[00:00:01]
THAT MIGHT BE A PARTICULAR, JUST IN THE EVENT THAT YOU GUYS WANT A QUICK REFERRAL, EIGHT OF THEM.UM, BROADWAY GROUP IS REQUESTING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROJECT LOCATED, UM, ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD BETWEEN PROMPT AND DRIVE AND ABBOTT ROAD.
IT WILL BE A RETAIL STA STORE.
THE TOTAL SITE IS ABOUT TWO ACRES.
UM, THE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED IS ABOUT ONE ACRE.
IT'S PROPERLY ZONED AS A C ONE COMMERCIAL AREA.
THE BUILDING WILL BE ABOUT 70 TO SIX BY 140 FEET AND APPROXIMATELY 10,640 SQUARE FEET.
IT WILL BE A RETAIL STORE WITH ABOUT EIGHT TO 10 EMPLOYEES.
THERE WILL BE 30 PARKING SPOTS, UH, PROPOSED ON THE SITE AS ARTICULATED IN THE, UM, SUBMISSION PRIORLY PRIOR SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.
IT IS A MUNICIPAL WATER, UM, AND PRIVATE SEWER.
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT'LL BE A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND POTENTIALLY A MOUND SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT HAVE APPROVAL OF THAT ONE YET.
UM, AND THE APPLICATION, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST SAID? WAIT, YOU SAY THERE IS SEPTIC AND WATER? IT'S MUNICIPAL WATER, AND THERE WILL BE A SEPTIC AND I'LL LIKELY IT WILL BE A MOUND SYSTEM.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN THERE YET WITH RESPECT TO APPROVING THE ANY SEPTIC SYSTEM YET.
ACCORDING TO YOUR GUIDELINES, I BELIEVE YOU GUYS SHOULD BE IN RECEIPT OF A FULL FORM EAF.
UM, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME WETLANDS ON THE PRO PROPERTY PROPOSED SITE, POTENTIALLY 0.277 ACRES.
UH, WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UH, TO AWAIT JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE WEATHER TO CLEAR AND HAVE TIME AND RESOURCES TO DO AN ONSITE INSPECTION, BUT WE ARE STILL HOPING FOR A DESKTOP DETERMINATION.
UM, IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPER TO PRESERVE AS MUCH NATURAL VEGETATION AND TREES AS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE PROPOSED SITE ABIDES BY ALL THE, UH, REQUIRED SETBACK PROVISIONS.
MOST NOTABLY, YOU'LL LOOK AT THE REAR SIDE SETBACKS.
THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW IS 35 OR ASSUMING 40, UH, FEET.
AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS A 79 FEET, UH, REAR SETBACK.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE REAR OF THE PROJECT.
THAT'S WHY IN PART, WHILE WE ARE HAVING THE DESIGN OF THE 79 FOOT SETBACK.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WILL BE A PRIVACY FENCE BUFFER TO THE, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN GIVEN THE AREA ON THE NORTHEAST PROPERTY, WE INTEND ON LEAVING A LOT OF THE VEGETATION AND, UH, GROWTH THAT IS THERE TO SERVE AS A NATURAL BUFFER.
UM, WE HAVE COM UH, THEY HAVE, UH, PERFORMED A PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS.
ALL THE LIGHT WILL BE CONTAINED ON SITE HOURS OF OPERATION, WILL NOT EXCEED 10:00 PM AT NIGHT.
UM, THIS IS A NON DESTINATION RETAIL STORE DURING PEAK HOURS.
WE'RE ANTICIPATING 30 TO 40 TRIPS, UM, AS EVIDENCE IN THE PAPERWORK.
WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED FOR THE LAYOUT FOR MEANS OF INGRESS EGRESS FOR DELIVERY VEHICLES, WHICH WILL ALL HAPPEN DURING THE DAY.
UM, AT THIS POINT WE OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS OF THE PROJECT.
IS THERE, THIS IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE BIRDS BIKES PARKING LOT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLY USING THEIR ENTRANCE, UH, TO NOT HAVE ANOTHER CURB CUT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN? UM, I, I, I, I CAN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THAT AND I'LL ASK TARA TO CHIME IN AT ANY TIME.
I KNOW THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS FOR A CURB CUT IN THE SOUTHWESTERN OF WHICH THEY DON'T POSE ANY ISSUE.
AND THE MINIMUM THING BILL WILL REQUEST, IT'S IN THE SITE PLAN REGULATIONS.
WE DO, UH, COORDINATE THE DOT FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT.
WE GET A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO.
IF YOU DO GET TO
UM, ACCESS MANAGEMENT IS, IS CODIFIED IN OUR SITE LINE REGULATIONS AND WE'RE REALLY ENCOURAGING IT.
AND IF WE NEED TO HELP YOU WORK WITH WORK TWICE, THEY GOT A CONNECTION.
I BELIEVE WHEN WE DID FIRST BIKES, I THINK WE LEFT THE PAVEMENT THERE TO ALLOW CONNECTIONS TO BE DOING PROPERTY.
YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S DESIGNED THAT WAY WHEN YOU LOOK AT BIRD BIKES.
UM, I MEAN, I THINK THE BIG THING IS THIS IS MUCH DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE LAST ONE, SO I I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME ISSUES WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
THERE'S A CROSSWALK RIGHT THERE.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO A SIDEWALK AS WELL.
[00:05:01]
SO THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, YEAH, THIS IS BOB.
UM, WHEN DID YOU STATE IT WOULD BE A MAP OF THE WETLANDS FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS? UH, I, WE CAN'T GIVE A PRECISE TIME.
UM, I KNOW THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO GET THAT DETERMINATION.
THERE'S HOPE STILL THAT THEY WILL DO A DESKTOP DETERMINATION IF THEY DO A SITE REVIEW.
THEY PROBABLY HAVE TO WAIT FOR, UM, THE WEATHER TO CLEAR UP A LITTLE BIT.
UM, TARA MIGHT HAVE A MORE SPECIFIC, UH, TIMELINE ON THAT.
AND IS TARA ABLE? YEAH, I'LL BE GLAD TO PROVIDE SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE WETLANDS.
WE DID HAVE A WETLAND SCIENTIST MAP OUT THE AREA OF WETLANDS AND THE, UM, REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO USE SPACE LAST YEAR.
SO THEY'VE HAD IT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW.
UM, AND AS JOE STATED, WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE GROUND FALLS AND THE SNOW IS CLEAR.
THEY COULD COME OUT AND DO A INVESTIGATION.
UM, SO WE'LL JUST, WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR WARM, WARMER WEATHER.
UM, THE, THESE ARE, IF THEY ARE JURISDICTIONAL, THEY WILL BE FEDERAL WETLANDS.
UM, THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED TO ANY WATER BODIES THAT WE CAN TELL OR THAT OUR WETLAND SCIENTISTS COULD TELL.
AND WE ARE, UM, HOPEFUL AND BASED OFF OF HIS EXPERTISE EXPECTING FOR THIS TO BE, UM, CONSIDERED NON-JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND.
BUT WE OF COURSE WILL HAVE THAT CONFIRMED.
WE'VE BEEN RUNNING THIS, THE VERY BACKED UP.
THEY BEEN TELLING SOME PEOPLE SIX TO NINE MONTHS FOR REVIEWS AND PLUS THIS TIME OF YEAR IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
SOMETIMES THEY'LL REVIEW IT AND DO THE DESKTOP AND SAY, HEY, WE WITH THAT.
WHO WAS THE WETLANDS CONSULTANT? TARA, WHO'S THE WETLANDS CONSULTANT? I HAVE, I'M SORRY.
DID YOU SAY WHO WAS THE WETLAND CONSULTANT? YES.
UM, DON WILSON IS THE WETLAND CONSULTANT WORKING IN, UM, CONCERT WITH ARK ENVIRONMENTAL.
YES, IT'S BEEN IN THE BUSINESS.
CAN YOU PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT REPORT AND, UM, THE WETLAND REPORT FOR THE RECORD? ABSOLUTELY.
I, I DON'T THINK THE ARMY BOARD IS DUE SITE VISITS RIGHT NOW, SO BECAUSE COVID, SO I NOT JUST WEATHERED, SO HOPEFULLY THEY WILL BE OUT.
AND WAS THAT, SO, UH, SORRY, ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR LAST SUMMER, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE LATEST PROBLEM INTO EFFECT JURISDICTION, SO IF YOUR WETLAND SCIENTIST, DEPENDING ON WHEN THAT REPORT WAS.
SO WE ALSO GOT, UH, SOME INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE BUILDING IS IN LOOK AND THE LANDSCAPING.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT IN PARTICULAR? NO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TODAY? OKAY.
SO WHEN DO YOU WANNA COME BACK? WELL, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE BOARD IS YOU COULD AUTHORIZE, DO YOU WANNA DO A COORDINATOR REVIEW? YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ONE.
YOU CAN DO A COORDINATOR REVIEW.
YOU CAN AUTHORIZE ME TO BEGIN THAT PROCESS.
UH, SARAH, YOU HAVEN'T STARTED, RIGHT? THERE'S NO, BUT YOU GUYS COULD AUTHORIZE THAT AND LIKE I SAID, SAID PROBABLY THE NEXT MEETING IF THEY WANNA COME BACK, IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT TO DO A WHOLE PUBLIC HEARING, IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, LEAST HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENT WHO BEHIND IF THEY HAVE A CHANCE.
I, I THINK WE SHOULD DO, WE SHOULD START THE PROCESS WITH THE COORDINATED REVIEW, UH, AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC HEARING GOES.
BOARD ARE COMFORTABLE WITH DOING A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT MEETING AND WE DIDN'T REALLY SUGGEST ANY CHANGES I WAS SUGGESTING AT THE NEXT MEETING SCHEDULE.
UM, I GUESS WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
RIGHT? BUT SEEKER, YOU WANT, YOU WANNA DO A REVIEW? UM, JUST LET KNOW, I, I THINK WE SHOULD.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD THE COORDINATOR REVIEW.
JUST MAKE A SIMPLE MOTION TO AUTHOR, UH, AUTHORIZE, UH, COORDINATED REVIEW TO ESTABLISH THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY.
SO WHAT I WILL DO IS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO BEGIN A COORDINATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ON THE BROADWAY GROUP, ESTABLISH THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY
[00:10:01]
AND TABLE THE BROADWAY GROUP TO OUR MEETING ON MARCH 17TH.UH, GIVE YOUR COPY OF THE ENGINEERING MEMO, BUT IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DATA OF DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION ON A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 98 TOWN HOMES ON VACANT LAND WEST OF PRYOR DRY.
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS OF THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS, GEORGE MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT GADO DEVELOPMENT LLC.
ALSO WITH ME IS CHRIS WOOD, THE PROJECT ENGINEER FROM CARINA WOOD MORRIS.
WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING IN CONNECTION WITH AN INITIAL PRESENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED TOWN HOME PROJECT AT ZERO BRIAR DRIVE.
THE SITE ITSELF IS APPROXIMATELY NINE AND A HALF ACRES SIZE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE BEHIND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE RAILROAD TRACKS ON ONE SIDE.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THIS SITE, WHICH IS ZONE PUD IS 98 2 STORY TOWN HOMES.
UH, THE BUILDINGS ARE GENERALLY FOUR UNITS.
WE WILL HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED THAT THESE ARE FOR SALE UNITS, THESE WILL NOT BE LEASE, THEY'LL BE FOR SALE.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL BRIARWOOD PUV THAT HAS A LONG AND LENGTHY HISTORY.
UM, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THAT HISTORY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS WASN'T INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED.
I BELIEVE A PLAN FROM A COUPLE DECADE, DECADES AGO INDICATED THAT THIS WOULD BE, UM, ATTACHED UNITS AS WELL AS UNITS FOR LEASE OR FOR RED.
SO WE THINK THIS IS A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT COMPARED TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED WAY BACK THEN.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE DO SHOW TWO PRIVATE DRIVE CONNECTIONS ON THE BRIARCLIFF AT THE LOCATION WHERE THEY WERE ALWAYS DESIGNED TO BE.
THE ON ONSITE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE PRIVATE.
UH, WE WILL PROVIDE EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING BEHIND THE HOMES ON BRI FIFTH DRIVE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN GIVING INITIAL PRESENTATION.
ALL WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO THIS EVENING IS GIVEN THE, THIS PROJECT IS LARGE ENOUGH, AUTHORIZED THE COMMENCEMENT OF A COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE STATE NEW ACT.
AND THEN OF COURSE, IN THE FUTURE YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR SITE APPROVAL.
CHRIS, I DUNNO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA ADD.
OH, LET US SHOW YOU THE CALL PLAN.
DO YOU HAVE THAT? THE CALL PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE, BUT WE JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT WE ARE GONNA BE MAINTAINING A LOT OF GREEN SPACE.
WE ORIGINALLY HAD A PLAN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWED PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS BEHIND THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND WHILE IT COST US SOME DENSITY BEFORE WE EVEN FILED THAT PLAN, WE DECIDED IT MADE A LOT MORE SENSE FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE THE REAR OF THE TOWN HOMES BACK UP TO THE REAR OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, A MORE TRADITIONAL LAB, AND THEN HAVE THE INTERNAL DRIVEWAY OR ACCESS AISLE ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THESE UNITS.
SO WE DO THINK THAT'S BETTER THAN A PREVIOUS PLAN THAT WE HAD WORKED ON, BUT WE NEVER FILED BECAUSE WE KIND OF AGREED THAT PROBABLY NOT WOULD BE, WOULD NOT BE VERY WELL RECEIVED.
SO I I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGER THINGS IS GONNA BE BUFFERING OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS AND THE DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTS.
WE'RE GONNA WANT A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THAT.
UM, I MEAN JUST TO KIND OF TRANSLATE WHAT YOU, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE, WHAT MR. HOPKINS WAS SAYING ABOUT THE PD, ESSENTIALLY WHEN BRIARCLIFF WAS DESIGNED, THIS AREA WAS DESIGNED TO BE MULTI-FAMILY HOMES AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING AREAS TO PUT THE DRIVERS.
SO DECADES AGO WHEN THEY PUT TOGETHER AND IT WAS WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS BEFORE ANY OF US WERE ON THE PLANNING BOARD, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THAT.
UM, SO I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
UH, THAT THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PD.
SO IN TERMS, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE IN TERMS OF THE DRIVEWAYS, AGAIN, PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, AS THE CHAIRMAN INDICATED, THIS LAND WAS LEFT SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE ACCESS AND OF COURSE WE WANT TWO ACCESS POINTS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
THE RIGHT OF WAY THERE, THE WIDTH OF THAT PARCEL WAS 60 FEET.
SO WE WILL HAVE A DRIVEWAY, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL LEAD BACK INTO THIS PROJECT.
IT'LL NOT CONNECT TO ANY ADDITIONAL PROJECTS OFF SITE.
SO WE'LL AMPLE ROOM ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVEWAYS PROVIDE GREEN SPACE AND SCREENING.
UH, OBVIOUSLY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE FOUR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AT 51, 38, 51, 42, 51, 54 AND
[00:15:01]
51 60, WE'D BE MORE THAN WILLING TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND DETERMINE ON A CASE BY CASE SCENARIO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR SCREENING.IS THERE ENOUGH SPACE FOR BURNS OR FENCES? THERE'S DEFINITELY ENOUGH ROOM.
THERE'S DEFINITELY ENOUGH ROOM FOR FENCING IN TERMS OF BURNS.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET PARTICULARLY THAT HIGH.
YOU THINK ABOUT GENERALLY A THREE ON ONE SLOPE, RIGHT CHRIS, YOU GET, YOU GET ABOUT TWO OR THREE FEET HIGH ON EACH SIDE, PROBABLY RIGHT OF WAY 60.
THE ROAD'S 24, SO YOU GOT A DIFFERENCE ON BOTH SIDES.
WE'LL GET YOU A, NOT A REAL ONE, BUT WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT OF A ROAD.
WHAT ABOUT, UH, BEHIND THE HOUSE ON
SO SORRY, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE'S NOT SPACE FOR A FENCE, BUT THERE IS SPACE FOR A BURN? NO, THERE WOULD BE, THERE'S DEFINITELY SPACE FOR A FENCE OF COURSE EASILY.
BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ROOM ALONG THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A SIX FOOT BURN.
WE DO HAVE ROOM TO PUT A BERM AND SOME OBVIOUSLY SCREEN BEHIND, UH, THE TOWN HOMES FOR SALE.
BUT BACK UP TO THE HOMES ON WICK DRIVE.
UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, UM, AND MAYBE YOU ADDRESS ALREADY, YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE GARAGES ATTACHED TO THE TOWN, RIGHT? WHAT SIZE TALKING, HOW AND HOW DEEP ARE THOSE DRIVEWAYS? I MEAN I MADE THE DRIVEWAYS 30 FEET DEEP IN FRONT OF THE, IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE.
AND THOSE ARE, AND THOSE ARE ONE CAR GARAGES, RIGHT? AND THEY'RE ONLY, IS THERE GONNA BE ANY ROOM, LIKE HOW WIDE ARE THE STREETS GONNA BE BACK THERE? I'M GIVE YOU MORE SCHOOL BUSES.
IF YOU HAVE 98 UNITS BACK THERE, GET BACK IN THERE.
OBVIOUSLY THEY GOTTA BE DESIGNED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, WHICH, WHICH EXCEED OR MEET, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SCHOOL BUSES WOULD REQUIRE.
THE SCHOOL BUSES WILL BE ABLE TO MANEUVER BACK THERE.
WILL THERE BE ON STREET PARKING? YEAH.
THIS, THESE ARE PRIVATES, SO I DON'T THINK THE SCHOOL BUSES GONNA TO WALK OUT TO FOOT.
UM, BUT WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE THEIR BUSES GO ON PRIVATE ROAD.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
IT SEEMS LIKE A NARROW SPACE SO THAT IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT COMES IN CLOSET, THAT AREA, RIGHT? NO, IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S TOO NARROW.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
THIS HAS TO BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE APPENDIX OF THE FIRE CODE, WHICH IS THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO A FIRE TRUCK.
IF YOU DESIGN AND COMPLY WITH THOSE STANDARDS, YOU DEFINITELY PROVIDE ROOM FOR A SCHOOL BUS.
BUT AS DREW INDICATED, GENERALLY SPEAKING, SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN WESTERN EUROPE WILL NOT ALLOW THEIR BUSES TO GO INTO FIRE ROOF.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE A DESIGNATED AREA.
WE CAN TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THAT OUT ALONG.
