE DO THE AGENDA THAT IT, IT DOESN'T SAY CLUSTER S THE SIDEWALKS TOO. I PUT THAT UP SO THE, THE PUBLIC MIGHT COME UP WITH A BETTER WAY, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH AROUND THEY MIGHT HAVE A BETTER IDEA. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT, THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. THAT THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. IF, IF THAT HAPPENED, THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD. UM, IF IF NOBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS, THEN IT'LL BE A QUICK PUBLIC HEARING, LIKE I SAID, AND, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL, BUT IF, IF, YEAH, IF PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC DID HAVE A BETTER IDEA ON HOW TO HAVE THOSE SIDEWALKS TO ALLOW PEOPLE IN THIS SUBDIVISION TO WALK TO THE VILLAGE SAFELY, WE'D, WE'D REALLY LOVE TO HEAR THAT INPUT. YEAH. OKAY. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GLEN WETZEL SUBDIVISION FOR SEPTEMBER 16TH. SECOND. OH. MOTION BY MR. CLARK. SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AND, UH, ONE SECOND. RIGHT, RIGHT. MR. MCCORMICK IS GOING TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT BEFORE SHE WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD. SO AS SHE MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING, SHE'S, SHE'S NOT GONNA VOTE ON ANY ISSUES RELATING TO THIS PROJECT. SO, [00:55:01] ALRIGHT, SO IF YOU GET US, I GUESS, A PICTURE OF THE, THE JOGGER AROUND THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, OR A PLAN THAT SHOWS IT AND, AND WE'LL HAVE THAT AND MAYBE, MAYBE WE'LL GET SOME PEOPLE WITH SOME CREATIVE IDEAS. THAT WOULD BE OKAY. THAT WOULD BE KIND OF COOL IF WE DID. ALRIGHT, THIS IS, SO LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DAVID MANKO REQUESTING PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF A PROPOSED CLUSTER SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD. SO NOW I'LL GET INTO THOSE EMAILS THAT WE GOT BEFORE WE START. UM, SO ONE PERSON SAID, WILL THE PROPER PROCEDURES BE FOLLOWED IN THIS TIME OF COVID? UM, THE, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES. UM, ANY OF THE CHANGES WE HAVE RELATING TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, UH, HAVE TO DO WITH THE WAY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO ACCESS THE MEETING AND HAVE TO DO WITH GIVING THE PUBLIC DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES TO GIVE THEIR POINT OF VIEW AS OPPOSED TO MAKING PEOPLE SHOW UP AT TOWN HALL AND MAKING PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SHOW UP AT TOWN HALL. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CHANGE, AND THOSE CHANGES ACTUALLY INCREASE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO HAVE INPUT AS OPPOSED TO DECREASING THEM. EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE TO DO, ALL THE OTHER TIMELINES WE HAVE TO MEET. UM, HOW EXPERIENCED IS THE BUILDER WITH BUILDING SUBDIVISIONS? I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING ONLINE THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE. SO I I THINK WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THAT. AND WE ALSO HAVE, WE WERE PROVIDED WITH SOME, UH, PICTURES OF THE FOUR DIFFERENT DESIGNS THAT WOULD GO INTO THE SUB THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION. UH, BEING IN THE J AND M SUBDIVISION. I FELT THAT THE BUILDER WAS IN OVER HIS HEAD, UH, WHEN HE DID OUR SUBDIVISION. I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS BUILDER MAY BE IN THE SAME BOAT. LET'S, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE THE BUILDER ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. UM, I'M CONCERNED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT MY HOUSE. I DEAL WITH A LOT OF RUNOFF WATER OFF PARKER ROAD BECAUSE OF GRADING AND A SEWER DRAIN THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE GROUND IN MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD. I WOULD HATE TO SEE THIS SITUATION GET WORSE BECAUSE OF LACK OF OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY. SO WHEN THERE'S A SUBDIVISION LIKE THIS ONE, THEY CAN'T HAVE MORE WATER GOING OFF THE PROPERTY THAN CURRENTLY RUNS OFF THE PROPERTY. AND THE TOWN ENGINEER WILL REVIEW THEIR DRAINAGE PLAN AND GIVE US AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT SHE BELIEVES THAT THE DRAINAGE PLAN MEETS THAT STANDARD. SO THEY CAN'T MAKE IT WORSE. AND THE, THE ACCOUNTABILITY WOULD BE THE TOWN ENGINEER WOULD REVIEW THE DRAINAGE PLAN AND DECIDE IF IT WAS ADEQUATE. AND, AND BILL, THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISIONS. IF THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT SATISFIED THAT THIS PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT, A POSITIVE DECLARATION WILL BE MADE, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. SO WE WILL GO THROUGH AN ARDUOUS, COORDINATED, UH, SECRET REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THE PROJECT DOES NOT IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT. IT'S OUR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW. WE HAVE TO DO THAT. SO WE WILL BE DOING THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE NOT REACHED THAT POINT. WE HAVE NOT STARTED THAT PROCESS YET. THAT WHAT'S BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS THE CONSIDERATION. WILL WE ALLOW THEM TO EVEN CONSIDER USING A CLUSTER? SO WE WILL GET TO THOSE ISSUES. THE ONLY ISSUE I'LL JUST COMMENT ON BILL, BE VERY CAREFUL WITH IT'S REALLY NOT PART OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR SEEK OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS, IS THE ABILITY OF A DEVELOPER WHO CAN AND CANNOT DO A PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GONNA TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. I JUST BE CAREFUL WITH PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT A BUILDER OR NOT OR WHATEVER. IT'S REALLY NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY DEAL WITH. IT'S NOT IN SEEKER, IT'S NOT IN OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THEY HAVE TO MEET IT NO MATTER WHO THE BUILDER IS. THEY HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN, THE ABILITY TO BUILD FOR THE PUBLIC ROADS, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, EVERYTHING ELSE, RIGHT? SO, SO FOR EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT, THE, THE FACTORS THAT WE CAN CONSIDER WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS ARE ACTUALLY REALLY LIMITED. AND AS DREW POINTED OUT, MOST OF WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER WOULD BE IN THROUGH THE SECRET PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. UM, I KNOW AND, AND THE TOWN SUBDIVISION LAW HAS VERY STRICT CRITERIA ABOUT, AND CAMI CAN COMMENT ON IT, ABOUT IT, ABOUT IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER, SEWER, ROADS, DRAINAGE, ET CETERA, THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE TOWN ENGINEER REVIEWS IT, REVIEWS DURING CONSTRUCTION HAS TO SIGN OFF ON WHAT THEY CALL A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERMIT, HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO STANDARDS OR THE TOWN WILL NOT ACCEPT OWNERSHIP OF ALL THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. AND FROM A BUILDING OF THE HOMES, [01:00:01] THE HOMES ARE CONTROLLED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE, UH, LICENSE DRAWINGS AND WHATEVER SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, COMPLETE REVIEWS DONE BY FIRE INSPECTORS, ET CETERA, TO MAKE SURE THE HOMES, SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS COVERED BY THE TOWN AND THE TOWN ENGINEER THROUGH ALL THE WAY THROUGH CONSTRUCTION AND FROM A BUILDING HOME STANDPOINT, AFTER THEY PUT IN ALL THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND, AND