VARIETY FOR SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN, THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT SITE, UM, ATTACHED TOWN HOMES FOR SALE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A VERY LOW NUMBER, LOW PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
THIS IS TYPICALLY SPEAK PEOPLE THAT ALREADY LIVE IN HAMBURG WANNA DOWNSIZE, WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL AND BASICALLY GENERALLY SPEAKING, NOT GONNA HAVE A LOT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN JUST TO REACHING THAT EMPTY NESTER PHASE.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, HOW LARGE ARE THE HOUSES? ARE THE TOWN HOMES GONNA BE? CHRIS, DO YOU KNOW THE UNIT SIZE? UH, I DON'T, I DON'T.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY BEDROOMS? I BELIEVE THEY'RE TWO BEDROOMS. I BELIEVE TWO.
YEAH, I WOULD SAY THEY ARE TWO BEDROOMS FOR SURE.
JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT, UH, MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS NOW REQUIRE A PERCENTAGE OF THEM VIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO IT HAS TO BE 10%, BUT THESE ARE FOR SALE.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDED UNITS FOR LEASE AND I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING WHEN WAS LAST PROPOSED.
WE RECOGNIZE, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE BEHIND THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND CHRIS AND I CLOSELY WITH THE DEVELOPER AND REALLY DOES REFLECT A DELIBERATE DECISION TO MAKE THESE FOUR SALE UNITS RATHER THAN FOUR LEASE UNITS.
SO THE, SO I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS IS BASICALLY THAT THIS IS A PUD.
WE ARE RESEARCHING THE THREE DECADES OF FILES, ALMOST FOUR DECADES OF FILES BASICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USE, WHICH WE BELIEVE IT IS WITH ANOTHER PROJECT PROPOSED THERE.
BUT THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WENT INTO THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND IN THE FILES THAT THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE, GREEN SPACE PLANT.
I BELIEVE THE HEART TRAIL WAS IN THIS AREA.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 30 FOOT, 30 PLUS FEET OF GREEN SPACE, WHICH YOU DO ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACK FOR WALKING TRAILS AND WHATEVER.
THERE'S ALSO I TO FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER GREEN SPACE SPOTS WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE, WITH
UM, IT'S NOT JUST THE GOLF OR DESIGNATED GREEN SPACE AND THE HAR TRAIL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE HEART SHOW WENT
[00:20:01]
ALONG THE RAILROAD, FORGET THAT I WAS FIND THE DRAWING THERE.I DO KNOW THAT WE ARE SHOWING 50 GREEN SPACE ALONG THAT THE RAILROAD RIGHT WAY.
WHAT'S YOUR PLAN FOR RECREATION SPACE? I GUESS WE'RE FLEXIBLE.
YEAH, WE, EVERYONE GIVEN A LOT OF CHAIRMAN, SOMEONE WOULD WELCOME INPUT.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE, THE PROCESS ISSUE, OBVIOUSLY THE SEEKER ISSUE, THIS PROJECT WAS SUBJECT TO A GI WELL WAS SUBJECT TO AN EIS SOMEWHAT AND THEN OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL GSS.
OVER THE YEARS, UM, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF COURT DECISIONS ABOUT PROCESSING SEEKER FOR BRIARWOOD, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE COMES DOWN TO IS YOU HAVE YOUR DECISIONS.
TYPICALLY ALMOST EVERY PROJECT IN BRIARWOOD IS GONNA INVOLVE UPDATED STUDIES AND REPORTS IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
MOST OF THOSE STUDIES AND REPORTS ARE EXTREMELY UPDATED.
BASED UPON THOSE UPDATED STUDIES AND REPORTS, YOU HAVE CHOICES YOU CAN SAY ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAYING THAT THOSE THINGS ARE NOT A PROBLEM OR YOU CAN ISSUE A POSITIVE DECLARATION ASKING FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
SO THAT'S HOW THEY'VE BEEN TREATED IN THE PAST.
WHAT THE COURTS HAVE SAID, AND I DID AGREE WITH THAT, IS THAT THERE'S NO AUTOMATIC REQUIREMENT FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS IT IS YOUR DECISION.
YOU ASK FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND BASED UPON THAT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION YOU CAN ASK FOR AN EISI AGREE WITH THE COURTS ON THAT.
SOME PEOPLE SAY IT'S AUTOMATIC, IT'S NOT.
IT'S YOUR DECISION UNDER SEEKER TO DECIDE HOW YOU, HOW EITHER ISSUE A N DECK FIND IT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE, WITH THE EIS, WHICH IS HARD BECAUSE IT'S IT'S SO OUTDATED.
OR LIKE I SAID, THE NECK DECK OR AS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT.
UH, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, I DID SEND A LETTER TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
SO EVERYONE IN BROADWOOD IS AWARE OF THIS.
AND WE HAVE BEEN GETTING EMAILS AND I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN SHARED WITH, UH, AS WE GET MORE AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO SHARE THEM AND OF COURSE WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT SOME FUTURE DATE.
YEAH, AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THOSE EMAILS.
UM, AND ON THAT NOTE, SOME PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED COPIES OF THESE PLANS.
YEAH, I TOLD, I TOLD SARAH YOU CAN EMAIL.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA PUT ON THE RECORD THAT WE CAN'T SEND THEM WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION BECAUSE IT'S YOUR, YOUR WORK PRODUCT.
UM, SO YOU'RE GIVING US PERMISSION TO SEND THOSE.
YEAH, I AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE FOR THE CLEAR, CLEAR FOR THE RECORD GOING FORWARD, ANY INFORMATION THAT WE PRESENT TO THIS BOARD, IF THERE'S A NEARBY DOCTOR WHO'S INTERESTED AND WANTS A COPY OF IT, WE'RE FINE SHARING AND PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ANYONE'S INTERESTED.
UH, DREW AND SARAH, IS THERE A WAY TO TAKE THE PAST EISS AND SCAN THEM AND MAKE THEM AVAILABLE? NOT, NO, NO WAY.
IT IS BOXES AND BOXES AND BOXES OF MATERIAL UNFORTUNATELY.
YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE TO COME IN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, THEY CAN COME IN AND LOOK AT IT.
THIS IS JUST ONE, ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS IN ONE OF THE BOXES, WHICH KIND OF WAS, WE TRIED TO PUT SUMMARY TOGETHER OF SOME PAST HISTORY, BUT THERE'S FILES ON EACH OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS THE QUARRY DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S A WHOLE BOX AND FILE ON THE QUARRY DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S THE ORIGINAL EIS SUPPLEMENTAL EISS.
THERE'S A BOX ON THE LAWSUITS ABOUT THE EISS AND WHATEVER.
SO SEEMS LIKE A SUPPLEMENTAL EISS MIGHT, RIGHT? THE ORIGINAL EIS IS VERY, AND AND IT WASN'T A GI IT WAS VERY GENERIC.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WAY OF, OF DESIGN PLANS.
AND BY THE WAY, THE PUD ESTABLISHED USES, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO YOUR POWERS OF GOOD SITE PLANNING TO SAY THERE'S NO ACTUAL LAYOUT THAT'S APPROVED HERE.
YOU'RE GONNA USE GOOD SITE PLANNING AND THE, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE PUD AND ALL THOSE THINGS ESTABLISHED TO COME UP WITH BECAUSE THERE'S NO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S NO, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE ESTABLISHED BY, BY YOU AND IMPROVING THE PROJECT.
AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE BEFORE.
THERE'S NOT THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO SAY THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE TEND TO FALL BACK ON THE R THREE REQUIREMENTS SOMETIMES JUST AS A STARTING POINT OF GUIDANCE.
SO DREW, GIVEN THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL YOU IS AT HAND THERE, I I RESPECTFULLY, I GUESS WOULD SAY THAT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO ASK PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SIT MYSELF INCLUDED, TO PAGE THROUGH THAT TO TRY AND READ IT.
THAT'S GONNA BE HOURS AND DAYS OF EFFORT.
SO HOW CAN WE BETTER MAKE THE RECORDS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO READ IT? WHAT
[00:25:01]
I'M GONNA WORK WITH SARAH ON, FOR SOME OF US THIS, I'M GONNA WORK WITH SARAH ON GETTING THE MOST RECENT DATA.IT'S EASY TO DO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
THIS ONE IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT WOULD BE NEXT POSSIBLE.
SO HOW DO WE MAKE A BETTER WAY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS TO BETTER REVIEW AND UNDERSTAND THE RECORD? UM, I'M, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TRUST SARAH AND I TO GO THROUGH AND PICK OUT WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE THE MOST RECENT RECORDS RELATING TO THIS AREA BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH LIKE WE DID WITH THIS ONE, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE COURT CASE HERE, 1998 I BELIEVE WE TRIED TO PUT A SYNOPSIS TOGETHER OF HOW THE PROJECT WENT TO WHERE, WHERE IT WAS.
YEAH, I I THINK DOING A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS WILL LET US GET UPDATED INFORMATION ON A LOT OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS.
UM, SO IN SOME WAYS ASKING THEM JUST TO START NOT QUITE FROM SCRATCH BUT PRETTY CLOSE TO FROM SCRATCH.
WELL IF WE CAN'T BUILD AND EASILY ACCESS OR TRANSMIT ANY OF THOSE RECORDS, I THINK SOME OF IT IS GONNA BE STARTING FROM RIGHT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE FUNCTIONALLY STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
AND I, I GUESS I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SOME OF THE RATIONAL DECISIONS AND INCLUDING THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO MAY SEE AS FAVOR RULE TO HAVE PURCHASE HOUSING, BUT IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF DECISION BASED ON, YOU KNOW, AT VARIOUS POINTS THERE'S BEEN GUIDANCE ON PERCENTAGES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RATIONALE FOR THAT.
I GUESS I, LEMME LEMME CORRECT THAT.
DON'T, LEMME LEMME CORRECT THAT LIN, I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER EARMARKED.
NO, IT'S JUST THAT THE PROJECT THAT WE HAD YEARS AGO TO BE AFFORDABLE, THAT IS NOT AS FAR AS I KNOW DREW CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT RIGHT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ORIGINAL PUD RIGHT.
THE ORIGINAL PUD JUST HAD IT AS TOWNHOUSES AND MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS THEY SAID IN THIS AREA OF THE QUARRY AND THEY DIDN'T GET A LOT OF SPECIFIC ABOUT, THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT AFFORDABLE.
I BROUGHT UP AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEFORE BECAUSE OF THE LAW, BUT THE LAW THAT THE TOWN PASSED.
BUT AS SEAN SAID, I'LL JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE LAW.
HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT APPLIES TO FOR SALE UNITS, ONLY RENTAL UNITS.
AND AS SARAH SAID, THERE WAS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSED YEARS AGO.
THAT PROJECT NEVER WENT FORWARD.
THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
SO IN THE PAST WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT IN THE PAST AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, WHAT THE DENSITY WAS OF THAT MULTIFAMILY AREA AND A SETBACK, DO WE HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION THAT WE CAN AT LEAST GO OFF OF? THEY HAVE NUMBER BECAUSE THAT'S A SEPARATE FILE.
THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE FILE.
SO I COULD PROBABLY FIND THAT.
YEAH, THERE WERE, THEY TALK ABOUT NUMBER OF UNITS ALL THE TIME.
THEY SAY NUMBER OF UNITS, THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE X AMOUNT OF UNITS.
A QUARRY DEVELOPMENT HAD SO MANY TOWNHOUSES, SO MANY APARTMENTS IN WHATEVER.
AND I'LL PICTURE THAT INFORMATION, THE 50 FOOT IN THE RAILROAD ISN'T REQUIRED BACK.
THE, THE OTHER THING I WANNA NOTE IS OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HAVING SOME DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE MECHANICS OF HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WILL WORK PURSUANT TO SEEKER.
OBVIOUSLY WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT IS GONNA HAVE TO BE A, A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
ALL I WOULD ASK IS, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE PREMATURE AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THIS WARRANTS ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION IN PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
LET'S LOOK BACK AT THE RECORDS FIRST, LET'S PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND STUDIES YOU WANT.
YOU WILL HAVE TO ISSUE A SECRET DETERMINATION AND THIS NOT AGREEING THAT I THINK NECESSARY HAS TO BE A POSITIVE DECLARATION.
WHEN BRIARWOOD WAS DEVELOPED, IS IT SET UP TO HANDLE THIS INCREASED DEMAND ON ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT DEVELOPMENT? LIKE AND INCREASED AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT, THE INCREASED DEMAND ON THE SEWER AND THE WATER, IS THAT ALREADY IN PLACE OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA NEED TO INVESTIGATE FOR? WELL, SO ALL, SO AS DREW INDICATED, ALL OF THOSE THRESHOLDS WERE DESCRIBED AND DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORIGINAL REVIEW PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE A LONG TIME AGO.
I THINK WE'RE STILL FINE IN TERMS OF OVERALL DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE YEAR NOW IS 2021.
SO CHRIS WILL NEED TO CHECK SEWER CAPACITY.
WE'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOW CURRENT STORMWATER DESIGN, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN ONES THAT MAY HAVE APPLIED THAT WERE WAY LESS STRINGENT A COUPLE OF DECADES AGO.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT TRAFFIC.
SO WHILE IT WAS ENVISIONED THAT THIS WOULD BE DEVELOPED, WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S BEEN PASSAGE OF TIME AND WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AGAIN.
CHRIS, JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.
UM, THE HOUSE IS OVER ON SAWGRASS.
IS THIS GONNA BE SIMILAR WITH THE STREET DIMENSIONS? THAT AREA OVER THERE? I'M JUST TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHAT THE GONNA LOOK LAYOUT GONNA LOOK.
YEAH, THE PAVE WIDTH 24 FEET, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE STANDARD ROAD PUBLIC ROAD WIDTH HAMBURG.
[00:30:01]
PUBLIC ROAD.NOW SAWGRASS WOULD BE SAME AS THAT.
I DUNNO EXACTLY WHAT THE SAWGRASS DIMENSIONS ARE, BUT IT'D BE ENOUGH.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT WIDTH FOR TWO-WAY TRAFFIC AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
AND IS THERE GONNA BE OFF STREET PARKING OR ON STREET PARKING LOT OR NO? UM, I'M NOT SURE.
YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT.
I WOULD ENVISION THAT IF THERE'S GONNA BE OFF STREET PARKING ALLOWED, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE SIDE AND THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD WOULD BE POSTED ACCORDINGLY.
BUT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
WE, WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM TOO.
WE CAN, WE CAN ADD SOME OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, REGULAR PERPENDICULAR TO THE ROAD STREET PARKING SPACES IF WE, IF WE NEEDED TO.
IF WE NEEDED TO ADD VISITOR PARKING THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PRIVATE DRIVES ON THE SITE, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT.
WHAT ABOUT A POTENTIAL, UH, CONNECTION TO KOHLER BANK? BUT IF YOU, IF YOU DRIVE DOWN THERE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW HOW WHEN YOU GET THE RAILROAD TRACKS, THEY HAVE THOSE POSTS IN THE MIDDLE KIND OF, SO YOU CAN'T CUT AROUND AND GO AROUND THAT CLOSE TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
THAT, THAT AREA FALLS INTO THAT, THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL AND CONNECTIONS HERE AND ALSO ONE BANK, BUT I DON'T THINK SAFETY WISE IS PROBABLY SMART TO HAVE A, A CONNECTION BANK THERE THAT CLOSE TO THE RAILROAD TRACK ON THAT SIDE OF THE SITE.
THERE IS CONSIDERABLE FRONTAGE, BUT I TEND TO AGREE WITH CHRIS PROBABLY NOT FROM A TRAFFIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE LOCATION FOR AND THEN WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WILL IT BE TO COMMUNICATE WITH POTENTIAL BUYERS THAT LIKE SCHOOL BUSES WON'T BE GOING DOWN THERE? I JUST WON'T PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM COMING FOR US LATER.
THAT'S NOT THAT THEY CAN'T GET A SCHOOL BUS DOWN THERE.
YEAH, THAT'S, I MEAN THAT'S UP TO THE, THAT'S UP TO THE PURCHASER OF THE HOME OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THERE'LL BE PRIVATE ROADWAYS HERE, PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE WILL BE AN ASSOCIATION FORM.
SO IF THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE POLICY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WE WOULD'VE NO PROBLEM DISCLOSING THAT AS PART OF THE ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTATION.
BUT IT'S NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
YEAH, I'M JUST THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THAT AREA.
EIGHT UNITS BACK THERE, TWO SCHOOL BUSES AND VERY REPUTATIONS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEAN, DO YOU WANNA COME BACK NEXT MEETING? SURE.
DOES THAT, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS DOES THAT GIVE, AND I THINK IT'S GONNA RELY LARGELY ON YOU, SARAH AND DREW, DOES THAT GIVE YOU GUYS ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND WHATEVER ELSE THE BOARD WANTS TO SEE THIS EVENING? PROBABLY NOT.
I MEAN, WOULD THE BOARD CONSIDER AT LEAST ALLOWING US ONE THAT'S READY JUST TO AT LEAST START THE SECRET PROCESS? OBVIOUSLY
AGAIN, WE KNOW EVERYONE'S GONNA TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT THIS AND MY, MY PAST HISTORY WITH PROJECT PROPOSAL HERE, THE AGENCIES ARE GONNA TREAT IT AS FRESH.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA, THEY PROBABLY HAVE NO RECORDS OF THE E SO, SO THEY'RE GONNA IT FRESH, JUST THE BOARD.
I'LL GIVE YOU BACKGROUND INFORMATION, BUT THE, SOME OF THE NEWEST STUFF IN THERE, 1998, IT'S ALL OUTDATED.
THE REGULAR, AS JOHN SAID, THE REGULATIONS HAVE ALL CHANGED.
WETLANDS, DRAINAGE, THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT, I MEAN, WHAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IN THOSE GUIDELINES IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHEN PEOPLE BROUGHT IN BOUGHT INTO THE BRIARWOOD PUD, WHAT WERE THE BASIC PLANS FOR THAT PUD OPEN SPACE WISE, OTHER THINGS AND WHATEVER.
BUT ALL THESE STUDIES, THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRAFFIC, ALL THAT HAS TO BE UPDATED.
IT'S SO, WELL, SO MAY MAYBE WHAT WE WOULD DO, JUST SO THAT IT PROVIDE SOME TIME, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF GETTING THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION, IF YOU COULD AUTHORIZE REDMAN OF A COORDINATOR AROUND THE REVIEW AND THEN PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR A MONTH FROM NOW.
AND AT THAT MEETING AT LEAST WE CAN HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE FIND OUT FROM THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE, THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.
UM, DOES THAT SOUND OKAY, SARAH DREW? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO START AT LEAST LET THOSE AGENCIES BEGIN TO COMMENT AND GET THEIR CONCERNS, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA ASK YOU FOR CERTAIN THINGS.
I GOT ANOTHER MINOR, MINOR QUESTION IS WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD WE CALL THIS? WE'VE GOT TWO DATA DEVELOPMENTS ON THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW, AND IF WE HAVE THEM AS THE SAME TITLE, IT'S GONNA GET REALLY CONFUSING THAT THE OWNER I WAS, I HEAR WHAT I WOULD DO IS I WOULD REFERENCE THE PARCEL ADDRESS, WHICH OF COURSE IS ZERO BRIAR DRIVE, PROBABLY CALL IT BRIARCLIFF TOWN HOMES.
[00:35:01]
SOMETHING SIMILAR TO CHAIRMAN CLARK.I THINK THAT'LL DISTINGUISH IT.
SEAN, I I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID IN TERMS OF HOW DO WE DESCRIBE THE PROJECT? I SAID THE PRO THE ADDRESS OF THE SITE IS ZERO BRIAR DRIVE.
MAYBE WE CALL IT THE BRIARCLIFF DRIVE TOWN HOMES OR SOMETHING.
TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE OTHER DATA DEVELOPMENT.
IT MIGHT BE GOOD GOING FORWARD POTENTIALLY TO CONSIDER MORE FORMALLY STRUCTURING OUR PROPERTY ADDRESS AND THEN THE DEVELOPER AFTER THAT.
I KNOW WE HAVE IT MIGHT MIGHT BE HELPFUL ON THE AGENDAS GOING FORWARD IF YOU COULD LINK THINGS BY ADDRESS RATHER THAN NEXT.
IT DOES, IT ADDRESS IS ZERO BRIAR CLIFF DRIVE.
SO, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO START THE COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR ZERO BRIAR SWIFT DRIVE AND TABLE ZERO BRI CLIFF DRIVE TO APRIL 7TH.
ALL IN FAVOR? A MOTION CARRIES.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ATM RESTYLE REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED NEW ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 4 9 2 3 CAMP ROAD.
HI, HOW ARE YOU? UH, CURRENTLY THERE'S STUFF BEING STORED OUTSIDE.
AND MY GUESS IS THIS, THIS ADDITION IS DESIGNED TO TAKE STUFF OUTSIDE AND STORE IT INSIDE.
UM, ANY, UM, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT OR? NO, IT'S, IT'S JUST BEEN A CHALLENGE FOR US TO, TO BE ABLE TO WORK THE WAY WE HAVE WITH A LACK OF SPACE.
WE'VE BEEN THERE YEARS AND, UM, WE REALLY NEED MORE INDOOR STORAGE SPACE.
UH, WE'VE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE DONE SEATS FOR, UH, THE UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO AND WE GOT A JOB FOR 200 SEATS TO REUPHOLSTER AND WE HAD TO PICK THEM UP 20 AT A TIME BECAUSE WE JUST COULDN'T FIT THEM INSIDE TO, TO HOUSE THEM.
SO WE HAD TO MAKE MULTIPLE TRIPS BACK AND FORTH.
SO WHAT DOES THE SITE CURRENTLY ZONE C TWO C TWO? RIGHT.
WE DON'T REALLY ALLOW OUT OUTDOOR STORAGE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ANYWAY, SO THIS WOULD HELP THEM.
YEAH, MY NEIGHBOR'S, SAME BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS.
THE, THE MCGUIRE DEVELOPMENT'S BEAUTIFUL.
A MEDICAL FACILITY AND CO PUT A BRAND NEW PLAZA.
AND NOW OUR BUILDING REALLY NEEDS TO BE RENOVATED.
SO AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE GONNA RE SIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING TO MAKE IT LOOK, UH, FRESH AGAIN IN A NEW PARKING LOT EVENTUALLY.
SO, WE'LL IF YOU COULD GET US SOME TYPE OF ARTIST RENDERINGS, A PICTURE OF HOW I EXPECT IT TO LOOK WHEN IT'S SKETCH.
THAT IS REALLY PART OF THE PLANS THAT HAS THE COLORS.
COLORS AND IT'S JUST THE DOUG GRAY WITH WHITE TRIM AND BOTH THE OLD BUILDING AND THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE, THOSE COLORS ARE GONNA MATCH.
THAT HOPEFULLY WILL HELP OUR CURB APPEAL A LITTLE BIT AND CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY.
WILL WE BE ABLE GET A COPY OF THAT TODAY FOR SOMEBODY RUN THAT TO A COPY MACHINE SO WE CAN ADD THAT? IT'S OKAY.
IT'S NOT, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT COLOR, WE CAN COPY.
NO, THE SAMPLES ARE GRAY, BUT RIGHT.
THEY'RE, THEY GOT THE NAME OF WHAT THE COLORS ARE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? IT'S, UH, YOU CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU WANT.
I, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT? IT'S, IT IS JUST IN ADDITION.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AT M RESTYLE FOR MARCH 17TH.
OKAY, SO WE'LL, SO DREW'S GETTING THIS COPY OF THAT, WE'LL SEND IT
[00:40:01]
TO THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE, SO WE HAVE THAT.AND WE'LL HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE WORK SESSION IS BLAZEDALE SOIL AND STONE REQUESTING PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 2,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON VACANT LAND EAST SIDE OF ELECTRIC AVENUE.
UM, 350 DEGREES NORTH OF MCGIRK AVENUE IN THE VILLAGE OF BLAZEDALE.
BILL, CAN I, CAN I SAY SOMETHING ON HIS BEHALF? SURE.
THIS IS ON THE VILLAGE OF BLAZEDALE.
UM, THIS GENTLEMAN RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE FROM THE BLAZEDALE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO BUILD, OR FOR THIS YOUTH TO GO IN THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
UM, WE ARE DOING THE PLANNING FOR BLA OUT NOW, AS YOU KNOW, AND BLAZE OUT BASICALLY HAS NO GUIDELINES FOR US TO GO BY.
THEY DON'T CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I THINK ALL YOU REALLY CAN DO IS SAY THAT YOU REVIEWED IT AND THEN HE DEALS WITH ROGER TO GET A PERMIT.
WE CAN'T APPLY ANY OF OUR TOWN CODE TO, TO THIS PROJECT.
SO I, I GO BY THERE ALL THE TIME.
AND YOUR PROPERTY BUTTS UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL OR YOURS IS RESIDENTIAL? ITS UP AGAINST TRAIN TRACKS.
I DUNNO WHY IT'S ZONE RESIDENTIAL.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, BUT THEY GOT A USE VARIANCE.
SO THE USE IS APPROVED EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL, PROBABLY BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE THERE.
YEAH, IT'S MOSTLY INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL IN THAT CONSTRUCTION ELECTRIC AVENUE.
SO ARE YOU PLANNING ON ADDING ANY LANDSCAPING OR ANYTHING? UH, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, NO.
IF WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, CURBSIDE WE DO WHAT WE HAVE TO, BUT BASICALLY JUST WANT TO GET A BUILDING UP AND GO FROM THERE.
I SLOWLY DEVELOPING THE LAND, YOU KNOW, BUT PUTTING UP THE BUILDINGS BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE STARTING AT, WHAT'S THE BUILDING GONNA LOOK LIKE? UH, A POLE BARN STYLE BUILDING, MAYBE THREE GARAGE DOORS AND MAN DOOR WINDOW, BASIC METAL SIDING THAT COMES ON A POLE BARN, THAT'S BASICALLY IT.
MAYBE 16 FOOT VERTICAL WALLS WE'RE, I'M STILL CONTACTING DIFFERENT BUILDERS TO GET EXACT PLANS AND SOMETHING SET STONE WITH THAT.
SO THIS IS, WELL THIS IS JUST THE SECOND PROJECT WE'VE HAD FOR BLAZEDALE.
UM, SO IN SOME, AS SARAH SAID, THE THE BLAZEDALE CODE DOESN'T GIVE A WHOLE LOT OF GUIDANCE.
WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION DO WE THINK WE WANT ON THIS PROJECT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? WELL, YEAH, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, YOU'RE JUST REVIEWING IT.
THAT'S ALL THE CLAIM BOARD REVIEWS IT.
THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND THE, AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS THE SECOND ONE.
NOW WHAT DID THE PLANNING BOARD USED TO DO? VERY LITTLE
WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD CHECK THEIR MINUTES TO SEE, SEE WHAT KIND OF STUFF THEY, I MEAN I, I WAS THINKING THAT SOME OF THE STUFF WE WOULD DO IN THINGS LIKE THIS WOULD BE SOME MORE TRADITIONAL SITE PLAN TYPE REVIEW.
BUT DOES THE LAYOUT MAKE SENSE? UH, IS THERE ENOUGH PARKING? IS DO WE NEED LANDSCAPING? UM, I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO, BUT I'M, I'M JUST ONE PERSON.
UM, THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT, I GUESS WE COULD DO THAT, IS THAT WE HAVE TO GO BY THE BLAZE EL CODE.
AND THE BLAZEDALE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE ANYTHING REALLY.
I THINK WE NEED A COPY OF THAT CODE.
BUT AS FAR AS THIS PROJECT, I GO BY THERE LOT NOW THE ENTRANCE FROM ELECTRIC, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT SOME NICE LANDSCAPE THERE WITH THOSE HUGE STALLS THAT LOOKS NICE.
MAYBE PAINTED RED, WHITE, BLUE.
UH, BUT THE ONLY NEIGHBORS I KNOW THERE ARE IN LAJUANA, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD NORTH, DOWN THE RIGHT THERE'S THAT
AND I DON'T, FROM THE DIRT ON, I DON'T SEE ANY HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE.
SO THAT'S WHY THE USE VARIANCE SEEMS TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.
UM, SORRY, YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING BOB? YEAH, IIII AGREE WITH MR.
[00:45:02]
AREA.I DON'T SEE, I GUESS MY QUESTION, ONE QUESTIONS A LOT OF VEHICLES LIKE AND STUFF ARE SOIL STOLEN LOT TRUCK TRAFFIC.
WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING IS, IS THAT THAT'S IT? NO, IT'S NOT GONNA BE A PUBLIC AUTO SHOP OR NOTHING LIKE THAT.
SIMPLY TO, TO WORK ON THE TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT WE ALREADY HAVE THERE.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING ALL OUR STUFF OUTSIDE AND THAT WE WANNA BUILD A GARAGE JUST SO WE COULD WORK INSIDE LIKE PROPER PEOPLE.
YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING STUFF OUTSIDE.
IF IT'S SNOWING, WE'RE WET, COLD, YOU KNOW, WANNA BUILD A GARAGE AND THAT'S IT.
I WAS GONNA SAY BUILD AND PLANNING BOARD.
WE WE DOING MECHANICAL WORK, STUFF LIKE THAT.
MAINTEN THE TRUCKS THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE MAINTENANCE AT.
YEAH, I JUST, I I JUST THINKING AHEAD.
SO ANYWAY, I'M GONNA SUGGEST WHEN SARAH GETS BACK THAT WE SET A MEETING WITH, WHO IS THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SARAH IN OUR DEPARTMENT THAT ISSUES PERMITS FOR BLAZEDALE.
ROGER, ROGER? UM, NO, IT'S UM, I THINK IT'S JEFF SCR.
WE, WE NEED TO SET A MEETING WITH JEFF AND JUST SAY, WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PLANNING BOARD TO DO? BECAUSE THE CODE DOES SAY IT'S THE, IT'S THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT'S GIVING OUT THE PERMIT.
WE'RE JUST REVIEWING IT DOESN'T EVEN SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
AND SARAH SAYS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT.
I MEAN, SO DREW, IF YOU ASK JEFF THAT, HE WILL NOT KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE HE CAME TO ME WITH THE CODE BOOK AND SAID HERE, WELL THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THIS.
I DON'T, SOMEONE FROM HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SOMEONE FROM THE TOWN HAS TO SIT DOWN WITH THE VILLAGE OF BLAZEDALE AND SAY, WHAT IS YOUR EXPECTATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH PROJECTS LIKE THIS? WE, WE'VE BEEN CHARGE EM DO THIS.
WHAT IS THE VILLAGE'S EXPECTATION? THEY ASK THE TOWN TO DO THIS FOR THEM.
WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION FOR YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, I MEAN, IF, IF WE CAN ARRANGE THAT, I'M WILLING TO GO AND TALK TO, UH, JANET LAR OR THE VILLAGE BOARD AND, AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND SAY, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE USED TO DOING.
WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? UM, JUST SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THEIR EXPECTATIONS.
UM, THE LAST PROJECT WAS PRETTY WELL PUT TOGETHER WHEN IT CAME IN FRONT OF US.
UM, THIS ONE SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR.
UM, MR. CHAPMAN'S THERE, CHECK OUT THE LANDSCAPING AND, AND IT'S PRETTY GOOD.
SO, SO THESE ARE BOTH PRETTY GOOD PROJECTS, BUT EVENTUALLY WE'RE GONNA COME UP WITH ONE THAT ISN'T AS GOOD AND WE'RE GONNA WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
AND, AND BY THE WAY, TECHNICALLY THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE BECAUSE THIS, UH, THE ZBA CAN ISSUE A VARIANCE UNTIL THEY REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE VILLAGE'S CODE.
BUT ANYWAY, UM, BUT WE NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND FIND OUT WHAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS ARE.
YOU GUYS WANNA DO YOUR JOB WELL, I WANNA DO MY JOB.
WELL WHAT IS THE EXPECTATIONS OF PUTTING THESE IN FRONT OF US? THIS POOR GUY STANDING HERE? RIGHT.
AND ME PERSONALLY THAT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY SO FAR, SORRY, IT'S D PERSONALLY, WHEN I FOUND OUT WE WERE GONNA BE DOING BLAZE PLANNING, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DID A GOOD JOB AND MADE THINGS IN BLAZEDALE THAT BLAZEDALE CAN BE PROBLEM.
SO, UM, AND THAT'S, AND IF WE'RE GONNA DO IT, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE ARE GONNA DO, WHETHER THEIR CODE SAYS IT OR NOT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SAY, YEAH, LET'S DO THIS PROJECT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO CODE AND I DON'T CARE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
YOU KNOW? SO, SO, SO I GUESS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS, I DON'T WANNA HOLD THIS GENTLEMAN NO.
YEAH, BUT I THINK WE CAN'T DO, AND IT'S A WORK SESSION.
IF HE CAN WAIT TWO WEEKS, WE'LL HAVE THIS ALL RESOLVED.
WE'LL GUARANTEE WE'LL PUT OUR RECOMMENDATION OR WHATEVER WE'RE GONNA DO TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SO HE CAN ISSUE PERMITS SO THE GENTLEMAN CAN BUILD HIS, HIS BUILDING.
BUT I JUST WANNA KNOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE SECOND ONE.
THE FIRST ONE WE KIND OF WENT BY THE SECOND ONE DOWNS LIKE, OKAY.
IT, IT'S JUST NOT MAKING SENSE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
SO, WELL, NOT SO MUCH, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT WE, WE WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DISCUSSION ON WHAT, WHAT'S EXPECTED OF US AND WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO.
SO, SO YOUR MIND COMING BACK IN TWO WEEKS, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU IN TWO WEEKS.
I ONLY, MY ONLY CONCERN THOUGH, WOULD, AND THAT'S OKAY, BUT IS IF YOU MEET BETWEEN NOW AND THEN WITH BLA STYLE AND YOU DETERMINE YOU WANT MORE FROM HIM, WE'LL LET HIM KNOW.
WE NEED, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE HE KNOWS THAT.
AND, AND I WAS, I WAS GONNA ASK BEFORE WE COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS, IF YOU COULD JUST SEND US A PICTURE OF THAT LANDSCAPING THAT DENNIS WAS TALKING ABOUT.
NOW THAT WOULD, AND THE BOULDERS IS ON THIS STRETCHER ROAD WHERE WE HAVE THE LAND
[00:50:01]
ON THE OTHER SIDE CLOSER.OH, SO THAT'S NOT, IT'S IT'S COMPLETELY VACANT RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S A STONE BASE THERE, BUT IT'S, IT'S WEEDS AND IT'S GRASS GROWING AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL IT'S RIGHT NOW.
SO, SO JUST, WE HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT YOU DO HAVE.
AND, UM, ANYTHING YOU HAVE RELATING TO WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING TO BUILD.
SO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
SO, SO, UM, A PICTURE OF A BUILDING ROUGHLY OR WHATEVER, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND JUST, UH, LIKE A DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING.
IS
ANY, ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE THINK WE WANT FROM HIM BEFORE COMING BACK IN TWO WEEKS? HAVE WE CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MEETING ALL THE SETBACKS AND STUFF, IS THAT PART OF WHAT WE DO? OR IS THAT PART OF WHAT JACK DOES? THEY ISSUE ISSUE SETBACK? I, I DID VERIFY THAT.
YEAH, IT USUALLY ZONING BOARD WOULD ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, SO THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE BLAZE L SOIL AND STONE TO MARCH 17TH.
SO WE'LL SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS.
AND, UM, WE'LL, YEAH, THAT, THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF IT, AT LEAST AS FAR AS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WITH US.
UM, THE LAST ITEM ON THE WORK SESSION AGENDA, ALBANIA AESTHETICS, LEMME JUST MAKE SURE I GOT THIS RIGHT HERE.
UM, THEY ASKED TO BE TABLED TO OUR APRIL 7TH MEETING.
THAT'S A, UH, A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO PUT SOMETHING AT THE OLD PIZZA HUT ON MCKINLEY AND
SO WE WON'T BE DISCUSSING THAT ONE.
SO WE'LL BEGIN OUR REGULAR MEETING IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD.
SO WELCOME TO THE MARCH 3RD MEETING OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD.
PLEASE RISE ALLEGIANCE, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, NATION GOD, INDIVIDUAL FOR LIBERTY, JUSTICE FOR ALL.
SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSET RECOVERY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 5 5 9 0
IS ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT PROJECT? HONOR? YEP, THAT'S ME.
ANY UPDATES SINCE THE LAST MEETING? YEAH, I WENT TO THE, SO YOU GOT A VARIANCE IN THE ZONING BOARD.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO.
UM, MEGAN, DO YOU HAVE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT? I SURE DO.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY ASSET RECOVERY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 5 5 9 0 MAY DRIVE.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 3RD, 2021 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF TOWN HALL.
ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSET RECOVERY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES.
UH, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THAT PROJECT? OKAY, LEMME JUST PULL UP ONLINE HERE, BOB.
FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR
[00:55:01]
AGAINST ASSET RECOVERY, UH, FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME? ANYBODY HERE FOR AGAINST ASSET RECOVERY ASSOCIATES? OKAY.THERE'S NOBODY HERE AT TOWN HALL.
I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET FROM PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME.
SO AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, ASSET RECOVERY.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION IN THIS ONE.
CORRECT? I READ THE MEETING MINUTES.
YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR A RESOLUTION ON THIS ONE, BUT IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE IF YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD.
WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THAT? UH, CAMMY DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I FORGET.
UM, I HAD ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY OUTDOOR LIGHTING PROPOSED, UH, AS WELL AS IF THEY WERE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS ON THE NEW BUILDING.
NEITHER WOULD, UM, NO, THE LIGHTS ARE PRETTY MUCH JUST GONNA BE THE LIGHTS.