HOMES, I MEAN, UH, ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO AND GET INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMITS. AND WHETHER IT'S WHOEVER THE BUILDER IS, HAS TO SUBMIT PLANS THAT ARE DONE WELL. SO WE'RE COVERED UNDER THE LAW. IT'S NOT LIKE, IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN'T GET, WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE BECAUSE THE LAW COVERS THAT ISSUE. THEY HAVE TO BE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS, THEY HAVE TO BE REVIEWED. THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE. SO, BUT IF, IF THEY ARE ABLE TO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA IN THAT PROCESS, RIGHT? WE CAN'T THEN SAY, EH, WE DON'T, SOME OF THE STUFF WAS A LITTLE BIT FISHY, SO WE DON'T, UM, IF THEY, IF THEY CROSS THEIR T'S AND DOT THEIR I'S, THAT'S NOT A REASON WE CAN SAY, YEAH, WE DON'T WANT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON TO BUILD. AND THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THINGS IN THE SEEKER LAW THAT'S JUST NOT ONE OF 'EM. IT'S NOT IN OUR SUBDIVISION LAW. IT'S NOT IN THE SECRET LAW THAT SAYS, HEY, THIS IS A GOOD, GOOD DEVELOPER OR WHATEVER, OR NOT. THERE'S A TON OF THINGS IN THE SECRET LAW AND WE'RE GONNA DO ALL THOSE THINGS. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT ONE OF THEM THAT WE HAVE IN EITHER LAW, THE SUBDIVISION LAW OR IN THE STATES, STATE'S LAW. I JUST, I TRY NOT TO GET OUTSIDE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE POWERS OVER SECRET LAW BRINGS IN A LOT OF THINGS, BUT IT DOESN'T BRING IN THE ABILITY OF A DEVELOPER TO DO A PROJECT OR A PAST HISTORY OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? WE'RE ASSUMING THEY'RE GONNA HAVE PROFESSIONALS AND IT'S GONNA BE DONE CORRECTLY AND WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA HOPE, MAKE SURE IT'S DONE THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF THE TOWN. BUT I, I'M SURE THAT WHEN THE DEVELOPER GO GETS UP TO GIVE THEIR PART OF THE, THE PRESENTATION THAT THEY'LL ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES ANYWAY. AND JUST AS A, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, WE HAD THIS ISSUE IN A LOT OF TOWNS WHERE A PAST DEVELOPER MAY HAVE DEVELOPED SOMETHING THAT THE DRAINAGE DOESN'T WORK WELL OR WHATEVER, AND SOMEBODY WILL SAY, SEE, THEY'RE GONNA DO IT AGAIN. REALIZE THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE YEARS. WE'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT DRAINAGE. CAMMY NOTICED THAT THERE'S MUCH MORE STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE, ET CETERA. AND HOPEFULLY WE'VE LEARNED FROM PAST MISTAKES. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, TOWN OF HAMBURG HAS MUCH STRICTER STANDARDS FOR THOSE THINGS. SO YES, THERE COULD BE PROBLEMS WITH SUBDIVISION IN THE PAST, THE RULES WERE DIFFERENT AND NOT DONE WELL AND THAT, THAT DOESN'T SIT WELL NORMALLY WITH THE PUBLIC. BUT WE'VE LEARNED OUR LESSONS. WE HAVE A LOT OF, LOT OF CONTROLS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THINGS ARE DONE CORRECTLY. BUT GO AHEAD BILL. I'M SORRY. ALRIGHT, SO, SO ANOTHER EMAIL, UM, WITH SOME QUESTIONS IN EVERYDAY TERMS, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE AND POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A CLUSTER VERSUS REGULAR SUBDIVISION? UM, I'LL, I'LL TRY AND AND ANSWER THAT. IT'S, IT'S A, EVERYDAY TERMS MIGHT BE DIFFICULT. UM, A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, THE LOTS ARE SMALLER THAN THEY USUALLY WOULD BE. AND THE IDEA IS THAT THAT SHOULD BENEFIT THE TOWN IN SOME WAY. A REGULAR SUBDIVISION WOULD BE LOTS THAT MEET THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND SETBACKS. AND SO A A WHOLE, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. IT'S, IT'S A DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX QUESTION. I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS, CAN CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING THAT BILL? SURE. THE, AS I SAID LAST MEETING, THE STATE LAW ALLOWS TOWNS TO ALLOW CLUSTERS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ASSU ROAD, A CLUSTER LAW TO SAY THAT YOU CAN ALLOW CLUSTERS, YOU CAN WRITE ALL THE REGULATIONS YOU WANT ABOUT IT. THE ONE CRITERIA IN THE STATE ORDINANCE IS IF YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW CLUSTERS, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY MORE LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WERE ALLOWED UNDER THE UNDERLYING ZONING. SO THAT'S THE ONE CAVEAT. THE STATE LAW SET, RIGHT? YOU CAN WRITE ALL OTHER THINGS AND REQUIREMENTS LIKE OPEN SPACE. WE HAVE AN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, WE HAVE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. THAT'S NOT THE STATE LAW. STATE LAW IS ONE BIG THING. YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY MORE LOTS THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING. YOU'RE NOT INCREASING DENSITY. AND THAT'S WHY WE LOOK AT A PLAN THAT'S GONNA HAVE THE LOTS AS THE NORMAL SIZE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE SATISFIED AT THE NUMBER OF LOTS. SO THEY, THEY SHOW US A PLAN THAT'S NOT THE PLAN THAT THEY'RE AC THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING, EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKS JUST LIKE ONE THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED, THAT HAS THE, THE LOTS AT THE REGULAR SIZE TO PROVE THAT THEY COULD FIT THAT MANY LEGALLY. AND, AND WE HAVE A BACK AND FORTH OF WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT AMOUNT. WE LOOK AT WETLANDS AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS. UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE PLANS EMAILED FOR REVIEW? IF NOT, IS AN APPOINTMENT NEEDED TO SEE THEM IN YOUR OFFICE? WHETHER THE PLANS BE, CAN BE EMAILED TO PEOPLE WHO REQUEST IS UP TO THE PERSON WHO DRAFTED THE PLANS. IT'S THE PLANS ARE THEIR PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT THE TOWN'S PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY SEND THEM TO US FOR REVIEW. UM, SO, SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR [01:05:01] NOT EVEN 'EM, ANOTHER, ANOTHER THING, BILL, WE CAN DO, AND WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST AND WE AND OTHER TOWNS ARE DOING IT, WE CAN IF ALLOWED BY THE, THE APP EVENT, POST IT RIGHT ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE, WHICH WOULD BE EASIER THAN WE ACTUALLY HAVE. SOME OF THE ONES STILL ON THERE, SOME OLD CONTROVERSIAL DE YOU CAN ACTUALLY POST IT ON THE WEBSITE TO PEOPLE CAN CLICK ON AND SEE THE PLANS. RIGHT. AND, AND IF, AND IF THAT'S IF WE, I BELIEVE YES. DIDN'T THIS APPLICANT GIVE PERMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING YES. TO SHARE THE LINES? YES, THEY DID. YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. BUT I BELIEVE THAT, OKAY. SO, SO THAT BEING THE CASE, THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO POST THEM ON THE INTERNET SO SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE TO REQUEST THEM BY EMAIL OR MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO COME IN. BUT AS FAR AS THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, IF NOT, IS AN APPOINTMENT NEEDED TO SEE THEM IN THE OFFICE? UM, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE. SO THAT WAY AT LEAST SOMEBODY KNOWS A PERSON'S COMING AND THEY HAVE THEM READY. AND EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLINE, PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND, AND TO SEE THE PLANS AND THEY'RE BIGGER. SO SOMEBODY MIGHT WANNA DO THAT ANYWAY. UH, THIRD QUESTION. HAS THE LAND ALREADY BEEN SOLD TO THE DEVELOPER? UM, THAT'S NOT SIMILAR TO THE, UH, THE LAST QUESTION ABOUT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPERIENCE. THAT'S NOT A QUESTION THAT WE USUALLY GET INTO EITHER. UH, TYPICALLY MY UNDERSTANDING IS A LOT OF THESE DEALS ARE CONTINGENT WHERE THE SALE WILL BE FINALIZED IF THE PROJECT'S APPROVED. AND IF THE PROJECT'S NOT APPROVED, THEN THE SALE WON'T HAPPEN. SO THEY'VE GOT A CONTRACT IN PLACE THAT SAYS IF THE PLANNING BOARD DOES IT, THEN WE PURCHASE. BUT IF THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T, THEN THE PURCHASE DOESN'T HAPPEN. THAT'S USUALLY HOW IT HAPPENS. IT MIGHT BE THE CASE IN THIS, IT MIGHT NOT BE IT, IT SHOULD BE ON THE, ON THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS BASICALLY THEY HAVE TO THE OWNER, YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHO THE OWNER IS AND WHO THE APPLICANT IS. IF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE APPLICANT, IT'S DONE THAT WAY. WE HAVEN'T APPLIED YET FOR SUBDIVISION. RIGHT. WELL, WHEN THAT COMES IN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE RIGHT. IDENTIFY WHO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS. 