THEY'VE BEEN BROKEN SINCE PROBABLY NINETIES, BUT, OKAY.
WELL, ANY LIGHTS HAVE BE DARK SUN SKIES AND CLIMB.
THEY CAN'T SHINE OUTSIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
THERE'S, SO IF YOU'RE FIXING UP, I JUST DON'T WANNA END UP WITH AN OLD STYLE OF LIGHT OR SOMETHING ON REBUILDING.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT POINTS TOWARDS ANY SORT OF A HOUSE.
IT JUST POINTS OUT INTO NOTHING.
THIS, AND DOES THE NEW ADDITION HAVE ROOF GUTTERS THAT ARE GONNA EMPTY OUT SOMEWHERE? IT'S, THEY'RE GOING TO BE, YEAH.
YEAH, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT ON YOUR SITE SOMEWHERE TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE NOT IMPACTING YOUR NEIGHBORS WITH RUNOFF FROM YOUR ROOF.
SO, SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS ADD THAT TO YOUR SITE PLAN, THE LIGHTING PLAN, AND THE GUTTERS.
AND WE WILL AUTHORIZE, UH, THE CONSULTANTS TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR OUR MARCH 17TH MEETING.
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE THOSE AND YOU RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM ENGINEERING THAT, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
YOU WON'T EVEN HAVE TO SHOW UP.
AND WHAT'S THE DATE AGAIN? I'M SORRY? MARCH 17TH.
AND THE NOTE ABOUT THE LIGHTING, TAMMY SAID JUST SAY THEY'RE SHIELDED LIGHTS.
IF I COULD JUST SAY, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, PERHAPS MAYBE AL'S NOT AN AGREE, BUT TYPICALLY THOSE COMMENTS THAT CAMMIE MAKES, UM, ARE TAKEN CARE OF AFTER YOU APPROVE IT AND BEFORE SHE SIGNS THE PLANS, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE, TYPICALLY HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE YOU OFFICIALLY APPROVE IT.
SO, UM, I WILL MAKE A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CONSULTANTS TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR ASSET RECOVERY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES AND TABLE ASSET RECOVERY TO MARCH 17TH.
SO, MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN.
SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL WE'LL BE ALL SET AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO COME IN ON THE 17TH.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DAVID A PUBLIC HEARING OR DAVID MANKO REQUESTING PRELIMINARY SLASH APPROVAL OF A 67 SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD BECAUSE HE'S FACING THIS WAVE.
IF ANYBODY'S HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE IS A DRAWING BACK THERE IF YOU WANTED TO FOLLOW ALONG WHAT WE HAD DRAWING ON THAT TABLE BACK THERE.
SO I KNOW HE'S GONNA FACE THIS.
ONCE AGAIN, SEAN HOPKINS FROM THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS STEWARD MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, DAVID MANKO.
MR. MANKO IS ALSO HERE WITH US THIS EVENING AS WELL AS CHRIS WOOD, THE PROJECT ENGINEER FROM CARINA WOOD MORRIS.
UM, EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING A CONNECTION WITH A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PENDING REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.
WE PREVIOUSLY HAVE SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION.
A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW HAS OCCURRED AND THE DEADLINE FOR AGENCIES RESPOND EXPIRED QUITE SOME TIME AGO.
NONE OF THE AGENCIES EXPRESSED ANY CONCERNS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ACTING AS A DESIGNATED LEAD AGENCY PURSUANT TO SPEAKER.
THIS PROJECT WAS DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY DURING YOUR
[01:00:01]
MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.IN THE CONTEXT OF SEEKER, SPECIFICALLY THE POTENTIAL FOR THERE TO BE OVERLAP OR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BETWEEN THIS PROJECT AND THE WETZEL REZONING, WHICH IS LATER ON THE AGENDA.
UH, BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, WE HAVE ORDERED A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SR ASSOCIATES.
IT WILL CONSIDER THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF BOTH PROPOSED PROJECTS WITHIN ONE STUDY AND THAT WILL PROBABLY TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO FINALIZE.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE, UM, AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF WAS, IT'S 69 LOTS, 67 OF WHICH ARE FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
ALL THE LOTS ON THE R ONE ZONE SITE SATISFY THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE SITE DOES INCLUDE TWO PUBLIC ROADWAY CONNECTIONS, PUBLIC SEWER, PUBLIC WATER, ALL COMPLIANT WITH THE DETAILED STRINGENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE A NO IMPACT LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE PARKS RECREATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
CHRIS'S FIRM HAS DONE A DOWNSTREAM SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE DOWNSTREAM SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY DURING WET WEATHER CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE DEFINED AS A RAIN EVENT OR PRECIPITATION GREATER THAN HALF AN INCH OVER A 24 HOUR PERIOD.
ERIE COUNTY DIVISION OF SEWAGE MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED THAT AS THE AGENT OR ON BEHALF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
WE DO HAVE A VERY MINOR, MINOR WETLAND IMPACT SHOWN HERE, APPROXIMATELY SIX TO ONE HUNDREDTHS OF AN ACRE.
WHILE IT DOES REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN A 10TH OF AN ACRE, UH, NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED AND IT'S A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD PERMITTING PROCESS.
UM, I THINK THAT SUMMARIZES WHERE WE'RE AT.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS, UM, LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT.
WE'LL BE BRINGING BACK THAT UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY FOR BOTH PROJECTS WHEN WE GET THERE.
AND I THINK THAT SUMMARIZES IT, RIGHT, CHRIS? I THINK SO.
OH, THE OTHER THING THAT WAS DISCUSSED TWO WEEKS AGO, AND I JUST WANNA REITERATE, IS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
SO OBVIOUSLY EACH OF THESE PROJECTS HAS TO HAVE ITS OWN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPLYING WITH THE STRINGENT STORMWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY STANDARDS OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A GOOD CONSULTING ENGINEER WHO'S GONNA CONFIRM THAT THE TECHNICAL PLANS COMPLY WITH ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT OUR SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED TO HANDLE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S ALSO DESIGNED SO IT WILL NOT INCREASE THE RATE OF RUNOFF AFTER DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY WITH NO DEVELOPMENT BEING ON THE PROJECT SIDE.
UM, FOR THE BOARD BILL WAS AT THE MEETING THAT THE BOARD SESSION MEETING WE WERE AUTHORIZED AND AS A RESOLUTION IN MONDAY NIGHT TO THE TOWN BOARDS THAT THIS IS THE LATER AGENDA ITEM, BUT THE TOWN BOARD'S GONNA AUTHORIZE YOU TO BE THE AGENT OF WETZEL WITH THE CAVEAT IN THERE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE NEW PACKS OF THESE TWO PROJECTS TOGETHER.
SO THAT'S IN THE RESOLUTION FOR MONDAY NIGHT.
SO THAT'S OFFICIAL THAT YOU ARE GOING TO REVIEW THESE PROJECTS TOGETHER AND WELL, THERE'LL BE SEPARATE SECRET DECISIONS, BUT YOU'LL REVIEW THEM TOGETHER FOR POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
I THINK WHAT, UH, MR. HOPKINS IS ASKING IS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR TRAFFIC.
ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU BELIEVE ARE CUMULATIVE IN NATURE THAT YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK AT FROM A CUMULATIVE STANDPOINT? LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING NEXT DOOR.
HE'S EXPLAINED THAT THE STORM WATER IS INDEPENDENT.
ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE CUMULATIVE THAT YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK AT TOGETHER? NOT ONLY THIS SUBJECT.
SO THERE WAS ONE OTHER TOPIC WE DISCUSSED ABOUT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND CHRIS BROUGHT THIS UP IN DETAIL TWO WEEKS AGO.
SO WE HAVE DOWNSTREAM SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THE MANSLOW SUB BECAUSE IT WAS PREPARED FIRST, THE SEWER FROM THIS PROJECT SITE WILL ALSO GO INTO THE SAME SYSTEM AS THE WETZEL PROJECT.
SO WHEN CHRIS PREPARED THE DOWNSTREAM SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THE WETZEL PROJECT, IT KICKED INTO ACCORDANCE TO THE SEWER FROM THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED YET, I DON'T BELIEVE.
SO WHEN THAT GETS APPROVED, IT WILL BE BY DEFINITION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF BOTH PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S A SEWER FOR WETZEL AND THE SEWER FOR MANCO, WHICH ALREADY HAS BEEN APPROVED.
AND DO YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON WATER SAYING THAT BASICALLY BOTH, BOTH DEVELOPMENTS WET IN, WERE NOT CAUSING ANY PROBLEM PRESSURES AND FLOWS IN THE AREA? YEAH, CHRIS DISCUSSED THAT TWO WEEKS AGO, BUT GO AHEAD, CHRIS DIDN'T BRING IT UP.
WE, WE, AGAIN, THIS, THIS IS THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A BACK PUBLIC WATERS.
SO THIS PROJECT AND THE WHAT PROJECT WILL BOTH BE REVIEWED BY THE WATER AUTHORITY, YOU KNOW, BASED ON OUR CONSTELLATIONS.
WE'LL HAVE TO VERIFY THAT STUFF ALONG ALONG
[01:05:01]
WITH TAMMY.AND UH, YOU KNOW, THEY DO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
WE ALSO WANNA CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVELY COMMUNITY CHARACTER AS WELL AS, UM, SOME OF THE NON-POINT SOURCE ISSUES AND OVERALL VARI GRADING IN THAT, IN THAT AREA.
CHRIS, DID BOTH PROJECTS DISCHARGE INTO THE SAME? IS THAT SAME DISCHARGE, RIGHT? OBVIOUSLY WEZEL WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS ONE, BUT THIS ONE WON'T BE IMPACTED BY WEZEL BECAUSE WEZEL DOWNSTREAM RIGHT CLOSE TO THE WEST.
IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER, OF COURSE THAT IS A TOPIC THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS PURSUANT TO SECRET.
I WOULD OF COURSE NOTE THAT THIS SITE IS PROPERLY ZONED R ONE AND CHRIS HAS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED THE SUBDIVISION SO THAT EACH AND EVERY LOT COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS.
OBVIOUSLY THE BOARD IS FAMILIAR AND THEN BILL WAS WORTHWHILE.
IN FACT, WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITE THAT WE DID PREVIOUSLY PROPOSE A CLUSTER LAYOUT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
IT WOULD'VE HAD SMALLER, LOTS LESS INFRASTRUCTURE, MORE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
ULTIMATELY IT WAS A CONSENSUS, THIS BOARD THAT WAS PREFERABLE TO DO AN AS OF RIGHT SUBDIVISION, WHICH WE ARE NOW PROPOSING COMPARED TO THAT PREVIOUS PROPOSAL.
AND THAT'S STILL, I MEAN I AGREE WITH YOU SEAN, THAT YOU ARE MEETING THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, BUT ZONING AND COMMUNICATE CHARACTER ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.
AND DESPITE ME ZONING, THE LAND USE IS CHANGING IN BOTH PLACES.
YEAH, LAND IS CHANGING AND I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH MY COMMENT AND I, I SHARED IT PREVIOUSLY, WHETHER IT WAS CLUSTER OR WHETHER IT WAS A REGULAR LAYOUT, IS THAT THE CHARACTER OF THIS IS PARKER ROAD AND IF YOU DRIVE DOWN PARKER ROAD, IT'S A VERY SOMEWHAT RURAL ROAD TO BE IN AN AREA THAT IT IS AND THE AESTHETICS OF IT AS ARE LARGER, LOTS OF LONG ROAD ALONG PARKER ROAD WITH TREES.
I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT THE LOTS FRONT PARK SHOULD BE DIFFERENT AND SHOULD, SHOULD BLEND MORE IN THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA.
YEAH, I I WOULD NOTE THAT OUR LOTS ON THIS STRETCH OF PARKER ROAD ARE LARGER THAN THE NEARBY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE WIDER THAN THE EXISTING HOMES.
SO WE WE'RE PURPOSELY NOT TRYING TO DESIGN THE SITE.
SO IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER AND LOCK CONFIGURATION OF EXISTING HOMES THAT FRONT ON PARKER ROAD BECAUSE THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS NEARBY REALLY DON'T HAVE PART OF THE LOT.
THEY REALLY GO IN AND THEN WHENEVER, THEN THERE'S LOTS ALONG THE ROAD.
SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE SUBDIVISION, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY IN THE SUBDIVISION.
I MEAN, MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT THAT, AND I, I'M NOT A ENGINEER AND S IN, BUT THE SITE WAS THERE A FARM ROAD.
SO THAT ROAD WAS PUT IN SHOULDERS, IT WAS DESIGNED AT A TIME, VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ALL THESE SUBDIVISIONS WENT IN.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS REALLY THE SIZE APPROPRIATELY OUTSTANDING QUESTION, WE KEEP ADDING STUFF TO IT AND NOW INCREMENTAL MATCHES.
YEAH, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE TRAFFIC STUDY ORDER.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THE RESULTS ARE WHEN IT COMES BACK IN.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE I BROUGHT LAST MEETING WAS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DO REQUIRE GREEN SPACE.
WHETHER THAT'S DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OR NOT, THAT'S AN ISSUE.
OR THE TOWN TAKES MONEY IN LIEU OF IF IT'S ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATION.
SO CONSIDER THAT TOO, IF THERE'S REASONING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PASSIVE, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ACTIVE GEAR, I KNOW THE TOWN DOES NOT NEED ADDITIONAL ACTIVE RECREATION, BUT WHETHER IT'S PASSIVE RECREATION STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL WALKING TRAILS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THE SNOWMOBILE TRAIL IN THE AREA AND WHATEVER.
SO THOSE THINGS WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SUB.
WELL I THINK THEY STAYED IN THEIR PLAN WITH THIS, THIS, UH, PROJECT WAS TO BANK FEE.
IT WAS, THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR CURRENT PLAN.
UNLESS WE, OTHERWISE I THINK THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
THE CHANNEL CHARGES A THOUSAND DOLLARS A LOT FOR THAT GOES INTO A FUND TO HELP FUND RECREATION PRESERVATION OF SERVED.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING?
[01:10:06]
MEGAN AT BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, A 67 SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY DAVID TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD, SOUTH OFE ROAD.THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD MARCH 3RD, 21 AT 7:00 PM IN TOWN HALL.
ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DAVID MANKO.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT THE DAVID MANKO PROJECT NEAR PARKER ROAD IS, YEAH.
WILL YOU COME UP AND AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? UH, JIM, AMY COREY, 23 PARKER ROAD.
IF, UH, THEY'RE HAVING TWO EXCESS ROADS ON THE RIGHT FROM FROM THE RIGHT, WHAT ARE THEY PLANNING ON PUTTING THE LIGHT AT THE CORNER OF BIG, BECAUSE YOU GOT THE SCHOOL ON ONE, ONE SIDE, YOU'LL HAVE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ALSO, IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, SHOULDN'T THEY AT LEAST PUT A SIDEWALK FROM LIKE THE TOP WHERE THEY START THE DEVELOPMENT ALL THE WAY DOWN SO PEOPLE HAVE WAYS TO WALK, WALK ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS.
ARE YOU PROPOSING SIDEWALKS ON YOUR THAT'S THE, THE SIDEWALKS INTERIOR ON NEW ROAD.
WHAT ABOUT ON PARK ON PARKER? THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE.
IS YOUR FRONT THAT ROAD YOU WOULD'VE TO WA THAT OR RIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD BE ALONG FRONT WOULD BE ON.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO DO FROM HERE TO THE END OF, OF THE PROPERTY YOU OWN.
SO SO THE DIFFICULT THING IS SIDEWALKS ON AREAS THAT AREN'T PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? CORRECT.
IT, IT FRONTS ON THE CODE NINE REQUIRES, IT'S ACTUALLY OPTIONAL WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, BUT IT'S REQUIRED ON THE FRONTAGE.
ALL DEVELOPMENT HAVE TO HAVE SIDEWALKS UNLESS THEY'RE WAVED BY YOU.
TO THE OTHER QUESTION JUST ABOUT, UH, THE TRAFFIC LIGHT, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'LL BE UP TO, I BELIEVE THIS IS A STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTING A TOWN, TOWN HIGHWAY.
SO THE STATE WILL CONTROL WHETHER A SIGNAL GOES INTO OR NOT.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UM, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE THE SECOND DEVELOPMENT UP.
SO THIS ACCESS ROAD THAT YOU'RE BRINGING INTO PARKER ROAD, WILL THAT FEED INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT BEHIND? NO, THERE'S NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE APARTMENTS AND SO, SO IF PEOPLE ARE THAT LIVE BEHIND, THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO GET TO PARKER ROAD? NO, AND I KNOW, I KNOW THE ISSUE OF WATER PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT UP AND I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HERE COULD EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A WATER MAIN BREAK SOMEWHERE ON LAKE LAKE USE OF
NOW WE'RE PUTTING IN 300, 3 50 UNITS.
HOW, HOW, HOW IS THAT WATER PRESSURE BEING, YOU KNOW, WELL ACCOUNTED FOR? RIGHT.
I MEAN THIS PROBABLY NOTHING DO WITH WATERING BREAK, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALL I'M I'LL REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT PLACES FROM YOUR PLACE ACROSS ANOTHER APARTMENT BUILDING.
I CAN, I CAN ANSWER AND THEY'RE ALL PULLING OUTTA THERE.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE HAD A WATER MAIN BREAK THAT WAS, UH, 40 MILES AWAY, 35 MILES AWAY AND IT SHUT DOWN THE SCHOOL.
WHEN WE DO THE ACTUAL DETAIL DESIGN, WE DO HAVE THE DO WATER CALCULATIONS BASED ON DOMESTIC AND THE FIRE AS WELL.
AND IF ISN'T SUFFICIENT PRESSURE THEN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO EXTEND THE MAINS TO SERVICE THE PARCEL.
SO IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, WHAT DO THEY DO? DO THEY CREATE LIKE ANOTHER PUMPING STATION OR SOMETHING OR HOW DOES THAT WORK IN LAYMAN'S TERMS? THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE CORRECT WATER PRESSURE TO BE ALLOWED.
IT'S BASED ON A WORST CASE SCENARIO WHERE EVERYBODY IS USING THE PEAK OF WATER.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW, HOW DO YOU CREATE WATER PRESSURE OR INCREASE WATER PRESSURE? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? HOW WOULD YOU INCREASE PUMP STATION WATER? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
WE DON'T ENVISION WE NEED, RIGHT? PARDON ME? WE DON'T ENVISION THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED THAT.
IT'LL BE UP TO THE ERIE COUNTY IN HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS PUT YOUR PLAN
[01:15:01]
TOGETHER AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE HAS WE FIGURE IT OUT? NO, CHRIS DOES.WE DO ALL THE CALCULATING WE THAT TO THE BAR AUTHORITY IN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THEY VERIFY AND ALSO COMMENT.
SO WHERE IF I, IF YOU DON'T MIND, SO WELL HOLD, LET'S HOLD ON A SECOND.
SO, SO THESE REALLY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN, UH, RESIDENTS AND THE DEVELOPERS.
THESE ARE COMMENTS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS RECEIVING.
UM, I'M SURE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THAT BACK AND FORTH AND THAT WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE, UH, FORUM TO HAVE THIS, THE DISCUSSION.
UM, WE, WE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
IT'S NOT, UH, WE'RE NOT FACILITATING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU AND THE DEVELOPER.
WELL, I SAID MY CONCERN WAS THESE ACCESS ROADS.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AS I SAID, WE WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT CLUSTER MM-HMM
AND I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS NOW THAT THE SECOND PROPOSAL HAS COME UP, I JUST WAS WONDERING IF THAT WAS GOING DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WAS COMING DOWN.
THANK, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I CAN'T SEE EVERYONE BEHIND SIGN.
I'M RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS.
UM, WHEN WE WERE DOING A CLUSTER, I WAS, UH, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE SECOND ACCESS ROAD WOULD BE GATED AND IT WAS ALL CLEARED WITH THE FIRE COMPANY.
IS THAT STILL GOING TO BE GATED WITH THIS NEW PLANT? THE NEW ONE? NOT GATED.
WELL, WHY IS IT THAT IT CAN'T BE GATED WHEN IT WAS NECESSARY WITH THE CLUSTER? WELL, WE ALL FELT THAT WAY BEFORE THE CLUSTER ENDED ABOUT HERE.
WE ONLY HAVE TRAVEL FROM HERE TO HERE NOW WE HAVE TRAVEL FROM HERE ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE, SO WE'RE GONNA BE REQUIRED A ACCESS AND BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD WE CAN'T PUT A GATE ON.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DID YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR? YEAH, MY NAME IS JACK FOLEY.
UH, THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, I, I BROUGHT UP THIS TOPIC BEFORE AND I JUST STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RETENTION TIME.
AND EVEN NOW WHEN WE HAVE SNOW MELT AND WE HAVE RAINSTORMS, A LOT OF WATER HAS A TENDENCY TO LEACH DOWN INTO MY YARD.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW EFFECTIVE WILL THIS RETENTION POND BE AND ELIMINATING, YOU KNOW, GROUNDWATER FOR MAKING ITS WAY INTO THE BACKYARDS ON JOHNS WAY.
IT, THAT'S PROBABLY A CONVERSATION YOU SHOULD SPECIFICALLY HAVE WITH THE ENGINEER ABOUT YOUR PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
UM, GENERALLY TO, TO MAKE A COMMENT ON IT, THE RETENTION POND HAVE TO BE EFFECTIVE ENOUGH TO HAVE WATER NOT GO OFF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AS FAR AS HOW IT SPECIFICALLY IMPACT YOUR LOT IN RELATION TO WHERE THE RETENTION POND IS, I I RECOMMEND THAT YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL THAN THAT.
BUT CAM, YOUR ENGINEER WILL SAY THAT THE WATER THAT COMES OFF THE PROPERTY SHOULDN'T GO ONTO OTHER PEOPLE'S LAWN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ONE ONLINE, UH, SO FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THE USE? UM, THE DAVID MAKO SUBDIVISION.
SO YES, 44 BE, I LIKE TO SEE THE WHOLE THING.
I SEE LIKE WHERE? 30 ANYWHERE.
IT, WE CAN, WE CAN PUT THE TWO PLANS TOGETHER ON THING.
WE'LL TREES, I, YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT.
[01:20:01]
SO OTHER, ANY OTHER COMMENTS WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT? OKAY, FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL COMMENTS, DAVID, YOU KNOW, WELL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT.SO THERE'S NO COMMENTS ONLINE.
OH, YOU HAD ANOTHER COMMENT ON DAVID KO MY COMMENTS BEFORE TOMORROW BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU DON'T READ THEM THE DAY, THE WEEK OF THE MEETING.
ANYWAYS, GETTING BACK TO WHEN WE GET OUR PETITION WITH THE CLUSTER AND I, AS I COMMENT ONLINE, OH YEAH, WE DID GO.
UM, YOU KNOW WHY THOSE CAN'T BE MET AGAIN? AND IT CAUGHT MY EAR, THE FRONTAGES ON PARKER.
MINE INCLUDE, MINE IS ONE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE 75, THE REST ARE DOUBLE LOTS.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW, THAT KIND OF STRUCK ME.
KIND OF FUNNY THERE WHEN YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT, WHAT I ASKED YOU, THE CHARACTER IS MAINTAINED.
I'VE GOT PROBABLY THE NARROWEST LOT MY ONE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO ME BECAUSE THAT WAS KIND OF BROUGHT UP EARLIER.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE JUST WISH THERE WAS NO BUILDING AT ALL ON HARVARD THAT CAN BE DONE.
AND DO, I MEAN THESE TWO SIDE BY SIDE DEVELOPMENTS TO ME IS VERY TROUBLESOME AND MIND GOGGLING THAT THIS CAN BE BUILT SO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THREE DEVELOPMENTS GO IN THAT LAST 15, 20 YEARS.
THINK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ALREADY THAT HAS INCURRED WITH TWO CARS PER HOUSEHOLD.
YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT 300 MORE CARS UP AND DOWN PARKER ROAD ALONE AND YOU'RE GONNA BUILD 156 APARTMENT UNIT AND ALL OF THESE, THINK ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T CARE WHAT MAYBE A TRAFFIC STUDY SAYS, THERE'S GONNA BE NO IMPACT.
TWO CARS PER HOUSEHOLD, USUALLY THAT'S A LOT OF CARS.
WHAT I WANNA ASK EVERYBODY TO DO IS THE COMMENTS THAT YOU SUBMITTED FOR THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT, THE CLUSTER ONE, UH, IF YOU FEEL LIKE THEY'RE STILL APPROPRIATE, PLEASE RESUBMIT THEM BECAUSE THIS IS A SECOND PART.
I ATTACH IT TO MY EMAIL FOR SIR.
BUT I BUT I I'M SAYING FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S WATCHING AND GONNA WATCH AND HERE THAT, THAT I, I WANT EVERYONE TO DO THAT AGAIN FOR ALL OF THEM.
UM, SO THAT PETITION YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, PLEASE RESUBMIT IT FOR THIS PROJECT TOO.
AND, UH, ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S HAD COMMENTS ON THE LAST PROJECT, PLEASE SEND THOSE COMMENTS AGAIN ON THIS PROJECT.
IF YOU BELIEVE THEY STILL APPLY.
I MEAN, IT, IT, IT IS A DIFFERENT PROJECT, SO IF THEY DON'T APPLY THEN DON'T SEND US THE SAME THING.
BUT BECAUSE THAT WAS A SEPARATE PROJECT.
SUBMIT THE COMMENTS AGAIN ON THIS ONE, PLEASE.
WE, WE'LL, WE'LL GET TO THE, IT'S ON THE AGENDA LATER, SO WELL, WE MIGHT NOT STAKE HER THAT ONE BECAUSE I I DIDN'T HEAR THAT ON MEETINGS.
SO THOSE ARE GONNA BE PRETTY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ON 28TH.
SO THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ONLINE HERE.
UH, WHITNEY ZELENSKY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE CULVERT THAT TRAVELS BENEATH PARKER ROAD.
SO I WELL I'M SURE YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT.
UM, JOSEPH, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE EFFECTS OF THE DRAINAGE ON THE MANCO DEVELOPMENT? THE CURRENT CULTURE DOES NOT SEEM TO CONTROL CURRENT SNOW MELT AND HEAVY RAIN AS IT IS.
AND THEN OTHER COMMENTS BY KIM BA UH, AND THE WATER THAT WILL COME DOWN TOM DRIVE, HOPEFULLY THE DEPARTMENTS WILL NOT EXIT ON FOR THE OTHER PROJECT.
SO IF YOU CAN, UH, SHE'S PROBABLY TALKING UNDER RIGHT.
THAT'S, THAT'S UP SO UPSTREAM, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? MEANS OUR WATER'S GONNA DISCHARGE DOWN HERE SO THE WATER FLOWS THIS WAY SO WE'RE NOT GONNA, OUR WATER IS NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THE CONGRESS.
YOU PROVIDE, UH, THAT IN WRITING OR DIAGRAM FOR OFFICIAL COMMENT RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD? SURE.
ANY OF OUR PRO UH, COMMENTS ON THE DAVE MANKO PROJECT? OKAY.
THERE'S, UNLESS IT BACKS UP INTO IT.
UM, SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME NCE THERE GONNA WANT MORE INFORMATION
[01:25:01]
ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS AND WHAT HAPPENS IF, IF IT BACKS UP.UM, BILL FOR THE OTHER HEARINGS WHERE WE HAD THEM KIND OF HYBRID ONLINE AND IN PERSON, DID WE MAINTAIN THE MEETINGS OPEN WHERE THERE WERE ONLINE COMMENTS TO THE NEXT MEETING? OR HOW ARE WE HANDLING THAT NOW? WE, WE DID THAT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE, YOU KNOW, THE ONLINE SITUATION IS ON THE PLANNING BOARD ARE AWARE IS KIND OF FLUID RIGHT NOW.
UM, THIS WAS NOTICED TO BE IN PERSON ONLY.
UM, WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR TWO WEEKS.
UM, EVEN IF PEOPLE SEND, WELL I GUESS I'LL LET, UH, OUR ATTORNEY WEIGH IN, BUT JUST BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, IF SOMEONE SENDS US A COMMENT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, WEEKS, WE WILL STILL CONSIDER THAT COMMENT EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT CONSIDERING THAT THE MEETING WAS NOTICED TO BE JESSICA PERSON NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE THE MEETING OPEN BY ANY MEANS, HOWEVER, IF THERE'S A COMPASS BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT YOU WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE IT OPEN, THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CONSIDER AT THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT GIVEN THAT IT NOTICE THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
ANYTHING LIKE THAT GIVEN THE WHOLE MEETING? WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED BEFORE.
IT WAS SOMETHING WE DID TO ALLOW MORE ACCESS.
UM, ONE OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
OF COURSE YOU CAN CONSIDER THEM.
JUST BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED DOESN'T MEAN ANY COMMENTS WRITTEN OR YOU KNOW, SOMEONE CALLED IN AND SHE THERE DOESN'T MEAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD.
SO WHAT DO THE BOARD MEMBERS THINK AS FAR AS CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW? I IT'S BEEN PAST PRACTICE THAT WE LEFT IT OPEN FOR THE TWO WEEKS.
I THINK I ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF PAST PRACTICE.
I DON'T IT'S GONNA ANYTHING DECISION WE CAN MAKE COMMENTS.
UH, THE PERSON IN
ALRIGHT, SO THEN WE WILL NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO THEN WE WILL, UH, NO, I THINK IT'S GOOD IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE SURE TO REITERATE OR PUT IN THE MINUTES THAT, UM, THAT PEOPLE NEED TO THAT STUFF THAT WAS ON THE OTHER PROJECT.
GREAT COMMENTS WERE ALREADY RECORD, RIGHT? BILL? UM, CA I AGREE WITH YOU, HOWEVER, IT IS ALL ONE FILE.
SO AT LEAST EVERYTHING THAT WE GOT FROM BEFORE, IS IT IT'S STILL IN THIS? YES, IT'S THE SAME FILE.
I THOUGHT THEY FILED A NEW APPLICATION THOUGH.
THEY THEY CAME IN FRONT OF ANOTHER WORK SESSION.
THEY DID, BUT IT'S ALL IN THE SAME PHYSICAL FILE.
SO THEN ARE WE THAT ARE PUBLIC COMMENT A PREVIOUS PROJECT WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON THIS PROJECT? WELL, THE COMMENTS WERE RELATIVE TO CLUSTER.
SO DOES THE BOARD WANT US TO VISIT CLUSTERING AGAIN,
I JUST ASKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE THE SAME DENSITY.
IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE, IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN TERMS CONSIDER UNDERSTAND AND, AND WE, I MEAN YOU, YOU WERE HERE THAT THERE A MOTION WAS MADE AND IT WASN'T SECONDED.
UM, AND THAT WAS THE DECISION THAT THE, THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MADE.
IF THEY, IF IF PEOPLE ON THE PLANNING BOARD, THE MAJORITY OF 'EM COME TO ME AND SAY WE WANNA CHANGE WHAT WE WERE, WHAT WE SAID LAST TIME, THEN, THEN YES, WE WOULD DO THAT.
BUT I'M NOT GONNA GO TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, DO YOU WANNA CHANGE YOUR MIND? NOW? I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF THE PARKER ROAD RESIDENTS WHO ARE IN ATTENDANCE ARE INDICATING, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, IS THAT THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE FOR A CLUSTERED LAYOUT.
IS IT WORTHWHILE GIVEN THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING FOR AT TWO WEEKS FROM NOW? PRESENT BOTH.
[01:30:01]
OUT THERE.WE WE DID AGREE THAT WE WOULD TAKE THOSE ROAD FRONTAGE LOTS OFF OF PARKER.
BUT WHAT SAYING IS THERE WAS SOME FORMAL COMMENT RESPONSE, I THINK DOCUMENT REGARDING SOME OTHERS, SOME OF THE BROADER COMMENTS THAT APPLIED TO BOTH CLUSTERED AND UN DEVELOPMENT.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A FORMAL COMMON RESPONSE ON ANYTHING THAT'S APPLICABLE TO BOTH LAYOUTS, NOT JUST FERENCE FOR ONE LAYOUT.
I DIDN'T, UM, I I THINK WHEN THAT VOTE ON THE CLUSTER WAS MADE THAT THE, THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANTED AND, AND VOTED THE WAY THEY VOTED OR WELL THEY DIDN'T, THERE WAS NO VOTE.
THEY, THEY, IT, IT DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD.
IT, IT DIDN'T GET A SECOND THERE.
SO THAT MEANS THERE WERE AT LEAST, UH, WELL DOUG WASN'T HERE THAT DAY, BUT FIVE, FIVE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T EVEN THINK THAT IT SHOULD GO FURTHER INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND ALL I'M THROWING OUT THERE IS SOMETHING WORTH REVISITING.
AND, UM, AND, AND WE UNDERSTAND, WELL OF COURSE OBVIOUSLY THE RESIDENTS ON PARKER ROAD, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE NOTHING THERE.
AND I GET IT, THEY LIVE THERE, BUT IF THERE'S, BUT IF WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THEM BETTER BY DOING A CLUSTERED PLAN, WE AGAIN, WE'RE CERTAINLY STILL GOING TO ENTERTAIN THAT.
AND I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REVISIT SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY UNDERSTAND AS IT CAN HAPPEN.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET.
I I THINK, UH, I I THINK IT WOULD, I DON'T THINK THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ARE GONNA CHANGE THEIR MIND ON IT.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH REVISITING.
IF YOU WANT, I CAN, I CAN GO THROUGH THE F**K HELL AND GO THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS WE GOT AND PUT THE ONES THAT WERE ONLY CLUSTER RELATED IN ONE PART OF THE FILE AND THEN MAYBE IF THERE'S NOT TOO MANY OF 'EM, SCAN AND EMAIL YOU THE ONES THAT WERE MORE BROADLY, UM, ORGANIZED.
UM, JUST SO EVERYTHING'S CLEAR ON THE RECORD THOUGH, I, I WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO, TO RESUBMIT.
UM, BECAUSE THAT'S EASIER FOR ME, RIGHT.
THE WAY, THE WAY I'M SEEING IT AND, AND JENNIFER CAN WEIGH IN, THEY, THEY PAID AN APPLICATION FEE, THEY CAME IN FRONT OF A WORK SESSION THAT THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW PROJECT.
PHYSICALLY WE MAY KEEP 'EM IN THE SAME PAPER FILE, BUT I THINK IF SOMETHING HAPPENED AND THIS WENT TO LITIGATION, I I I THINK WE WOULD, THE, THE FILE WOULD BE THIS PROJECT THAT BECOMES PART OF THAT LITIGATION, NOT THE LAST PROJECT.
SO, SO WHILE WE MAY PHYSICALLY KEEP THEM IN THE SAME PLACE, I THINK IF, IF THINGS GO POORLY AND IT HAS TO, TO GO TO A COURT THAT THEY MAY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED THAT DONE THAT WAY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S, I THINK IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL IF RESIDENTS RESUBMITTED THEIR COMMENTS JUST BASED ON THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD AND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE COMMENTS WOULD DATE TO THE CLUSTER OR NOT IS SOMETHING THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER IN THEIR APPLICATION.
BUT I MEAN, WHATEVER DIRECTION OR COMMENT RELATED, YES, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT NOT JUST TYPE OF A LAYOUT, BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT, WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU RIGHT.
SO SOMEBODY WALKED PAST WE COULDN'T HEAR THAT.
I WAS, I THINK THAT THERE'S, THE CONCERN IS HAVING HOMES ON PARKER ROAD, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S POTENTIAL TO, TO REMOVE OR OTHERWISE MITIGATE FOR SOME OF THOSE HOMES ON PARKER ROAD WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S BEEN A COMMENT THAT'S COME IN MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN AND THAT'S A, YOU KNOW,
[01:35:01]
CAN I, CAN I THROW OUT ONE IDEA AND I'M NOT GONNA GO BACK TO A TOPIC THAT I'VE BEEN TOLD NOT TO GO BACK TO.SO THE, THE TOPIC IS THIS AND IT'S CHRIS'S IDEA.
WOULD THE BOARD BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN, NOT A CLUSTER LAYOUT, BUT WE COULD AT LEAST LOOK AT NOT, WE CAN'T MAKE COMMITMENT RIGHT NOW, IN THEORY, WE COULD MAKE THE LOCK DIMENSIONS OF SOME OF THE INTERIOR SUBDIVISION LOCKS SMALLER.
WE COULD STILL EASILY ACCOMMODATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND IF WE COULD DO THAT, WE COULD AT LEAST CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ELIMINATE FRONTAGE LOCKS ON PARKRIDGE, RIGHT? WE WOULD TAKE LIKE, LIKE IN THE CLUSTER, WE WOULD TAKE THESE LOTS AND PUT THEM ON THE RIGHT.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER AND COME BACK WITH A PLAN? NO.
THEN YOU WOULD NEED VARIANCES, RIGHT? I GUESS WHAT I WAS ASKING IS THEY'RE NOT ELIMINATING THOSE ALTOGETHER IS POTENTIALLY AN OPTION.
AND AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS WHEN WE DO THE TRADITIONAL LAYOUT, THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS RISE PROPORTIONATELY.
SO WHILE WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT INTO THE CLUSTERED LAB, WHICH THAT'S BEEN PUT TO BED UNDER THIS LAB, WE ARE GONNA HAVE THE FRONTAGE LOTS.