'CAUSE WE CAN'T APPROVE A PLAN ON SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY. RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE EITHER PERMISSION AND YET HAVE PUT THE OWNER'S NAME ON THERE. RIGHT. AND AS I SAID AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. UM, AND PRIOR TO US DECIDING THAT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT BEFORE WE CAN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL DO A, A, AN INFORMAL INFORMATION SESSION WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN ASK QUESTIONS SIMILAR TO A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT WON'T OFFICIALLY BE A PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE'LL NOTICE WHEN WE'RE GONNA DO THAT. UM, WE MAY DO IT AS SOON AS THIS, WELL, I THINK WE GOT A NOTICE THAT WE DO IT. SO AS SOON AS THE 16TH IS WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. OKAY. TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT, WHY BILL'S DOING THAT IS THAT UNFORTUNATELY THE LAW, THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL APPROVAL STEP THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT BILL HAS OFFERED IS THE PLANNING BOARD IS OFFERING IS THAT BEFORE WE MAKE THAT DECISION ON THE USE OF A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT APPROVING IT. IF WE APPROVE THE USE, THEN THERE'S THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES COMPLETING SEEKER, UH, HAVING PUBLIC HEARINGS, UH, APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLATS, APPROVING FINAL FLATS. THAT'S A ARDUOUS PROCESS AS THEY KNOW. IT'S A PROBABLY A SIX MONTH PROCESS OR SO. BUT BEFORE THAT, THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD NOW IS DO WE, LIKE IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY, RIGHT. WE HAVE TO SAY, DO WE LIKE THEM LOOKING AT THE USE OF CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVING THE USE OF CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT? HAVE THEY MET, THAT'S WHY I GAVE THE PLENTY BOARD MEMBERS WHEN THEY WERE HERE, THEY SHOULD LOOK AT THE CLUSTER LAW. THERE'S REASONINGS FOR ALLOWING A CLUSTER. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT LAW AND SAY, HAVE THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OF WHAT THE TOWN, WHEN THEY FORMED THE CLUSTER LAW, THEY HAD PURPOSES OF REASONING FOR IT. ARE THEY ACCOMPLISHING THAT FOR US TO ALLOW THEM TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CLUSTER OF DEVELOPMENT AND GO THROUGH THAT ARDUOUS PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, SEEKER PUBLIC HEARINGS, ALL THOSE THINGS. SO THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE BEFORE YOU, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO MAKE THAT DECISION TONIGHT, BUT BILL IS SUGGESTING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAYBE SET A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING WHERE WE CAN HAVE SOME BACK AND FORTH IN QUESTIONS SO YOU CAN MAKE SOME LOGICAL DECISION ON AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THAT CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU, YOU NEED TO REFER TO THE CLUSTER LAW AND WHEN YOU MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT CLUSTER REFERENCE, THE, THE LAW AND SAY THIS IS WHY WE'RE ALLOWING IT OR NOT ALLOWING IT, WE MUST BE CONSISTENT IN, IN OUR DECISIONS ON ALLOWING USE OF CLUSTER. SO REFER TO THAT LAW. AND THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT WHY WE WOULD ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW THIS. I MEAN, AS CHRIS SAID, THE THE ONE BIG BENEFIT IS WHY YOU DO CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IS IT BENEFITS THE APPLICANT IN TOWN. AND JUST THE ISSUE OF THERE'S LESS INFRASTRUCTURE. THE TOWN DOESN'T OWN AS MUCH. INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD COST THEM A LOT OF MONEY. THEY DON'T WANNA MAINTAIN, THERE'S LESS INFRASTRUCTURE MORE, BUT THE LAW REQUIRES MORE THAN JUST 'CAUSE EVERY CLUSTER WOULD BE APPROVED. THEN BECAUSE THEY ALL MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE LESS INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND SAY, DOES [01:10:01] THIS MAKE SENSE? RIGHT. WE, WE, IF, IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT, WE HAVE TO GIVE OUR REASONS WHY WE THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT THE TOWN RIGHT. TO DO IT THAT WAY. RIGHT. SO, SO NOT JUST RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S REDUCED INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S EVERY CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IS LIKE THAT. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LAW AND STATE, THE REASONINGS ON THE RECORD THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THAT USE. AND I'M SURE THE PUBLIC WOULD WANT US TO STATE THE REASONS WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THAT. ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT CHRIS BROUGHT UP WAS, WELL, PROVIDES A BIGGER BUFFER TO SOME OF THE ADJOINING RESIDENTS. WELL, SOME OF THOSE RESIDENTS WILL LIKE THAT, BUT THERE MAY BE NEGATIVE EFFECTS BECAUSE OF THAT. SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THOSE THINGS AND LOOK AT WHAT THE CODE SAYS. PLEASE LOOK AT THAT CODE. YOU GO AHEAD. YEAH, I CAN, I CAN UH, POINT OUT SOME CHANGES WE MADE SINCE LAST TIME. OKAY. UM, AGAIN, CHRIS WOOD WITH CARMEN WITH MORRIS, UM, I DID, I DID EMAIL AN UPDATED PLAN TO SARAH. I THINK SHE CIRCULATED TO EVERYBODY. UH, WE DID, WE DID TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE HERE LAST TIME AFTER THE MEETING. AND ONE OF THEIR CONCERNS WAS, UM, THE EXITING OR THE USE OF THE SOUTHERLY ACCESS TO PARKER ROAD. SO WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD MAKE THAT AN EMERGENCY, A GATED EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH HEADLIGHTS SHINING ON THE HOUSES ACROSS, ON THE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD. SO WE DID, UH, WE DID CHANGE THAT TO AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD. RIGHT. AND BY THE WAY, IF THAT'S GONNA BE PART OF OUR CLUSTER LAW, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU GET INPUT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND WHATEVER ABOUT THAT ANYTIME YOU HAVE A GATED EMERGENCY EXIT. HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE OKAY WITH HAVING A GATED EMERGENCY EXIT. RIGHT. THE FIRE FIRE CODE REQUIRES ANY, ANY FOR SALE LOTS OVER 30. OVER OVER MORE THAN 30 LOTS HAVE TO HAVE TWO MEANS INGRESS EGRESS. AND SO IF THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BLAME BOARD'S CONSIDERING. YOU NEED TO AUTHORIZE SARAH TO SEND THIS TO THE FIRE MARSHAL AND, AND WHATEVER, TAKE A LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. IF THAT'S GOING TO SWAY YOUR OPINION ON THE USE OF CLUSTERS. I MEAN, ONE OF, ONE OF THE BENEFITS TOO IS, UH, AS DREW HAD MENTIONED, UH, THE REDUCED INFRASTRUCTURE REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA. WE'RE, WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE 67 LOTS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CLUSTER OR IN THE REGULAR SUBDIVISION. THE HOUSES WILL GENERALLY BE THE SAME SIZE. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SAME AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ON THE HOUSES, BUT THE, THERE'LL BE LESS IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM THE ROADWAYS, WHICH WILL, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE A BENEFIT THAT THE RUNOFF WILL BE LESS FROM THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. THAT IT WOULD BE FROM THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION. YEP. YOU MAKE US A TABLE THAT SHOWS HOW MUCH AREA OF IMPERVIOUS SERVICE ASSOCIATED SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ROADS THERE WOULD BE ON MM-HMM . THE CLUSTER AND UNDER THE REGULAR AS WELL AS ANY OTHER SPECIFIC UTILITIES. I THINK THE DOCUMENTED TABLE OF THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE VALUABLE. YEAH. JUST A COMPARISON OF, UH, THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AS WELL AS ANY CHANGES THAT THEN GO THROUGH, THROUGH TO THE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSERTING THAT THERE'S A REDUCTION IN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED. I WANNA BE ABLE TO QUANTIFY THAT. RIGHT. AND THEN, AND, AND I CAN, I CAN PROVIDE A TABLE TOO THAT WOULD OF THE BENEFITS THAT WE THINK THAT THE CLUSTER PROVIDES COMPARED TO THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION IN ADDITION TO THE STORMWATER STUFF. AND BY THE WAY, I'M GONNA HAND, CHRIS, YOU ALL GOT A, UM, A MEMO IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT ALREADY FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WHO EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS. THEY'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH PAST CLUSTERS. THEY'VE MOSTLY BEEN PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENTS. BUT I THINK CHRIS SHOULD ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT MEMO. NO, I HAVEN'T. CHRIS HERE, AND IT'S A BRAND NEW MEMO JUST CAME OUT YESTERDAY. IT BASICALLY SAYS, HERE'S THE PROBLEMS I'VE HAD WITH SMALLER SIZE LOTS AND CLUSTERS BEFORE. MAKE SURE THAT HE ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF IT, I'M SURE AT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING WHEN WE SCHEDULE IT, CHRIS CAN, UH, HOPEFULLY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. 'CAUSE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THEY HAVE EXPERIENCE WHEN THESE THINGS ARE BEING BUILT. THESE ARE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE. DO THEY, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GET THE SMALLER LOTS AND WHATEVER, THEN THEY WANNA PUT SHEDS IN THE BACKYARD. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO PUT SHEDS ON SOME OF THEM. HOW ARE YOU GONNA DO THAT? THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN, HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN 15 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS BECAUSE THAT'S A FIRE CODE ISSUE. RIGHT. HE'S HAD ONES DEVELOPING WHERE THEY COME IN AND THEY TRY TO GET VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY'RE DOWN TO 12 OR 13 FEET. SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THOSE HOUSES, THAT HE'S FITTING ON THOSE LOTS? AND AGAIN, THE GOOD PART IS YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING 50 FOOT LOTS. 'CAUSE THE BIG PROBLEMS WE HAVE IS WITH THE 50 FOOT LOTS, WE HAVE TROUBLE WITH INFRASTRUCTURE SETBACKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, BUT PLEASE ADDRESS THOSE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT TONIGHT, BUT ADDRESS, MAYBE SHOW A CONCEPTUAL LOT LAYOUT HOW YOU'RE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. RIGHT. AND OUR, OUR, OUR SMALLEST LOT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 10,500 SQUARE FEET. THE CLUSTERING REGULATION ALLOWS 5,000 SQUARE FEET. REGULAR R ONE REQUIRES 15,000 SQUARE FEET. SO WE'RE, WE, WE, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ALLOW. AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT THAT MUCH UNDERNEATH. WHAT, UH, THE R ONE REQUIREMENT ALLOWS, IN FACT, 24, THE 27 OF THE LOTS EXCEED [01:15:01] THE 10,500 SQUARE FOOT. UM, MINIMUM LOT SIZE. AND DID YOU SEE THAT? WOULD ANY OF THE LOTS MEET THE DID SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE? WHAT'S THAT? SORRY, I JUST SAW THE MEMO JUST NOW. OKAY. JUST CAME IN. SORRY, CALY. UM, WOULD ANY OF THE LOTS WE HAVE PROPOSED MEET 2000 OR 15? YEAH, ALL THE LOTS, LOTS. ONE THROUGH SIX ALONG, UH, PARKER ROAD MEET THE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT AND THEY ACTUALLY EXCEED THE LOT WIDTH THAT'S REQUIRED IN R ONE. SO THO THOSE ARE LOTS, ONE THROUGH SIX ARE IN EXCESS OF WHAT R ONE REQUIRES. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY FALL UNDER THE CLUSTERING SIZE LOT. AND THEN THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO INTERNAL LOTS THAT ALSO EXCEED THE 15,000 SQUARE FEET. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. WITHOUT HAVING SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS, I MEAN, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S A REALLY SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE IN THE ROAD LENGTH. SO I THINK HAVING SOME OF THE QUANTIFICATION FOR YOU WOULD BE HELPFUL. LOOKING AT SOMETHING AT THE SCALE IS NOT ALWAYS EVEN NECESSARILY HELPFUL. RIGHT. I CAN, I CAN QUANTIFY THE LENGTH OF THE ROAD IN BOTH SCENARIOS. I WOULD JUST ASK TOO THAT, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD. WAS SOMETHING GONNA ASK, SO IF WE COULD DO, DO YOU HAVE AN EXACT PERCENTAGE, THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT COULD BE LEFT OPEN? YEAH. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING 11.6 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS 32.9%. HOW MUCH OF THAT IS THE RETENTION? OKAY. I WAS UNDER HOW MUCH OF THAT IS THE, IS THE RETENTION POND OUT OF THE 11 ACRES? MAYBE ONE AND A HALF. BUT AGAIN, THE, THE RETENTION PONDS HAVEN'T BEEN DESIGNED IN DETAIL YET. SO WHAT I HAVE ON HERE ARE BASICALLY PLACEHOLDERS THAT ARE PROBABLY LARGER THAN WHAT THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE. AND THEN ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NEED TO CONSIDER FOR CLUSTER IS AN INCREASE IN PAST USE OR PRESERVING VIEWS. HOW DO YOU ANTICIPATE THIS CLUSTERING IS GONNA INCREASE THE TASK OF RECREATIONAL USE? WELL, IN THE, IN THE APARTMENT OPEN SPACE, WE'RE GONNA ENHANCE THAT WITH PLANTINGS AND THEN POTENTIALLY A, A WALKING TRAIL FOR, FOR THE RESIDENTS. SO I THINK THAT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE, UH, THE PASSIVE RECREATION, YOU KNOW, PROVISIONS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT A NORMAL SUBDIVISION WOULD REQUIRES. SO ARE THEN PRESERVING THE VIEWS? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY, WOULD THAT USE, I MEAN, I, I WOULD ASSUME THAT PRESERVING THE VIEWS WOULD BE IF THERE'S ANY VIEWS OF SIGNIFICANCE. UM, OKAY. THERE, THERE IS A VIEW, UH, FROM HERE OF VICTORY ROAD. WE ARE PROPOSING A BERM ON THERE TO KIND OF SCREEN THE VIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION FROM, FROM BIG TREE ROAD. SO I THINK IN THAT CASE, WE'RE KIND OF ENHANCING IT FROM WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS TODAY. BY THE WAY, I WANNA BUILD ON THAT QUESTION, RIGHT? 