AND IT, AND IT REALLY DOES COME DOWN TO THE, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD OR HOW THEY WOULD FEEL ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, IT, IT DOESN'T HURT US TO LOOK AT SOMETHING.
BUT IF YOU HAVE TO PUT THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE.
THE BOARD VOTED TO HAVE R ONE LOTS AND THEY SHOULD MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR R ONE LOTS.
OTHERWISE YOU'D NEED TO GO WHAT SARAH SAID.
RIGHT? I AGREE WITH CAITLIN TOO.
I'M THINKING ABOUT THE, I GO TO THE ZONING BOARD MEETINGS AND I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROVE, COULD GET THE VARIANCE THAT'S NECESSARY.
WELL REMEMBER IF IT BENEFITS THE VARIANCE TEST, THIS ISN'T THE ZONING BOARD, IT'S AN AREA VARIANCE.
THE TEST WOULD BE BENEFITS THE APPLICANT VERSUS DETRIMENTS SAFETY, WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
IF IT'S BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT, AT LEAST THE ZBA IN THEORY, SARAH COULD, I'M NOT SPEAKING RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE MATTER OF SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING, OBVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY SEPARATE LAW.
IT'S JUST IF YOU SOMETHING YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT, WE COULD, IF YOU DON'T WANT US TO, THAT'S OKAY.
THE BIG THING WAS THE LOCK SIDE.
WE DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE COMING BACK AND SAYING, I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T PUT A SWIMMING POOL IN THERE OR I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T GET A PAD.
SO, HEY GUYS, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.
THESE ARE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
BY WAY OF COMPARISON, THIS BOARD, I'M GONNA HOLD YOU TO IT.
THERE'S BEEN CLUSTERED LAYOUTS APPRO THE LAST SIX YEARS WHERE THE LOT SIZES ARE AS SMALL AS 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO WE COULD ADJUST THESE LOT SIZES AND EASILY STILL ACCOMMODATE POOLS, SHEDS, COMPLIANCE WITH
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE CLEAR.
I THINK WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND PART OF IT HAS COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND THE DENSITY OF HOMES.
SO I THINK, I THINK THIS ISSUE SAME.
SO DENSITY WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
WE'RE NOT TRYING, WE'LL BE ADDING ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU WANNA SAY, WE'LL, WE'RE TRYING TO BE FLEXIBLE.
WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF GETTING SHOT DOWN EVERY, EVERY POSSIBILITY WE THROUGHOUT THIS, I, I THINK THAT THE, THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS THAT STICK WITH THE SIZE OF BOX.
MM-HMM BUT THEN WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO FUND THE LOT ON PARKER.
I WOULD SAY IT WAS UNANIMOUS, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S A MAJORITY THAT UH, AT LEAST A MAJORITY.
SO I WILL KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, BUT DAVID MANKO TO MARCH 17TH.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DPD HOLDINGS, LLC REQUESTING SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 6 2 2 0 MCKINLEY PARKWAY AS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE.
SO THIS IS ZONING BOARD LAST NIGHT DID ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RIGHT? THIS IS AN AREA THAT USED TO BE A CHURCH.
THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES THE OUTSIDE OF THE APPLICANT HERE ON THAT ONE.
YOU SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE.
OKAY, SO, UM, THIS ONE USED TO BE THAT THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH CLOSED DOWN.
THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE OUTSIDE THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED THE USE VARIANCE AND WE
[01:40:01]
HAVE RESOLUTIONS PREPARED.OKAY? THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED US FROM THE APPROVALS OF LAST MEETING WAS THAT THE ZONING DECLARATION SAID, DIDN'T HAVE TO CALL PREPARE THE RESOLUTION.
ALRIGHT, I'LL DO THE RESOLUTION THEN.
UH, SO THE PLANNING BOARD BASED, WHAT WAS THAT? OKAY.
PLANNING BOARD BASED ON ISSUANCE OF A SEIZURE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XLIV SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF ZONING BOARD HAVING RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED INPUT FROM DOWNTOWN DEPARTMENTS, COMMITTEES, AND ADVISORY BOARDS HAVING COMPLETED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVING THE APPLICANT AMEND THE DRAWINGS BASED ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S.
COMMENTS HEREBY GRANT ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR DPD HOLDINGS LLC TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 6 2 2 0 MCKINNEY PARKWAY AS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE OFFICE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND STONED ON THE PLAN.
TWO APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE USE APPROVED BY THE ZBA AND NO OTHER USES AT THIS SITE.
THREE CONSTRUCTIONS OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BOBCAT OF BUFFALO REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A BUILDING AT 4 7 8 0 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
CHRIS WOOD WAS ATED WITH MORRIS WITH THE ENGINEER WITH PROJECT WE HER, UH, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
I BELIEVE WE, UH, ADDRESSED ALL THE BOARD COMMENTS.
THEY DID ASK A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE FEW TREES.
WE TALKED ABOUT NOT PUTTING THE TREES DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE DISPLAY AREA.
WE WERE ABLE TO ADD FIVE TREES ON THIS SIDE.
UH, DID DID EVERYBODY GET THE REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN? UM, LEMME DOUBLE CHECK HERE.
AND WE WE ALSO GOT A LIGHTING PLAN, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH.
YOU GOT THE LIGHTING DATED LANDSCAPING LIGHTING PLAN THAT WE RECEIVED.
THE LIGHTING PLAN WE HAD SUBMITTED AFTER FRIDAY.
SO THE LAST TIME, I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE MATERIALS THOUGH.
LEMME CHECK TO SEE WHEN WE GOT THAT.
UH, THE SITE PLAN WITH UPDATED LANDSCAPING PLAN I 10:00 AM OKAY.
THAT'S THE ONE, RIGHT CHRIS? YEAH, THE DATE OF MY PLAN IS THE 18TH.
23RD WOULD MAKE SENSE PROBABLY, RIGHT? IT HAS THE FIVE THREES ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THEN THE ONE THREE BY THE DRIVEWAY.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE ADDITIONS.
ARE YOU SURE YOU DIDN'T GET IT MEGAN? BECAUSE I I'VE GOT, UH, I'VE GOT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE LIST OF YEAH, I HAVE THE LIGHTING PLAN THOUGH.
HE SAID THAT THERE WAS AN UPDATED LIGHTING PLAN WAS SENT.
THE, THE LIGHTING PLAN WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
IF YOU WERE EMAILED THAT YOU WOULD'VE GOT THAT THOUGHT UPDATED PREVIOUS MEETING.
I THOUGHT I GOT IN THE SAME EMAIL.
SO WHEN I SAID THAT I THOUGHT I GOT'EM AT THE SAME TIME, BUT YOU RIGHT.
THEY DIDN'T COME AT THE SAME TIME.
SO, OR DREW, IF WE WERE UNDER THE TYPICAL REQUIREMENTS WITH THE TREE REQUIREMENT ON THE FRONTAGE, HOW MANY TREES WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE? I MEAN IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SIX TREES.
UH, IS THIS THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT IT WOULD BE IF THEY HAD TO BE ON THE ROAD OR IS THAT NOT CORRECT? I WOULD THINK SO.
I MEAN, IF YOU SPREAD THOSE OUT ALONG THE ROAD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
IF, IF WE WERE DOING THAT TYPE OF PROJECT.
IF, IF YOU AND YOU ASKED ME TO PREPARE RESOLUTIONS, IF YOU WERE GONNA REMOVE MOVE ON THIS TONIGHT, I DID SAY YOU WOULD NEED TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION.
THEY HAVE SOME LANDSCAPE PLAN, BUT SOME DIRECTION ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
[01:45:01]
THE PERIMETER, THE FRONTAGE, THE PERIMETERS AND PUT IN X AMOUNT OF TREES FOR EVERY 30 FEET.THE LAW GOES FURTHER TO SAY LET'S CONCENTRATE THOSE IN THE AREAS THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THE, FOR THE SITE.
SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU IMPROVING THIS CONDITIONALLY AS LONG AS YOU GIMME DIRECTION ON.
WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE THOSE TREES TO BE PLANTED? WHAT'S THAT X NUMBER? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.
I MEAN SOMEBODY HAVE EXIT TO IT.
I THINK IT'S ONE FOR EVERY 30 FEET, 50 FEET.
SO IT WOULD BE ONE, ONE FOR EVERY 30, 30 FEET.
AND SOMETIMES WE ONLY USE THE FRONTAGE AND SOMETIMES WE'LL USE THE PERIMETER.
WE HAVE NOT, I MEAN I'M NOT GONNA TAKE YOU ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BACK TO THE RAILROAD TRACK WOULD TAKE THE ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE AND SAY, WELL TYPICALLY YOU WOULD'VE, THIS KIND OF TREES WE HAVE GAVE DIRECTION THAT, LOOK, THERE'S NO CENT PLANTING TREES OVER HERE.
WHERE WE WANT IT IS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OR IN THE FRONT AND KIND OF SCREEN THE AREA THAT IS, THAT IS PROPOSED FOR STORAGE.
THERE'S PROBABLY LITERALLY A THOUSAND EXISTING TREES OUT THERE HERE.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SCREEN THOSE AREAS.
I THINK WE JUST GOTTA FOCUS ON THE FRONT.
THE WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE FRONTAGE DISTANCE FRONTAGE? 4 95 90.
BUT THERE'S, BUT IT'S A WOODED LOT ALREADY, RIGHT? SO LIKE THIS CHUNK OF THE FARM WOOD TAKE OFF 200 FEET.
I ALWAYS, I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THE INTENT WAS THAT IF YOU HAD 180 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE, YOU WOULD HAVE SIX STREET TREES PLANTED ALONG THE ROAD AT 30 FOOT.
RIGHT? SO YEAH, BUT THEN ALSO THE SIDE AND WHATEVER.
BUT THEN YOU CONCENTRATE THE MON, THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT OF THE CODE, REMEMBER WHEN THEY AMENDED IT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET YES, WE WANT STREET TREES IN AREAS WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE STREET TREES AND WE WANT OTHER TREES.
BASICALLY, LIKE I SAID, THE PLAN IS, THE PLAN IS GOOD.
WE'RE JUST GONNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ACHIEVING THE IDEA THAT WE'RE SCREENING IN.
THEY HAVE A FENCED IN AREA FOR THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE SCREENING THAT AREA THE BEST WE CAN.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA SCREEN IT ENTIRELY, BUT MAKE IT LOOK, I MEAN THERE'S PARTS OF THE SOUTH PARK THAT ARE NICE LOOKING, SOME TREES, SOME SHRUBS, OTHER THINGS THAT WAKE UP THE MONOTONY OF LOOKING AT A FENCED IN STORAGE AREA.
RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE PUT ON THE, IF YOU GUYS WANT GO SIX FEET AND MOVE SOMEPLACE ELSE, WE CAN PUT THEM WHEREVER YOU WANT OTHER THAN RIGHT IN FRONT AND YOU CAN SUPPLEMENT IT WITH OTHER THINGS.
I ALWAYS LIKE DIFFERENCE IN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS TALK ABOUT PLEASING THE EYE AND IT'S NOT ALL THE SAME THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE STEPPING THINGS AROUND AND WHATEVER.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TOTALLY SCREAM, THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE TRYING TO JUST BREAK UP THAT LOOK OF A FENCE IN EQUIPMENT.
I'VE DRIVEN BY THERE DOZEN TIMES IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS RIGHT NOW.
WELL LET'S, I MEAN LET'S BREAK THIS DOWN INTO THE, THE PIECES I GUESS.
SO THAT FIRST OF ALL THEY'RE, THEY'RE PROPOSING FIVE NEW TREES.
FIVE AND THEN, OH, OKAY, OKAY, I SEE.
UH, AND THERE IS, THERE ARE TREES ALREADY ON THE LOT.
SO ARE WE, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF NEW TREES, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE? I'M PLANNING WITH, CAN YOU REMIND ME THE TOTAL ROAD FURNITURE? THIS SPOT? SIX, THERE'S, THERE'S A CHUNK OF IT THAT IS WOODED ALONG THE NORTH AND WE DO, WE DO HAVE SOME EXISTING TREES IN FRONT EXISTING BUILDING.
NOT, I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THE ALONG SOUTH PARK? ABOUT 600.
SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE 20 TREES.
AND I, THE THOUGHT IS THAT WE WOULD GIVE SOME CREDIT FOR SOME OF THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE LOT ALREADY.
RIGHT? SO THE QUESTION IS, IS WHETHER THIS IS ENOUGH, RIGHT? RIGHT.
I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT MY, I'M ASKING.
UM, WE, IF WE GIVE CREDIT FOR THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE LOT, IT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA IF WE MEASURED THE ENTIRE PERIMETER BECAUSE THERE'S THAT MANY TREES THAT ARE, THAT ARE ON THE LOT.
UM, SO IF IF WE, IF WE JUST DID
[01:50:01]
THE MATH IN M CREDIT ONE FOR ONE, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T ASK FOR ANY OF ADDIT TREES, BUT WE ARE GETTING SIX ADDITIONAL TREES.IS DO WE THINK THAT'S NOT OKAY, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BILL.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING THE PERIMETER OF THE ENTIRE, SO THE 600 FRONT, WHATEVER THE DEPTH IS, LIKE PERIMETER DIVIDE THAT BY, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT CODE SAYS.
SO TAKE THAT DIVIDE BY 30 AND THAT WOULD GET US 300 TREES, BUT THERE'S MORE THAN THAT MANY TREES ON THE LOT ALREADY.
SO THAT WOULD GET US 300 TREES.
AND RYAN TOLD THERE'S MORE THAN HUNDRED TREES.
I JUST THREW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I KNEW THAT WOULD BE A NUMBER THAT WAS HIGHER, NOT LOWER THAN THE ACTUAL NUMBER.
SO I THESE ARE ACTUALLY ON LOT RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE GONNA, WELL I MEAN WE'VE NEVER DONE THIS ON ANY OF THE PROJECT.
WELL, WELL MR. WOODS SAID THERE'S AT LEAST A THOUSAND.
I MEAN THIS IS ALL HEAVILY WOODED.
THERE'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST A POWER THREE THERE.
I MEAN I COUNT EVERYTHING THAT'S GROWING IN THERE AS A TRUTH.
SO I THINK THAT THE INTENT OF THE LAW ISN'T NECESSARILY ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE AN ENTIRE LAW IS BEING TO DEFORESTED OR CLEARED AND THAT THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
I INTERRUPTED THE LAW IS THAT WAS WHAT WAS REQUIRED AS APPROPRIATE SCREENING ALONG THE FRONT, THE FRONT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING NECESSARILY BEHIND IT.
BUT I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD PERHAPS MAKE EXCEPTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES.
AND MUCH OF THIS IS CURRENTLY PUT IN, RIGHT? WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TAKING OUT ANY EXISTING TREES.
I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT TOO.
WE'RE, WE DID CONCENTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA THAT'S ALREADY CLEARED.
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IF WE'D LIKE ADDITIONAL TREES, WHERE WOULD THE APPROPRIATE PLACE THE TREES? RIGHT? I THINK WE, WE KIND OF BREAK IT DOWN INTO TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE, UH, DO WE WANT ADDITIONAL TREES AND IF SO, WHERE DO WE WANNA PLACE THEM? SOMEBODY? ARE THERE ANY TREES ALONG THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY PARKING AREA ALONG THE I DON'T HAVE THAT NORTH AREA.
THE TREE OF THE, THIS CURVY LINE THAT GOES ALONG HERE, THAT'S THE TREE LINE.
SO EVERYTHING BETWEEN THERE AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WAS SO HEAVILY WOODED.
THE SURVEYOR DIDN'T EVEN GO ONE THERE PICK UP ANYTHING AND THEY PICK UP THE TREE LINE.
I, I'M COUNTING, I'M LOOKING AT THE SATELLITE IMAGE RIGHT NOW AND I SEE AT LEAST THREE LARGE TREES FRONTING THE ROAD.
UM, AND IT IS, YEAH, IT IS, IT'S SO THICK THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY COUNT THE INDIVIDUAL TREES GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND THEN CONTINUING NEAR THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE, TO THE END OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE ARE, WHAT'S THIS AREA HERE THOUGH, RIGHT? THAT IS THAT WHAT IT'S, I DON'T RECALL.
UM, I SEE ONE OR TWO TREES THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ON THIS PROPERTY OR IF IT'S ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO, SO THERE'S, THERE'S DEFINITELY A, A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF TREES ON THE NORTH.
IS THAT NORTH ORIENTATED? NORTH, NORTHEAST, UH, IN THE NORTH AND EAST.
UM, AND THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR SCATTERED TREES JUST BEHIND THE BUILDING TOO THAT I, THAT ARE NOT EVEN PART OF THE DENSER AREA.
SO THERE'S, I MEAN THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES THERE.
THERE WOULD BE, WHAT DOES DOUG THINK BASED ON HIS PAST EXPERIENCE ON THE BOARD AND PAST PRECEDENT? WE NEVER PAST PRESIDENT PAST PRES PRECEDENT.
PRE I GET AS FAR AS WHETHER WE DO THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OR JUST FRONTAGE, WE CONCENTRATED MORE ON, ON THE FRONT JUST WITH CARS GOING BY.
AND WE HAD A LOT OF LEEWAY AS TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, ALMOST EACH, EACH PROPERTY WAS, UH, THEY HAD TO LOOK AT EACH ONE AND YOU CAN'T SAY, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT IT IS, HERE'S THE LAW AND APPLY IT
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER DONE THIS CALCULATION BEFORE.
YEAH, I THINK WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE MORE LANDSCAPING IN THE FRONT.
I I THINK WE DID IT OVER BY, UM, ONE OF THOSE AREAS NEAR ST.
UM, THE ONE, OH, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS, BUT THERE, THERE WAS THE, THE ISSUE THE GOLF GOLF CART OR THE OTHER ONE OVER THERE?
[01:55:01]
NO, THE OTHER ONE OVER THERE.THE, THE ONE WHERE THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD SAID THERE WAS ILLEGAL FILLING.
I THINK WE DID THE CON I THINK WE DID THE CALCULATION FOR THE ENTIRE LOT ON THAT PROJECT THAT HAD THEM, THE TREES ALONG THE ROAD.
THE ISSUE IS NOT THE COUNT OF THE TREES.
THE ISSUE IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE COULD DO THE FRONT OF 20 TREES OR WHATEVER.
I'M SORRY, YOU CAN'T SEE THE, UH, YOU KNOW THE GOOGLE IMAGE FROM, FROM STREET VIEW HERE, BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BIG AREA HERE, STORE EQUIPMENT.
WE WANNA DO SOMETHING ALONG THE FRONT HERE.
YOU HAVE BEAUTIFUL TREES IN THE BACK AND ON THE ONE SIDE DO SOMETHING ALONG THE FRONT SO WE'RE NOT STARING.