'CAUSE UH, THE ONE, THE PREVIOUS THAT ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE, SARAH WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP. THE CODE SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL REQUIRE AT LEAST 50 50% OF THE LAND IN THESE ZONES AND 40% IN THE OTHER ZONES. SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A CHOICE. AND JENNIFER, YOUR ATTORNEY COULD TELL YOU, I DON'T THINK THAT IT SAYS SHALL SO I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING BOARD HAS A CHOICE OF THAT. YOU HAVE TO MEET THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF, OF 40%. I BELIEVE IT IS, IT MUST BE PROPOSED AS 32%. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK SOMETHING OUT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT GIVES MUCH IN THE LAND OF OPTION HERE. IT SAYS SHALL RIGHT. ALSO, UM, LOT NUMBER 24. OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT BOUGHT IS FEDERAL WETLANDS WITH THE, THE FEDERAL THAT THERE'S STRUCTURE BUILT ON THERE. WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA IMPACT THOSE WETLANDS. IT'S LESS THAN I 10TH OF AN ACRE. SO WE CAN IMPACT THOSE WETLANDS UNDER NATIONWIDE PERMIT WITHOUT MITIGATION. THERE'S A NOTE ON THE PLAN THAT SAYS THAT SAYS THAT IT'S, YEAH, THE, THAT WETLANDS IS 0.077 ACRES. IS IT WETLAND OR IS IT NON-JURISDICTIONAL? UH, THEY FEEL IT'S A WETLAND, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S WETLAND BECAUSE THE TOWN HAS A WETLANDS LAW AND WE TRY TO PRESERVE AS MUCH WETLANDS. WE DON'T REGULATE WETLANDS ONLY THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES. BUT WE SAY WE TRY TO PRESERVE WETLANDS ON SITE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. WE HAVE A WETLANDS REGULATION, SAME REPORT. BUT LIKE I SAID, I THINK THAT'LL HELP WITH, I THINK YOU'VE GOTTA GET TO THAT PERCENTAGE THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE CODE. I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ANY, ANY LEEWAY IN THAT, BUT RIGHT. I MEAN, IF THEY DID ALLOW CLUSTERING, CAN WE PURSUE A, AN AREA VARIANCE FOR THAT? WELL, [01:20:01] I, YOU HAVE TO GO OFF THE RESEARCH ON THAT. I MEAN, IF WE DO A REGULAR SUBDIVISION, YOU GET, YOU GET 0% OPEN SPACE WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF HOUSES, MORE, MORE IMPERVIOUS AREA. WELL, YOU ACTUALLY DON'T GET ZERO OPEN SPACE. THE TOWN CAN REQUIRE 10% OR 15% OF THE LAND BE DEDICATED AS OPEN SPACE OR WHATEVER, OR TAKE MONEY IN LIEU OF. RIGHT. UM, BUT, BUT IT, IT, IT IS AN ISSUE WE GOTTA RESOLVE BECAUSE THE CODE IS, IT'S VERY EMPHATIC ON THAT. AND IT SAYS THAT LAND FOR OPEN SPACE SHALL SERVE A PURPOSE OF EITHER PRESERVING OPEN FEATURES, RIGHT. PROVIDING RECREATIONAL OP, PASSIVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVING VIEWS, ET CETERA. IT'S NOT JUST SUPPOSED TO BE. RIGHT. I GET IT. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE. IT BE THAT HAS NO USE TO IT. RIGHT. FOUND WHEN SOMETHING WITH NO USE TO IT. RIGHT. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS PASSIVE OPEN SPACE. RIGHT. OKAY. SO I THINK, I THINK THOSE ARE IN SARAH, THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST ISSUES ABOUT MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT AND SHOWING THAT THIS LAND THAT YOU'RE HAVING, WHETHER IT'S 40% OR 50% OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, THAT IT SERVES SOME PURPOSE, THAT IT ACTUALLY ACTUALLY ENHANCES THE COMMUNITY. CAN, CAN THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE SOMETHING WITHOUT THE 50%? IF WE CAN SHOW THAT, WE'LL, WE'LL DO SOME RESEARCH. THE CODE SAYS SHALL SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN, MY, MY MY POINT IS MINIMUM OUT SIZE IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR CLUSTERING. RIGHT? WE'RE 10,000 SQUARE FEET. RIGHT. IF WE WENT TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WE DO. WELL THAT'S ONLY, IF, THAT'S ONLY IF THE PLANNING WON OPS TO ALLOW CLUSTERING. I MEAN I THINK THAT ISSUE IS STILL IN FRONT OF US AS WELL. RIGHT. BUT, BUT, BUT WHAT MY POINT IS, IS IS IF WE PROPOSED CLUSTERING AND WE PROPOSED 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, WE'D HAVE FAR, WE'D FAR EXCEED THE 50% OPEN SPACE BECAUSE IT'D BE MUCH LARGER OR MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT OF IMPACT. BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GO SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THE SMALLEST CLUSTERING LOT AND THE LARGEST R ONE LOT AND PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT ALSO PROVIDES A LARGE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE. AND THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY DO THAT OTHER THAN GET AREA VARIANCES FOR ALL THE LOT SIZES IS TO PROPOSE CLUSTERING. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS HERE IN CONCLUDING SOME INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICER AND THE COMMENTS THERE. I THINK THE MORE INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE MM-HMM . UM, SPECIFICS THAT WILL HELP FOLKS. AND I LOVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S IDEA AND BILL'S IDEA TO HAVE A PUBLIC INFORMATION. LET'S HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE PLUSES. AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON THE CLUSTER, WHETHER WE'RE GONNA ALLOW CLUSTER OR NOT. NOT THE, THE ISSUES WE NORMALLY DO WITH A PUBLIC HEARING IS WHAT DO THEY FEEL LIKE ABOUT THE ISSUES OF A CLUSTER? IS IT BENEFICIAL TO AUTHORIZE USE OF CLUSTER? AND THEN WE GET INTO ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE SUBDIVISION LAW. BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD TO GET SOME INPUT TO SAY, HEY, IT'S YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, DOES THIS PRESENT TO DO ANYTHING FOR THE AREA OF THE TOWN? CAN WE, THE TOWN ITSELF, CAN WE, CAN WE POTENTIALLY MAKE A DECISION NEXT MEETING? 'CAUSE IF WE'RE NOT GONNA PURSUE CLUSTERING, THEN WE'LL GET STARTED ON THE REGULAR SUBDIVISION. RIGHT? RIGHT. WELL, YEAH, I THINK POTENTIALLY WE, WE'LL HAVE THAT INFORMATION SESSION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE, RIGHT. UM, I MEAN IF SOMETHING COMES UP THAT'S UNEXPECTED THAT WE THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OR YOU'D PROBABLY WANT MORE RIGHT. THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE INFORMATION, THEN WE WOULDN'T, BUT, UM, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THE, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LETTER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, LET ME READ SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. SO PEOPLE WHO DO WANT TO ATTEND THE INFORMATION SESSION AT THE NEXT MEETING ALREADY KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO GUESS. UH, NUMBER ONE, THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. THE EASEMENTS WILL FURTHER REDUCE THE AVAILABLE YARD AREA THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WILL HAVE AVAILABLE FOR POOLS, SHEDS, DECKS, ET CETERA. WE'VE HAD MANY HOMEOWNERS SET THAT PLANS FOR THEIR BACKYARD POOL OR SHED DON'T FIT IN THEIR LOTS. UH, TWO, THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN PROPOSES SEVEN AND A HALF MINIMUM SIDE YARDS, 15 FEET TOTAL AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS OF 15 FEET. THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MANAGE AND WILL LIKELY CREATE A NEED FOR VARIANCES AS THE BUILDER MUST PROVIDE A SPOT SURVEY SHOWING THE ADJOINING FOUNDATION TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE 15 FOOT. BUILD IT BETWEEN BUILDING REQUIREMENT. IN MANY INSTANCES, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ERROR IN SETTING THE BASEMENT FOUNDATIONS TO MAINTAIN SUCH TIGHT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. THREE, THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN ALSO PROPOSES A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 TO 30. THIS SHORTENS THE DRIVEWAYS AND CAUSES VEHICLES OR TRAILERS TO OBSTRUCT THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. FOUR, SIMILAR TO NUMBER ONE, THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN ALSO PROPOSED A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM REAR YARD FROM 30 FEET TO 25. THIS COMBINED WITH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN AT THIS TIME, FURTHER CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR THE [01:25:01] HOMEOWNER WHO DESIRES A SWIMMING POOL, POOL HOUSE, OR A TOOL SHED. SO THO THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS WE'VE GOT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WE CAN, WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE. RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY ON THE BOARD? NO. UM, SO WE, WE DO HAVE SOME RESIDENTS HERE AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL IF ANYBODY WISHES, AS I SAID, WE'LL, WE'LL SET A A, A MORE INFORMAL INFORMATION SESSION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING FOR EVERYBODY TO GIVE THEIR INPUT. BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO GIVE MAYBE A, A GENERAL COMMENT NOW, UM, OR SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO FOR THEM. RIGHT. OR IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, WOULD THEY WANT ANSWERED BY ME BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? I CAN DO THAT TOO. OKAY. OR, OR ANY QUESTIONS. WE'LL HAVE YOU COME UP. UM, WE'LL HAVE 'EM GO UP THERE. OKAY. SO WE WANT TO SPEAK, COME UP TO THE PODIUM PLEASE. UH, AND THEN WHEN YOU GET THERE, CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BECAUSE SARAH'S NOT HERE RIGHT NOW TO, UH, TO WRITE IT DOWN. SO SHE'LL HAVE TO GET IT DOWN THE RECORDING. BY THE WAY, SHE WASN'T FEELING WELL SO I SAID GO HOME. HE SAYS IT WASN'T ANY COVID. . ALRIGHT. UM, SO NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. UH, I'M TIM COOK. UM, 4 3 8 8 PARKER ROAD ON WHERE? THE HOUSE RIGHT IN BETWEEN. SO YOU'VE GOT A PAPER DRIVEWAY RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOUSE. UM, MY QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY SINCE THE ROAD IS, SEEMS TO BE QUITE BUSY, UM, WITH ADDING 67 MORE HOUSES, ROUGHLY TWO CARS PER IN AND OUT. HAS A TRAFFIC STUDY BEEN DONE ON HOW BUSY THAT ROAD'S GOING TO THEN BE? NB, HOW IT IMPACTS? WE'LL PROBABLY REQUEST ONE ONCE WE DECIDE ON A CLUSTER. 'CAUSE WHETHER THEY DO CLUSTER OR REGULAR, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHT. SAME AMOUNT. RIGHT. SO IT WILL BE, YOU CAN ASK PLANNING BOARD, BUT TYPICALLY WE'LL REQUIRE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO BE DONE TO LOOK AT THAT. THAT'S PART OF THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS. GOTCHA. WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC IS ALWAYS A BIG DEAL. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL THAT'S WHO WE ARE WONDERING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? AND I FORGET IS, IS, IS PARKER OR TOWN ROAD THERE OR IS IT TOWN? IT'S TOWN ROAD, RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH. REMEMBER. SO NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. UH, MY NAME IS JACK FOLEY. I LIVE AT 47 26 JOHN MICHAEL WAY. AND UH, THIS PROJECT IS LITERALLY IN MY BACKYARD. UH, SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS, WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE SEVEN YEARS AGO, IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THERE WAS A BUFFER BETWEEN MY PROPERTY LINE AND PROPERTY LINE OF WHERE THAT FARM IS. UH, THERE WAS A, A BUFFER OF LIKE 20 FEET THAT COULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED. IS IS THAT TRUE OR WAS THAT BUFFER ON YOUR PROPERTY OR ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY? IT'S FROM, IT'S FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. YES, IT'S FROM MY, MY PROPERTY LINE IN TOWARDS THE FARM. WE WOULD HAVE TO, I'LL DO THAT RESEARCH, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WAS FILED IN THE DEED RESTRICTING THAT. SO HOPEFULLY SOMEONE DIDN'T LIE TO YOU. IF IT WAS ON YOUR PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT. I SEE HERE ON THE PLAN IF I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT. IF I, IF I GET PARKER ROAD IN THE RIGHT SPOT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME WETLANDS THAT THAT'S A TREE LINE THAT NO, IT'S A TREE LINE. YEAH, THE SQUIGGLY LINE IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. YEAH, THEY, THEY, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY SAID THE, THE BUMPER, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING THE REAR YARD SETBACK. SO, SO THERE COULDN'T BE A HOUSE BUILT WITHIN THAT. SO, SO FOR YOUR, IF YOU'VE SEEN THE TWO PLANS, UM, THE CLUSTER HAD THAT OPEN SPACE. HE'S TALKING ABOUT HERE'S THE PLAN THAT WOULD BE BEHIND YOUR HOUSE. THE OPEN SPACE. THIS IS THE CLUSTER PLAN HERE. THREE RIGHT THERE. RIGHT. SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, FROM HERE TO HERE IS 335 FEET BEFORE ANY LOT WOULD START. THAT'S ALSO WHERE HE'S TALKING ABOUT MAYBE THE RECREATIONAL TRAIL. YEAH. HAS THE RIGHT PLAN. YOUR NEIGHBOR'S RIGHT THERE. OKAY, SO THEY WANT DO THE OTHER PLAN. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. IT'S, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE CREATING ADDITIONAL IMPIOUS AREA, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT NOT ONLY FROM THE TOWN, FROM THE STATE, THAT UH, WE HAVE TO MANAGE THAT STORM WATER. WE HAVE TO, WE CAN'T DISCHARGE ANY MORE OFF THE SITE. WHAT CURRENTLY GOES OUT THERE. SO THESE AREAS PROVIDE AN AREA FOR TREATMENT AND THEN ALSO ATTENUATION, WHICH IN SIMPLE WORDS, IT'S A POND. WELL NOT NECESSARILY A POND. IT'S GOTTA HOLD WATER. RIGHT. CAN, IT'S GOTTA HOLD WATER. RIGHT. WELL IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HOLD PERMANENT AREA OR, YEAH, WELL IT'S KIND OF HAVE, WELL IT HAS YET. [01:30:01] SO WHETHER IT'S A POND OR GRASS RETENTION, WHAT THEY CALL BUYER RETENTION AND DETENTION WHERE THE BUYER RETENTION TREATS IT FIRST BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE DETENTION. IT'S A LARGE HOLE. THE GROUND BASICALLY THAT TEMPORARILY HOLDS THE WATER AND LETS IT OUT IT'S CONTROL RATES. SO CURRENTLY IN BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THERE'S TREES AND EVERYTHING IN THERE NOW. MM-HMM . WOULD ALL THAT BE TAKEN DOWN? OH, WAY UNDER THE CLUSTERING. IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE TOUCHED. AND THE CLUSTERING, IF YOU THROW THAT PLANT OVER HIS IDEAS AND THE CLUSTERING THAT AREA THAT'S AREA HERE WOULD'VE TO BE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE THAT'VE TO BE, THAT HAD TO BE FOREVER THAT WAY. EXCEPT FOR WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THE POND, OBVIOUSLY. OR THE STRUCTURE. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE ARE POSITIVES TO THE, OBVIOUSLY FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, POSITIVES TO THE CLUSTER, NEGATIVES TO THE REGULAR LAYOUT. BUT YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE ALSO NEGATIVES TO THE CLUSTER. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE. WHAT ARE THE PLUSES AND MINUSES? SHOULD WE ALLOW 'EM TO DO THE CLUSTER OR SHOULD WE JUST SAY, HEY, WE'RE NOT GONNA ALLOW YOU TO USE THE CLUSTER TO DO THE REGULAR SUB. AND ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS REGARDING TRAFFIC COMING FROM PARKER RENT TO 20 A THERE RIGHT. WILL THERE BE A LIGHT OR ANYTHING INSTALLED THERE? BECAUSE THEY EITHER THROUGH TRAFFIC THERE, THEY'LL DO A TRAFFIC COUNT, THEY'LL DO, THEY'LL DO THAT. AND THAT, THAT THERE, WHERE THEY'RE CONNECTING, IS THERE, IS THAT A COUNTY OR STATE? ? WHAT'S THAT? STATE? IT'S A STATE. SO WE'LL SUBMIT THE INFORMATION. THE STATE HAS TO DETERMINE IF LIGHTS ARE WARRANTED OR NOT. THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN WARRANTS. THE VERY, THERE'S, THERE'S FIVE CRITERIA, RIGHT? FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THE ENTRANCE HERE FROM, YOU'RE GONNA SMP AT THIS, BUT TYPICALLY THE DOT LOOKS AT A SUBDIVISION THIS SIZE AND SAYS IT HAS NO IMPACT. THEY, THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT HAS MORE THAN A HUNDRED TRIPS PER HOUR. THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE CAN ASK, BUT THE DO T'S GONNA SAY WE DON'T EVEN ASK SOMETHING UNLESS IT, IT GENERATES MORE THAN A HUNDRED TRIPS PER HOUR. AND A REALLY DIFFICULT THING WITH A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AND THE TRAFFIC QUESTIONS IS THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE, UH, AS OF RIGHT SUBDIVISION IS, AND THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION WOULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE THERE'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF LOTS. SO YOU WOULDN'T ASSUME THAT THE THE DIFFERENT LOTS HAD DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. SO, SO AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT GOES ON OUR END, THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR US TO HAVE A, TO PUT A LOT OF WEIGHT IN SOME OF THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE THE, AS OF RIGHT AND THE CLUSTER ARE GONNA HAVE THE SAME TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THOSE OTHER ROADS. UM, WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT IS IF WE THOUGHT ONE OF THE PLANS WAS SAFER THAN THE OTHER, SOMETHING WAS DESIGNED THAT LOOKED LIKE IT, IT, IT CAUSED AN INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS. BUT REALLY THE WAY THESE PLANS ARE WHERE THEY COME OUT ONTO THE EXISTING ROADS, THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLUSTER AND THE AS OF RIGHT. SO, SO TRAFFIC'S GONNA BE ONE OF THE, IT ISN'T GONNA BE AS HIGH ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE'VE GOTTA CONSIDER WHEN WE MAKE THIS PARTICULAR DECISION. SO ONCE WE MAKE THE DECISION ON, AS I TOLD THAT GENTLEMAN, ONCE WE MAKE THE DECISION ON CLUSTER OR REGULAR, THEN THEY'LL DO A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT. AND ONCE YOU HEARD EARLIER WITH THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE WAS WAS THE FACT THAT UNFORTUNATELY FIRE SAFETY LAWS SAYS THAT FOR A SUBDIVISION OVER A CERTAIN SIDE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO IN AND OUT. I CAN'T JUST HAVE ONE. THEY'RE PROPOSING THE IDEA THAT ONE OF THE ENTRANCES, YOU KNOW, THAT GENTLEMAN'S HOUSE VA VA, UM, GATED, GATED ENTRANCE AND NOT BE PERMIT. SO WE HAVE TO FIND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. THEY HAVE TO HAVE TWO WAYS IN AND OUT. 'CAUSE GOD FORBID IF YOU ONLY HAD ONE, ONE GETS BLOCKED. NOW HOW DO YOU GET EVERYBODY OUT, YOU KNOW, IN AN EMERGENCY DOESN'T, WHAT'S THAT? WHERE THIS GENTLEMAN LIVES ONLY HAS ONE? YEAH, THERE'S PRIOR TO NEW FIRE CODE, THERE'S A LOT OF, THERE'S A YOU, SO THERE, THE PATIO HOMES DOWN THERE ONLY HAVE, BUT NOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS RULES ARE RULES HAVE, THE RULES ARE GOTTA HAVE TWO OVER 30. YOU GOTTA HAVE TWO WAYS IN AND OUT AND THEY CAN'T BE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. THEY GOTTA BE REMOTE. NOW IS THAT ROAD NEXT DOOR, KAREN HERE GONNA BEATED HOLD ON, HOLD ON. PHYSICALLY NO, WE, WE HAVE TO MAKE MINUTES. OH, I'M SORRY. SO, SO JUST KIND OF SHOUTING OUT IS ISN'T UH OKAY. ISN'T GONNA QUITE WORK, BUT WE'LL WE'LL WE GET A CHANCE TO TO COME UP AND ASK YOU QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK, THANK YOU. WE KNOW. OKAY, WAS GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT PAGE. MY NAME'S PEGGY IED 43 69. 43 69 PARKER ROAD. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN PLEASE? PEGGY ALVIS. OKAY. A-L-V-E-S. THANK YOU. SO JUST ABOUT THAT ROAD AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THAT ROAD, IS THAT PHYSICALLY GATED? YEAH. IS THE ONE DOWN WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT. SO THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY PUTTING A PHYSICAL BARRIER OF A GATE SO PEOPLE DON'T COME OUT OF THAT ROAD SO THEIR HEADLIGHTS DON'T SHINE [01:35:01] ON THE STREET. DEPARTMENT GETS KEYS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A LOCKBOX KEYS TO GET IN AND OUT. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. SO WE DON'T DUNNO IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT. THEY HAVE TO AGREE THAT'S UP TO THEM. UM, AND ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER WITH TRAFFIC, AS DREW SAID, THEY'RE GONNA DO A TRAFFIC STUDY IF IT GETS PAST THIS PART WHERE WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE CLUSTER VERSUS THE AS OF RIGHT. UM, OR IF THEY WANT TO BUILD THE AS OF RIGHT, IF WE DENY THE CLUSTER, THEY'LL, THEY'LL DO A TRAFFIC STUDY. BUT AS DREW MENTIONED, THAT TRAFFIC STUDY IS GONNA SAY THAT THIS IMPACT ISN'T SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR US TO SAY IT'S TOO MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON OUR DETERMINATION WITH SEEKER. SO WE'RE SAYING THAT DOT WILL SAY IT'S NOT RIGHT. WE MAY SAY IT HAS A LOCAL IMPACT OF NATURE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE NUMBERS YET, BUT TYPICALLY DOT FOR THIS SIZE IS GONNA SAY IT HAS NO IMPACTS. IT'S ON WHAT? ON IT'S BASED ON THE TRAFFIC IS THE IMPACT IS SO SMALL. RIGHT. AND IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE DIFFERENCE BASE IT ON A HUNDRED TRIPS PER HOUR. IF A PROJECT DOESN'T GENERATE BY THEIR MANUALS, IT'S CALLED AN IT MANUAL. IF IT DOESN'T GENERATE A HUNDRED TRIPS PER HOUR, THEY THINK IT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL TO THE ROAD SYSTEM. IF IT GENERATES MORE THAN A HUNDRED TRIPS PER HOUR, THEY ASK THEM TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. THEY LOOK AT WARRANTS FOR STREET LIGHTS, ET CETERA. I'M JUST TELLING YOU UNFORTUNATELY DONE THIS FOR 40 YEARS, THAT TYPICALLY, UNLESS IT GEN GENERATES A HUNDRED TRIPS PER HOUR, THE STATE DOESN'T CARE. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE, WE DON'T CARE. BUT THE STATE'S GONNA SAY DOESN'T GENERATE A SUBDIVISION THIS SIZE IN THE, IT MANUAL GENERATES ABOUT 30 TO 40 PEAK TRIPS PER HOUR IS WHAT THE, WHAT THE MANUAL SAYS. SO JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT TO EXPECT, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THAT'S COME BACK SAYING THIS IS TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. YOU CAN UH, UH, THAT WE COULD THEN REALLY HANG OUR HAT ON. WOW. SO GET SO, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S LIKE GRAND CENTRAL STATION ON THAT ROAD. I'VE BEEN THERE THREE, FIVE YEARS. IT, IT'S HORRIBLE. SO THAT'S ALL I SAID. UM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAN DO WITH THE LAYOUT THAT YOU THINK COULD HELP THEM, KATE, WE CAN'T, YOU'RE BREAKING UP CALY. CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? WE COULD. I WE GET IT RIGHT. OKAY. SO, SO, SO, SO WHAT SHE SAID IS SHE, SHE APPRECIATES YOUR COMMENT, BUT WE SHOULD REALLY SPECULATE ON IT UNTIL WE GET A TRAFFIC STUDY. RIGHT. OKAY. GET THE INFORMATION. ALRIGHT. UM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY SEES IN THE LAYOUT THAT THEY THINK WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, THAT'S THE TYPE OF COMMENT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR. UM, CUT LIKE THE, THE RESIDENT WHO COMPLAINED THAT THERE WOULD BE, UM, LIGHT HEADLIGHTS SHINING IN THEIR OR INTO THEIR HOUSE, THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER AND THAT WAS WHY THEY BURNED OUT PROPOSING THE GATE THERE SO PEOPLE DON'T DRIVE OUT THAT WAY TO SHINE IN THAT PERSON'S HOUSE. UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR TONIGHT? CHRIS? DID YOU MENTION ABOUT THE BURN AROUND THE BACKSIDE OF THAT ONE HOUSE? WE TALKED TO THE HOMEOWNER. OH, AROUND THE BACKSIDE HERE. YEAH. RIGHT. THAT'S ONE OF THE, THAT'S ALSO IN THE, IN THE BUMPER. YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME OF THESE RESIDENTS ALONG PARKER THAT ARE CLOSER THAN THE 335 FEET WE'RE, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THAT DOESN'T REALLY BENEFIT THEM. SO WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD, WE WOULD PUT A BERM ALONG PART OF THAT AND THAT'D BE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE OPEN SPACE. SO, BUT YES, CAN COME UP HERE AND I JUST NAME AND AND ADDRESS PLEASE. UM, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU GET UP THERE. 