I DO AND I DIDN'T FINISH THE REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, I APOLOGIZE.
BUT WHAT YOU HAVE NOW ALONG THE FRONT THERE IS REALLY LOW GRASSES AND WHATEVER.
CAN'T YOU THROW THROUGH TREES IN THERE TO BREAK UP THAT? NO, BECAUSE WE, WE, THIS IS OUR DISPLAY SAME AS OUR LOE.
BUT THE TREES ARE NOT GONNA BLOCK THE DISPLAY AREA.
AND TRUST ME, YOU'RE PUTTING IN TWO AND A HALF HOUR CALIBER TREES AT 15 FEET ON CENTER.
IT'S JUST BREAKING UP THE EYE.
WELL, LAST, AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU GUYS REQUESTED TREES AND WE AGREED WE WEREN'T GONNA PUT 'EM IN FRONT.
AND I, I KNOW THIS ISN'T, UH, LIKE AN AUTO DEALERSHIP PLACE RIGHT.
BUT WHEN WE HAD HAD ALL AUTO DEALERSHIP AND WE WANTED LANDSCAPING THE FRONT, WE NEVER ASKED FOR TREES.
WE ASKED FOR SMALL BUSHES THAT DON'T, UH, THAT THAT WON'T BLOCK THE VIEW.
SO I, I WOULD THINK THAT BASED ON WHAT WE SAID IN THIS PROJECT IN THE PAST, THAT I WOULDN'T ASK FOR TREES IN THE FRONT.
I THINK IF THEY'RE GONNA ADD, I THINK ADDING TREES, THAT'S THE SPOT TO ADD THEM.
QUESTION WOULD BE ADD BUSHES OR FLOWERS OR SOMETHING IN THE FRONT.
UM, DIDN'T WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TRAILER PROJECT? THEY DO.
WE HAD EXACTLY THE SAME GRASSES WE ADDED THE TRAILER GARAGE.
USE THE EXACT SAME THING FROM THE TRAILER PROJECT.
SO IN, IN MY OPINION, THE TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED ARE IN THE RIGHT LOCATION.
THE QUESTION WOULD JUST BE IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THE NUMBER OF 'EM.
UH, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
SO WHAT DOES EVERYBODY ELSE THE BOARD THINK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TREES? WELL, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE AREN'T, IT'S NOT LIKE A CAR DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY'RE GONNA DRIVE BY AND THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT AT, YOU KNOW, THE CARS AND WHAT THEY MIGHT BUY.
THIS IS JUST FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND, AND PURCHASE, YOU KNOW, HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
UH, I DON'T REALLY SEE A PROBLEM WITH TREES AS WELL.
IT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT, IT IT IS THEIR BUSINESS TO HAVE, YEAH.
WE WE DO SELL COMPACT TRACTORS, LAWNMOWERS, THERE IS A LOT OF DRIVE BY.
TAKE FRIENDSHIP FROM BOBCAT, BUFFALO.
WE DO A LOT OF VERY SIMILAR TO A CAR DEALERSHIP WITH WALK-IN TRAFFIC.
NOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE, I'M ASSUMING, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG TO YOUR BUSINESS, IT'S NOT A DRIVE.
I SAY, OH HEY LOOK, LET'S BUY BOBCAT.
IT'S SOMEBODY IN IN AN OFFICE DECIDES WE NEED NEW EQUIPMENT AND THEY CALL AROUND AND THEY KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA GPS LIKE USED IT OFF THE THROUGHWAY.
I I REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S A, A DETERRENT TO SELL WHEN IT WHEN IT COMES TO HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
UM, ON, ON THE BIG, BIG JOB SITES.
BUT, BUT A, A GOOD PORTION OF THIS BUSINESS AND THIS LOCATION IS COMPACT TRACTORS AND ZERO TERM LAWN MOWERS, WHICH IS A HOMEOWNER PRODUCT HOMEOWNER.
THEY MAY NOT DRIVE BY AND BUY IT THAT DAY, BUT THEY'RE GONNA DRIVE BY AND SEE IT AND CONSIDER COMING BACK ON WHATEVER SATURDAY OR SOMETHING AND TAKING A LOOK AT IT.
AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE, THE BIG CONCERN IS THAT ROAD THERE AND YOU START PLANTING TREES AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THERE WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC, YOU START ADDING OBSTRUCTIONS.
WELL, AND, AND I I THINK A POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO, TO MAKE IS AT OUR, AT OUR LAST MEETING WE AUTHORIZED THE CONSULTANTS TO DO RESOLUTIONS AND WE DIDN'T TELL THEM TO PUT TREES IN THE FRONT.
SO AT, YOU KNOW, TWO WEEKS AGO, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WANTED TREES IN THE FRONT.
UM, WELL TO BE FAIR, TWO WEEKS AGO WE DIDN'T HAVE THE UPDATED LANDSCAPING AND WE ASKED FOR IT THE LAST MEETING AND THEY GAVE IT TO US, BUT IT WAS AFTER THE MEETING.
BUT WE DISCUSSED THE LOCATION OF TREES.
YOU HAD THE PREVIOUS LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE LOW PLANTINGS ON THE FRONT.
SO I AGREE WITH BILL THAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE TREES.
AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE MAKE A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION ON
[02:00:01]
SUFFICIENCY? SO I, I GUESS I'M AT THE EXACT SAME SPOT AS BILL WONDERING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK.SO I WOULD CAVEAT THAT WITH THE OTHER THING PEOPLE SHOULD NOTE THAT BASED ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AND CHRIS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE 40 BUSHES OR SHRUBS THAT ARE, OR SORRY, THERE'S 20 BUSHES AND 20 LIKE TALL GRASSES 50 PROPOSED FOR ALONG THE FRONT OF THE STORAGE.
YEAH, THERE'S 50 PLANTINGS IN IN TOTAL IN THE FRONT.
THE OTHER CAVEAT IS, IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO REPLACE THESE TREES TO GO TOGETHER BECAUSE YOU WANT THEM TO ACTUALLY MATURE AND GROW AND HAVE CANOPY SPACE AND YOU ARE GONNA USE, UH, SHOW STUFF IN FRONT OF THOSE AREAS.
CHRIS, HOW FAR APART ARE THE FIVE TREES THAT ARE NEAR EACH OTHER? UH, THEY'RE ABOUT, UH, 15, 20 FEET.
OKAY, SO THAT WOULD CLOSE THAT, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE SPACE TO GROW.
THE IDEA IS THE TOP WILL GET AT LEAST LIKE 20 FEET.
THE MAPLE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE MAPLE TREES.
SARAH, WE DIDN'T GET ANY COMPLIMENTS FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD DID WE? NO, WE DID NOT.
SO I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AND UM, WHEN IT GETS TO LANDSCAPING, THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE, AND WE'VE GOT A BLANK THERE THAT WE'VE GOTTA FILL IN.
SO ANYBODY HAVE OR NOT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILL RIGHT? OR NOT YOU CAN REMOVE THAT CONDITION BECAUSE
RIGHT? WE, WE, WE COULDN'T APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED.
UH, SO LET'S, I GUESS I'LL, WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL, I'LL GO TO THE DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, AL DO YOU THINK THAT THE SIX TREES ALONG WITH THE EXISTING TREES ARE SUFFICIENT? YES, I DO.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE LOCATION OF THE TREES IS THE, IS A GOOD LOCATION? YES.
UH, DENNIS, DO YOU THINK THAT THE SIX ADDITIONAL TREES PLUS THE EXISTING TREES IS A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF TREES? NO.
HOW MANY TREES DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE? WELL, THAT'S ENOUGH TO ME TO DECIDE.
COME I COULD SAY A HUNDRED TREES, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I SAY, IT'S THEIR PLAN.
THEY GOTTA COME US, WE APPROVE IT.
WE DON'T, THAT'S WHY WE KEEP GOING.
UM, WHAT ABOUT THE LOCATION? IF THEY WERE GONNA ADD ADDITIONAL TREES, DO YOU, DO YOU THINK THAT'S THE GOOD, THE RIGHT LOCATION? OR DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR TREES? I, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY, UH, SOUTH.
UM, CAITLIN, DO WE STILL HAVE BOB? I DON'T SEE A SQUARE FRAME.
SO, UM, I, I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING ON PLACEMENT, BUT I THINK THAT HOW THEY'VE PACKAGED IT COULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
I AM, IF WE WERE ADDING MORE TREES, I WOULD THINK THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER WOULD PERHAPS BE 20.
BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'D BEST PLACE THAT TO FIT WITH THE EXISTING FOLIAGE ON THE SITE AND TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE CANOPY SPACE.
THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR THE DESIGNER.
UH, MEGAN, HER CIRCLE'S SPINNING.
[02:05:02]
NO, I'M NOT HERE.UM, I'M WITH DENNIS AND THE GUIDELINES ARE THERE FOR A REASON.
IT'S OUR PLACE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WE'RE WILLING TO DEPEND ON THE GUIDELINES.
UM, AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE PLACEMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO, I DON'T THINK I CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A, A REASONABLE SPOT FOR THE TREES TO SURVIVE.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THE TREES, SO I'M A LITTLE TORN.
ALL RIGHT, BOB, I KIND OF, UM, I KIND OF, UH, AGREE WITH AL.
I, THERE'S PLANT ENOUGH TREES THERE AND NOW I, BUT I OVERHEARD, UH, THE APPLICANT SAY, I THINK CHRIS WOOD SAID, I AGREE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO ADD MORE OBSTRUCTION.
I MEAN, PUTTING MORE OBSTRUCTION THERE, I DON'T WANNA HINDER ON WHAT, WHAT I THINK IS, IS A VIABLE BUSINESS, WHICH IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, BUT THE NUMBER OF TREES, IF YOU GO BACK
THEY, THEY'RE, THEY SHOULD BE PROPOSING WHAT THEY THINK IS A NUMBER.
AND I DO AGREE THAT ANY OBSTRUCTION, UM, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.
AND AND YOU, YOU ALSO SAID YOU, YOU THINK IT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER OF TREES, MIKE? YEAH, I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT, YEAH.
I, I BELIEVE IT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER OF TREES.
I AGREE TOO WITH AL AND BOB TOO.
I LIKE THE NUMBER OF TREES AND UH, THEIR PLACEMENT AND I AGREE THEY HAVE TREES IN FRONT.
THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL PRODUCT.
A LOT OF PLACES THAT SELL THAT STUFF ALL OVER.
AND IF THEY HAD TREES IN FRONT, HOW THE HECK WOULD YOU SEE WHAT THEY'RE SELLING? YOU BLOCK, BLOCK 'EM COMPLETELY.
SO, AND YOU, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO ADD OR? NO, NO, I JUST, UH, AGREE THAT, UH, THERE'S ENOUGH TREES THERE.
UM, I, YEAH, I THINK AS FAR AS THE REGULATIONS GO, WE HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION IN THAT AREA.
AND IT'S, THE, THE WAY I SEE IT IS IT'S, IT IS WRITTEN TO, TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR A LOT OF THINGS IF WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.
UM, I, I THINK THAT THE REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THEY WERE CLEARING TREES WE WOULD ASK FOR A LOT MORE TREES.
BUT BEING THAT IT'S A MOSTLY WOODED LOT ALREADY, I THINK WE CAN COUNT THOSE OTHER ONES.
I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST ON WOODED LOTS.
IF THERE WEREN'T TREES ON THIS LOT, IT WOULD BE A MUCH DIFFERENT STORY.
UM, SO I, I THINK THE, THE NUMBER OF TREES IN THE PLACEMENT IS SUFFICIENT.
SO WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL READ THE RESOLUTION 'CAUSE I AM, YEAH, I, I, I COUNT FOUR.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST RESOLUTION IS SECRET COUNT FOR WHAT I SAID.
I COUNT FOUR PEOPLE WHO SAY YES TO THE NUMBER OF TREES AND LOCATION.
AT LEAST I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY COUNT FIVE.
SO I WOULD READ THE RESOLUTION.
UM, I DIDN'T SAVE THE SECRET RESOLUTION IN MY FOLDER.
DOES SOMEBODY ADD THAT KAYLIN? DO YOU HAVE THE, THE SECRET RESOLUTION? YOUR STUFF HERE? YOU'VE GOT IT.
OKAY, BECAUSE I, I ONLY GOT THE OTHER RESOLUTION IN MY NOTES HERE FOR SOME REASON.
IF DREW HAS IT FOR YOU, DOESN'T IT? YEP, I GOT IT.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION BOBCAT OF BUFFALO 5 7 8 0 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM BOBCAT OF BUFFALO REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A BUILDING EDITION AT 4 7 8 0 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED ACTION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAS HELD A PUBLIC HEARING, RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN ADVISORY BOARDS AND THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE DRAWINGS BASED ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S INPUT.
AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE EAF COMPLETED PART TWO AND THREE OF THE EAF AND
[02:10:01]
REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER.NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND THEREFORE ISSUES A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.7 OF THE SEEKER REGULATIONS AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM EAF WHICH WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WAS THERE NO PASS? OPPOSED? NO.
UH, WAS DENNIS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN HEAR YOU, DENNIS.
WELL, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT THE COUNT WAS.
WAS IT TWO TO ONE OR ONE? ONE? THIS WAS THE SEEKER, NOT THE SITE PLAN.
SEE, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY OPPOSED.
UM, LET ME GO, LET'S GO BACK AND UH, I GUESS DO A ROLL CALL.
'CAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR, UH, ON THE SEEKER.
SO THE SEEKER IS UNANIMOUS ONTO THE SITE PLAN.
SITE PLAN, APPROVAL RESOLUTION BOBCAT OF BUFFALO.
THE PLANNING BOARD BASED ON THEIR ISSUANCE OF A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
REVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XLIV, SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ZONING CODE, HAVING RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, COMMITTEES, AND ADVISORY BOARDS, HAVING COMPLETED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVING THE, A APPLICANT AMEND THE DRAWINGS BASED ON PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE BOBCAT OF BUFFALO PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 4 7 8 0 SOUTH PARK AVENUE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 1ST, 2021.
THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS SUBMITTED IN THE MOST RECENT LANDSCAPE DRAWING.
THREE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
OUTDOOR STORAGE SHALL ONLY OCCUR IN AREAS DENOTED ON THE PLAN.
UNLOADING OF EQUIPMENT SHALL ONLY TAKE PLACE BEHIND THE FENCING AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWING.
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED.
UH, WE'LL GO THROUGH ROLL CALL TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT.
I'M NOT HAPPY WITH EVERYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO, UH, HOLD BACK TO FAVOR OF IT.
UH, CAITLIN? UH, I VOTE FAVOR OF IT.
OKAY, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS ALSO.
BILL, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHY YOU WAIVED THE SIDEWALK.
THERE ISN'T ASPHALT SIDEWALK THAT RUNS ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD SO WE'RE NOT JUST ARBITRARILY WAIVING.
RIGHT? SO IT'S CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAVED.
SO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK IS THERE.
IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED, RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A NEW ONE.
THIS FOR THE RECORD COULD BE WE JUST WILLYNILLY WAVE SIDEWALKS.
THERE IS A SIDEWALK THERE, RIGHT? THANK YOU.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, DATA DEVELOPMENT LLC REQUESTING REZONING OF 5 5 0 2 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND PORTIONS OF
[02:15:01]
5 4 86 AND 5 4 7 2 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD FROM C ONE TO PUD.SEAN HOPKINS FROM THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS, GEORGIA MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
THIS PROJECT, WHICH YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH, INVOLVES A REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF THE OVERALL 16 ACRES SITE FROM C ONE TO PUD.
THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS PROPERLY ZONED.
THE PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED C ONE ARE CROSS HATCHED ON THE PLAN THAT WE PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE USES, COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO C ONE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND NONE OF 'EM WOULD REALLY BE FEASIBLE GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION AND SIZE OF THOSE PARTICULAR PARCELS.
UM, WE DID PREPARE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
I HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM.
THEY'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THAT.
THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY ALL WORKING FROM HOME, SO THAT'S TAKING A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN NORMAL.
WHAT WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THIS EVENING IS SIMILAR TO THE WETZEL PROJECT ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD IS IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING AT THE TOWN BOARD, THEREBY PROVIDING DOT WITH SOME ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THEM TO REVIEW THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
ALSO, THAT'S BENEFICIAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE ALLOWS YOU TO BECOME AWARE OF ANY PUBLIC INPUT THAT WILL BE RECEIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TOWN BOARD.
DREW WAS OBVIOUSLY IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, EXPLAINED THE BACKGROUND OF THIS SITE AND THE NATURE OF THE PUD ZONING.
THIS SITE IS ALSO A SITE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED FOR, UM, APARTMENTS FOR LEASE.
WE'VE ACTUALLY SHOWN YOU THE PLANS PREVIOUSLY.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT IT'S 182 UNITS.
WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES.
WE HAVE THREE STORY, 26 UNIT BUILDINGS, 10 STORY, 10 UNIT, ONE STORY BUILDINGS, I MEAN, AND THEN TWO, TWO STORY, TWO UNIT BUILDINGS.
AND THEN FINALLY CHRIS, A A COUPLE OF FOUR UNIT, UM, EIGHT, EIGHT UNIT TWO STORY EIGHT UNIT FOUR.
EIGHT UNIT, TWO STORIES, EIGHT UNIT, TWO STORY BUILDINGS.
THIS IS THE SAME LAYOUT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTING, UM, FOR NEARLY A YEAR NOW IN TERMS OF THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE ITSELF.
THIS PROJECT, IF AND WHEN THE REZONING IS APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD YOU SERVE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY, WILL OF COURSE ALSO REQUIRE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD.
AT THAT JUNCTURE, CHRIS WILL PREPARE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS AND ENGINEERS REPORT DOWNSTREAM SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS, STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND ALL THE DETAILED INFORMATION WILL BE CLOSELY LOOKED AT BY THIS BOARD AS WELL AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND YOUR CONSULTING ENGINEER.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN A NUTSHELL.
BUT WE WOULD ASK AGAIN THIS EVENING IS THAT YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT TOWN BOARD PROCEED WITH THE SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 12% OF THE PROJECT SITE.
SO CAN I JUST MAKE SURE I'M NOT GETTING CONFUSED SEAN? SURE.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE PART OF THIS FOR QUITE A FEW PROJECTS.
THIS IS THE TWO LOTS OVER IN NEAR WHERE THE ICE CREAM PARLOR IS THAT WE'RE NOT REZONED THIS PART OF THE BROADER REZONING TO THE PUD.
AND ONE, ONE OR TWO OF THEM HAD STORMWATER FACILITIES ON 'EM.
AND THE REST OF THE PROJECT EXCLUDING THESE PARCELS IS ALREADY NO, THIS IS, UM, PART OF THE ZONE, CORRECT? NO, THIS IS, THIS IS LOCATED NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO BRIARWOOD COUNTRY CLUB.