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA GO ON THE TAPE FOR, OKAY. LAURA KOSKI, UM, 43. CAN YOU SPELL THAT? P-O-D-K-U-L-S-K-I SARAH KNOWS IT RIGHT? OH DOES SHE? OKAY. 43 32 MCKINLEY PARKWAY. THIS I, I'M SORRY, BUT THIS IS IN REGARDS TO NUMBER ONE, AND I KNOW YOU ARE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING WHO OWNS THE, THE ROAD GOING INTO UM, UH, BIG TREE INTO WHERE BOUNCE MAGIC IS? WHO OWNS THAT ROAD? OH, YOU'RE BACK TO THAT. GOING BACK TO THAT PROBABLY REVERTED TO TOM ROAD, THE DOT ABANDONED AND EVERYTHING. YEAH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE IT SAYS THERE IS STOP SIGNS OF STOP PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO WHO OWNS THAT ROAD DOESN'T. RIGHT? A LOT OF CARS PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE COMING FROM, FROM THAT SUBDIVISION. THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING DOWN IN THERE AND GOING THROUGH THAT. GET THE TOP THIS SUBDIVISION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. THEY'RE GONNA GO THAT WAY TO GO TO TOPS. YES. OKAY. SO YOU'RE GONNA BE CAUSING A LOT OF CONGESTION ON THAT ROAD RIGHT THERE GOING INTO TOPS AND ON TOPS YOU'RE GONNA CUT THROUGH THE OLD WALMART PARKING [01:40:01] LOT. YEAH. THINK, THINK. YEAH. AND I LIVE THERE AND WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T EVEN GET TO OUR HOUSE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH TIM COOK AGAIN FROM 43 88 PARKER ROAD. JUST A QUICK QUESTION AS I'M THINKING ABOUT THE OPEN GREEN SPACE, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH HAS TO BE THE 40 AND 50% RIGHT? TO WORK WITH THE, THE CLUSTER. OKAY. AS I'M SITTING THERE THINKING, I'M LIKE, IS THERE, WAS THERE A MAGIC NUMBER YOU HAD TO STAY WITH? YOU SAID 67 HOUSES. I'M THINKING, OKAY, SO IF YOU HAD TO TAKE AWAY A FEW OF 'EM TO GET UP TO YOUR 40 OR 50%, DOES THAT REALLY CHANGED EVERYTHING THAT WAY CLUSTER BECOMES A MORE POSITIVE AND IT GETS YOUR 40 TO 50%. I DIDN'T KNOW IF 67 IS SOME MAGIC NUMBER. 67 IS A MAGIC NUMBER IN THAT. THAT'S THE AMOUNT THEY COULD HAVE IF THEY DIDN'T DO A CLUSTER. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAGIC, THE NUMBER, THAT'S THE THAT'S HOW MANY, BUT CAN THEY, BUT CAN THEY REDUCE THE NUMBER? WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN BRING IT UP LIKE RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE THE WAY, THAT'D BE ONLY WAY TO DO IT UNLESS, RIGHT, AND THAT'S WHAT I, AS I WAS LISTENING TO YOU TALK ABOUT THE SQUARE SPACE, I'M THINKING, OKAY, THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS SUBTRACT A FEW OF 'EM TO BRING YOUR PERCENTAGE UP AND THAT, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE SCOPE OF THE WHOLE LAYOUT. AND THEN EVERYBODY MIGHT NOT DUNNO. THAT'S THAT'S OKAY. WELL THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE 67 WAS. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO WAS TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. 67 IS, IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY COULD DO IF THEY, IF THEY DID THEM ALL AS REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND BY THE WAY, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG DECISIONS, PLANNING WHERE WE MAKE IS NOT ONLY ON ALLOWING THE USE OF CLUSTER, IMPROVING THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN THAT CLUSTER. DO WE AGREE WITH THAT? IT'S 67 LOTS OR NOT. SO IT IS A BIG, AND WE COULD SAY, HEY, WE APPROVE THE USE OF CLUSTER, BUT IT'S ONLY 62 LOTS OR WHATEVER. BUT AGAIN, IT CAN'T BE ARBITRARY, BUT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH REASONING. WHY IF IT DOESN'T, FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T LIKE THE REGULAR LAYOUT. THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD DO THIS BECAUSE OF X, Y, AND Z. YOU REALLY CAN ONLY GET 62 LOTS HERE. THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THIS TO 62 LOTS. MM-HMM . AND WE ACTUALLY COVERED THAT ISSUE BEFORE IN OUR CODE. AND CHRIS KNOWS THIS. OUR CODE HAD A FORMULA. IT HAS A FORMULA THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, OKAY, SUBTRACT OUT THIS AND WHATEVER, AND YOU COME UP WITH A NUMBER. BUT WE REPLACE THAT ALSO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU GOTTA SHOW US THAT IT WORKS, LAY SOMETHING OUT AND SHOW US THAT IT WORKS. AND THE FORMULA JUST CODE THE, THE FORMULA. YOU WOULD GET A LOT MORE GET 83. BUT THE FORMULA IS, IS ONLY ONE FIRST STEP AND SECOND STEP IS YOU GOTTA SHOW US THAT'S AND, AND SAY MRS. CUMBER POINTED OUT EARLIER, LOTS THAT ARE ON WETLANDS ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT WHEN WE JUST, WHEN WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT 67 IS A GOOD NUMBER. IF THERE'RE DISTURBING TOO MANY WETLANDS, THEN THAT 67 WOULDN'T BE A GOOD NUMBER. UH, DOES ANYBODY, JUST LIKE A GENERAL QUESTION, UH, BECAUSE AS ALI SAID IN THE BEGINNING, TO APPROVE A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT IT BENEFITED THE TOWN. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT FEELS THAT THERE IS A BENEFIT TO THE TOWN OF THAT CLUSTER THAT'S PROPOSED? UM, I'LL ASK IT AGAIN NEXT WEEK WHEN THERE'LL PROBABLY BE MORE PEOPLE HERE, BUT JUST, JUST TO GENERAL THROW IT OUT THERE. ANYBODY HAVE, HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT TONIGHT? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD? NO. OKAY. THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION THAT WILL BE NOTICED IN THE PAPER AS A INFORMATION SESSION FOR DAVID MANKO ON SEPTEMBER 16TH. SECOND. SO, MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIED. THAT IS OUR LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. BILL. CAN I JUST SAY FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE HERE, TRY TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING BECAUSE WE TECHNICALLY DON'T ADVERTISE IT AS A PUBLIC HEARING AND PEOPLE WON'T UNDERSTAND. RIGHT. SO WE WE CAN'T WE CAN'T DO THAT. BUT IF YOU GET THE WORD OUT, WE'LL TRY TO GET THE WORD OUT BEST WE CAN. YEAH. SO, SO THE 16TH WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE COME IN AND WE'LL TAKE COMMENTS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST DID, BUT, UH, WE'LL EXPECT A LOT MORE OF THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO LETTING SARAH KNOW THAT YOU SCHEDULED [01:45:01] A PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION. RIGHT. SO FOR THE RECORD, SARAH, WE'VE SCHEDULED A PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION IF IT CAN BE NOTED AS THAT. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING PUBLIC HEARING, JUST REPLACE THE WORD HEARING WITH INFORMATION SESSION. SO I AM TRYING TO PULL UP THE MINUTES HERE FROM AUGUST 19TH. YES. THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19TH. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. UH, AUGUST 19TH. I SECOND. OKAY. SO MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES BY MRS. MCCORMICK. SECOND BY MRS. ERFORD. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION CARRIER. UM, DOUG ISN'T HERE THIS WEEK, SO MOTION. ADJOURN THE MEETING. OKAY. MOTION. OKAY. MOTION BY MRS. MCCORMICK TO ADJOURN. SECOND BY MRS. ERFORD. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIED A 15. THAT'S VERY, THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S THE EARLIEST. WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN DONE IN QUITE A WHILE, HASN'T IT? OKAY. SO YOU CAN STOP THE SPEED. I CAN EAT MY DINNER NOW. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.