WHERE, WHERE A PORTION OF TWO LOTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT ENTRANCE WHERE FOR SOME REASON LEFT IS ZONE C ONE AS OPPOSED TO PUD.
SO, SORRY, IT'S A DAYCARE THAT'S RIGHT THERE, NOT THE YEAH, THE DAYCARE'S IN THE BAG.
SO WE'RE REALLY ONLY CONSIDERING THIS, THESE TWO SMALL AREAS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE OTHER REZONING.
AND THE, THE BROADER PROJECT WITH THE BROADER TRAFFIC STUDY IS PART OF THE, THE WHAT PERTAIN TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BROADER PUV AND IT'S NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE SUBSTANTIVELY JUST BASED ON THESE SMALL THAT'S CORRECT.
I MEAN, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ANALYSIS ON THE BROADER PV.
THERE WASN'T EIS WE'RE STILL GONNA REVISIT.
I'M ASSUMING THE BROADER DEVELOPMENT YOU WILL, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THESE ARE TWO SMALL LOTS.
I AM NOT SURE HOW EVERYBODY ELSE FEELS, BUT I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF TRYING TO REASON ON THESE TWO SMALL AREAS TO FIT WITH THE BROADER DESIGN OF THE AREA.
AND THEN AS LONG AS THAT STILL MEANS WE HAVE THE OPTION TO INFLUENCE LANDSCAPING, UM, FLOW OR AESTHETICS AS PART OF THE BROADER SITE PLAN REVIEW
[02:20:01]
AS THE OTHER REZONING PROJECT.I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO, TO TRY AND DO THE SEEKER INSTEAD OF THE TOWN BOARD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I, I THINK WE COULD JUST DO A, A REGULAR, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
UM, AND, UM, I DO ACTUALLY, I I GOT YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU SENT ME CAITLYN ON, ON THAT, THAT I I THINK WE COULD, IF WE WANTED TO PUT DO A RECOMMENDATION SOON, WE COULD HAVE ONE PUT TOGETHER.
WHAT DOES EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT AS FAR AS THE REZONING? WELL, I UNDERSTAND, I JUST WA WHAT'S THE BACKGROUND, THE HISTORY OF WHY THESE WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL POD AND WHY THEY WERE LEFT? YEAH.
I THINK THE REASON, THE REASON WHY THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING IS DATA DEVELOPMENT DID NOT OWN THEM AT THAT TIME.
SO I THINK THAT IS PRIMARILY THE REASON THEY WERE LEFT OUT AND THAT'S WHY THEY STILL HAVE KIND OF THAT LEFTOVER C ONE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE C ONE SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE, I THINK IT'D BE, IT'D BE A STRUGGLE TO FIND A USE YOU COULD ACTUALLY PUT ON THERE THAT COULD APPLY WITH THE CODE.
I JUST WONDER YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT'S JUST A LEFTOVER 'CAUSE IT WASN'T OWNED AT THAT TIME.
JUST GIVE THEM A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AND CHANGING IT.
YOU SAID THEY CAN'T EVEN PRINT ANYTHING THERE ANYWAY, RIGHT? WITH THE C ONE? NO.
THAT WAY IT'LL ALL BE THE SAME, RIGHT? CORRECT.
JUST AS AN FYI, THE, THE PLANS THAT WERE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JUST SHOW THIS AREA BEING DEVELOPED.
THEY DON'T EVEN SHOW THE LITTLE PIECES THAT WEREN'T ZONED.
IT JUST SHOWS THIS WHOLE AREA.
THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T OFFICIALLY INCLUDE IT IN THE PUD BECAUSE AS SEAN SAYS, THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T OWN THOSE LITTLE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY AND COULDN'T REZONE THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT UNDER OWNERSHIP OF THE PERSON REQUESTING THE PUD.
BUT THE PLANS JUST SHOW THAT AREA DEVELOPED.
THEY DON'T SHOW A LITTLE PIECE.
YEAH, THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
DOESN'T EXCLUDE THOSE PARCELS.
ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING? NO.
THEN, UM, I'LL PUT TOGETHER A MOTION HERE.
UH, THIS IS GONNA BE BASED ON MS. MCCORMICK'S COMMENTS.
UH, DUE TO THE RELATIVELY SMALL AREA RELATIVE TO THE WELL-REVIEWED, LARGER DEVELOPMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR REZONING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE, UH, DUE TO THE, THAT THERE WERE PREVIOUSLY FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS DONE FOR THIS SITE.
AND THE PLANNING BOARD BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED LARGER DEVELOPMENT AND PAST REZONING.
FURTHER, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS BUSY THOROUGHFARE, WHICH INCLUDES MULTIPLE PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND DEVELOPS DEVELOPMENTS.
UH, GIVEN THE SMALL INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE WITH THE EXPANDED REZONING REQUEST, UH, PLACEMENT OF STORMWATER FACILITIES ON MUCH OF THESE PARTIALS AND ROBUST ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY DONE.
THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS REZONING OF THIS AREA TO PUD SECOND.
SO MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. SHAW.
THAT EVEN BETTER THAN EXPECTED HOUSE ONE.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM IN THE AGENDA IS GLEN WETZEL REQUESTING REZONING OF A VACANT LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BIG TREE ROAD, EAST OF 4 2 5 5 MCKINLEY PARKWAY FROM C ONE TO R THREE.
UH, GOOD, GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN.
SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
THIS PROJECT OBVIOUSLY HAS SOME OVERLAP WITH AN ITEM THAT WAS EARLIER ON THE AGENDA.
THE MANCO SUBDIVISION PER THE DISCUSSION DURING YOUR MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.
AS I INDICATED, A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR BOTH PROJECTS.
AS CHRIS INDICATED, THE DOWNSTREAM STATUTORY SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT INCLUDES THE MANCO PROJECT.
I ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY ROADWAY CONNECTION, PUBLIC, PRIVATE OR EMERGENCY ACCESS FROM THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT OUT
[02:25:01]
TO WILSON DRIVE.THAT'S A CONCERN THAT'S BEEN QUESTIONED AGAIN AND AGAIN.
I MAY WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IS NOT BEING PROPOSED, NOR WILL IT BE PROPOSED ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE.
AS WE'VE INDICATED, WE ARE WILLING TO DERESTRICT HALF OF THIS SITE, WHICH IS PROPOSED PERMANENT OPEN SPACE TO PERMANENTLY PROHIBIT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE ZONING CONDITION.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS DISCUSSED BY THE TOWN BOARD DURING ITS RECENT WORK SESSION, AND IT IS INTENDED THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS GONNA BE OKAY WITH YOU ACTING AS A LEAD AGENCY, BOTH IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND THE MANKO PROJECT.
IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING, AND DREW OR SARAH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS LIKELY TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING DURING ITS NEXT MEETING.
SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE ASKING YOU TO TAKE ANY OFFICIAL ACTION THIS EVENING.
LET'S WAIT AND GET THE RESULTS OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN BOARD.
WE'LL SEE WHAT, IF ANY PUBLIC INPUT THERE IS AND WE'D WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
RIGHT? SO THE, THE TOWN BOARD IS GOING TO TO DO THAT ON MONDAY.
THEY'LL SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, WHENEVER THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS.
WE CERTAINLY SHOULD, UH, AT THE VERY LEAST, WATCH THE VIDEO.
UM, SO THAT THE, THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN YOU.
THEY'RE GONNA DO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE GONNA MAKE THE SECRET DECISION AND THEN MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING.
SO THE INFORMATION THEY GET AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR US AS FAR AS OUR SECRET DECISION.
SO WE'RE GONNA WANT TO MAKE SURE WE, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S PRESENTED THERE.
UNLESS THE RESOLUTION GETS CHANGED.
THE PUBLIC HEARING'S BEING SCHEDULED FOR THE 22ND, 22ND OF MARCH.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WENT IN AS THE RESOLUTION.
SOMETIMES THERE'S DRAFT LINKS IN THE SCHEDULE, BUT THAT'S WHAT WENT AND REFILED TODAY.
AND BILL, UM, I BELIEVE THE SUPERVISOR SAID AT THE MEETING WAS, UM, COMPLETELY IN PERSON.
SO YOU MAY HAVE TO ATTEND THE MEETING OR READ THE MINUTES.
WE'LL GET, UH, VERIFICATION ON THAT.
'CAUSE IF IT IS COMPLETELY IN PERSON, I'LL, I'LL LET EVERYBODY ON THE PLANNING BOARD KNOW SO YOU DON'T, UH, WAIT, WAIT FOR A VIDEO THAT MIGHT NOT ARRIVE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT EVEN IF THE HEARING IS IN PERSON, I BELIEVE THERE'S STILL PLANNING TO LIVE STREAM EVERYTHING ON FACEBOOK SO THAT YOU COULD WATCH BUT NOT PARTICIPATE.
AND THEN AGAIN, REMEMBER THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S ENVISIONED THAT YOU'LL BE THE DESIGNATED LEAD AGENCY.
THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THEY WILL BE PROHIBITED FROM VOTING AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
IT'LL COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU.
ULTIMATELY, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ISSUE A DECISION ON THE REQUESTED REZONING UNTIL A SECRET DETERMINATION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THIS BOARD.
SO, BUT I I, SO WHEN SHOULD THIS COME BACK? WHEN SHOULD THIS COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD THEN? I WOULD WAIT FOR FIRST MEETING APRIL, THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL, I THINK.
I GUESS DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO PREPARE COMMENT RESPONSES THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH THE AND BOARD IN RESPONSE TO SEEK A RELEVANT COMMENTS FOR THAT, WHATEVER THAT EARLY MEETING APRIL IS? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? OH, SO COMMENTS COMING ON THE 22ND? YES.
SO TYPICALLY WHAT'S HAPPENED ON REZONINGS WITH THE TOWN BOARD IN THE PAST IS WHEN THEY HOLD THE HEARING, TO THE EXTENT PEOPLE COMMENT, THEY ASK ME TO SUBMIT SOMETHING IN WRITING, RESPONDING TO THOSE COMMENTS.
SO ABSOLUTELY, WE WILL DO THAT BEFORE THE SEVENTH.
AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO, AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, UH, WE'LL PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT, OF COURSE TO SARAH AS WELL AS THE OTHER AGENCIES.
SO, BUT I THINK THAT DOES MAKE SENSE.
FIRST MEETING APRIL, WE'RE WAITING ON THE PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TOWN BOARD AND IT'S GONNA BE ON THE 22ND, RIGHT? IF WE'RE GONNA RELY SOLELY ON THE MINUTES, DO WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THOSE MINUTES TO BE APPROVED BEFORE WE HAVE ACCESS TO 'EM? UM, I'M BEING INTERESTED.
TYPICALLY YOU WON'T SEE THEM UNTIL RIGHT UNTIL THEY MEET AGAIN.
UNLESS IT'S LIVE STREAMING, WE WON'T HAVE ACCESS UNLESS WE COME IN FOR THAT MEETING.
AND WHO PREPARES THE MINUTES FOR THE TOWN BOARD? SARAH? IT WOULDN'T BE YOU, RIGHT? UH, NO, IT'S BRAD REPINSKI.
DOES HE HAVE AN AUDIO RECORDING? YES, HE DOES.
SO I'LL, I'LL TRY AND, AND DO SOME LEGWORK ON THE LOGISTICS OF THIS AND REPORT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE AVAILABLE AND WHEN BEFORE PEOPLE MAKE A DECISION ON HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED.
IS JASON IN THE ROOM? I CAN'T SPEAK.
[02:30:01]
MAYBE J JAY MIGHT KNOW IF IT'S GONNA BE LIVE STREAMED ON THE 22ND OF MARCH.SO, UM, I'LL ASK JENNY AND, AND LET YOU KNOW.
AND ANOTHER, I, I GUESS SCHEDULING THING, SARAH, GOING FORWARD, IF WE COULD PUT THE DAVID MANKO AND THE GLEN WETZEL WHEN THEY'RE ON THE SAME DAY BACK TO BACK.
SO IF THE RESIDENTS COME FOR ONE, THEY CAN STILL BE, BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE FOR THE, THE EARLIER ONE AND, AND THEY FOR SOME REASON DIDN'T WANNA STICK AROUND THROUGH THOSE OTHER THINGS WE DID.
UM, SO IF, IF THEY BOTH WERE JUST BACK TO BACK, I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE BEGINNING OR THE, THE END, BUT BACK TO BACK.
ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE THINK WE CAN ACCOMPLISH ON THIS TODAY? I, ALL RIGHT.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE GLEN WETZEL REZONING TO APRIL 7TH.
FINAL ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS JESK HAMBURG, LLC, REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A SITE PLAN.
APPROVAL OF A NEW CAR WASH FACILITY ON VACANT LAND NORTHEAST OF 4 4 8 4 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
UH, AGAIN, SEAN HOPKINS FROM HOPKINS, GEORGIA MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, JSCK.
JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORDS ON BEHALF OF JSCK, AMBER HAMBURG, LLC.
JOSEPH, THANK YOU FOR THAT, SEAN, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL YOUR NAME.
UM, AS THE BOARD WILL RECALL, WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED A CAR WASH PROJECT AT 45 35 SOUTHWESTERN.
THAT REQUIRED A REZONING FROM C ONE TO C TWO.
ULTIMATELY, THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED AGAINST THAT REZONING AND WE WITHDREW IT BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD ISSUED A DECISION.
THERE WERE SEVERAL CONCERNS YOU EXPRESSED IN YOUR RE IN YOUR RESOLUTION, INCLUDING POSSIBILITY OF SPOT ZONING TRAFFIC CONCERNS, BECAUSE THAT WAS, UM, A HIGH, A CURB CUT ONTO SOUTHWESTERN THAT ALLOWED TWO-WAY TRAFFIC, BOTH IN AND OUT.
BASED ON THAT, WE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND TRIED TO FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE SITE, WHICH FORTUNATELY, AFTER A LOT OF HOMEWORK AND AFTER HAVING TO PAY ABOUT 50% MORE, WE FOUND THAT SITE.
AND THAT'S THE SITE IN QUESTION.
IT IS PROPERLY ZONED C TWO, THE DRIVEWAY ONTO MCKINLEY, WHICH IS NEXT TO TRACTOR SUPPLY, ONLY ALLOWS RIGHT TURNS OUT ONTO SOUTHWESTERN, WHICH ADDRESS AS A BIG CONCERN.
WE ARE ALSO INSTALLING A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION ALONG WITH SHARED PROPERTY, ALONG WITH TRACTOR SUPPLY TO RILEY BOULEVARD AT OUR COST.
WE PRESENTED THIS PROJECT TO YOU INITIALLY DURING YOUR WORK SESSION ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020.
WE NOW HAVE FILED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION WITH FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS.
THE PROJECT DOES REQUIRE SEVERAL APPROVALS.
NUMBER ONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN APPROVAL NUMBER TWO REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL CAR WASH.
AND THEN NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF A MUCH LARGER PARCEL, IT REQUIRES MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE CREATION OF ONE LOT.
WE HAVE HAD SRF ASSOCIATES PREPARE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE PROJECTS.
IT DOES NOT SHOW ANY DEGRADATIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND AGAIN, MUCH IMPROVED COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS SITE FOR VEHICLES LEVERING DURING PEAK TRAVEL TIMES ONTO SOUTHWESTERN BECAUSE YOU CANNOT TURN LEFT.
UM, WE ARE SHOWING, I BELIEVE, 37 STACKING SPACES FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 4,000 SQUARE FOOT TUNNEL WASH THEY'RE SHOWN ON THE SITE.
THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THAT NUMBER OF STACKING SPACES, IT WILL ENSURE THAT VEHICLES DO NOT BACK UP ONTO SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD ON THOSE TYPICALLY PEAK SATURDAYS WHERE WE GET THOSE FIRST GLIMPSES OF WARM WEATHER.
SO I THINK WE'VE MADE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT.
IT REALLY DOES REFLECT THE INPUT YOU PROVIDED OVER THE COURSE OF MANY MONTHS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PREVIOUS PROJECT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO THIS EVENING IS CONSIDERED SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND THEN MAKING THE DECISION HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITOR REVIEW ACT.
ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, CHRIS? I'M GOOD.
[02:35:01]
THAT'S IT.AND I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR OF SEAN HOPKINS FOR THE RECORD.
DO YOU HAVE SKETCHES OF WHAT THE BUILDING'S GONNA LOOK LIKE YET? SO WHEN WE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT BUILDING THAN THE ONE YOU WERE PROPOSING.
IS IT SAME? NO, IT'S THE SAME BUILDING.
WE DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION? NO, IT'S THE SAME BUILDING.
SO WHEN WE, WHEN WE WERE HERE, UM, OVER THE COURSE OF THOSE MANY MEETINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, AND THEN ON NOVEMBER 4TH, I THINK YOU REMEMBER, UH, MR. SPINO PRESENTED THE COLOR ELEVATION FOR THE BUILDING.
HE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON THAT.
AND IT IS THAT SAME ELEVATION, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE WILL BE THE NICEST LOOKING CAR WASH IN WESTERN AREA.
AND OF COURSE WE'LL PRESENT THAT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
BUT IT IS THAT SAME ELEVATION.
A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT HAS BEEN SPENT ON THAT.
ANY OBJECTION TO SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROJECT? NO, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, COMPLIMENT THEM ON FINDING A PLACE THAT'S HAVE TO BE RESOLVED.
UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY HAPPY WITH THE WAY IT TURNED OUT.
I, I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING.
I WAS IN THE MINORITY, BUT IF I WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT THIS WOULD'VE BEEN THE ALTERNATIVE PROJECT, I WOULD'VE VOTED AGAINST THE REZONING, SO, RIGHT.
AND WE DIDN'T, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CANDID AND CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THIS PARCEL WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE.
ULTIMATELY, IT BECAME AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE AT A HIGHER PURCHASE PRICE, BUT AGAIN, HAS THE RIGHT ZONING AND ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS YOU PREVIOUSLY HAD.
I DO THINK THE, I LIKE THAT THERE'S, UH, ACCESS OUT TWO WAYS AND ONTO THAT RILEY ROAD.
I THINK THAT'S A, A BIG, SO YEAH, I'M A FAVOR OF SCHEDULING A PUBLIC, A PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVING THIS FORWARD.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON JESK HAMBURG, LLC FOR MARCH 17.
SO THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IN TERMS OF SEEKER, OBVIOUSLY UNLISTED ACTION.
UM, OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT YOU DO NOT CONDUCT A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, BUT I DO WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE TABLE SO THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, UH, THAT PROCESS CAN PROCEED AS WELL.
IT'S A CAR WASH, SO I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD.
UH, SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR JESK HAMBURG, LLC MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
ALL IN FAVOR? MRS. C*M? NO, MRS. C*M.
HE SAID IT BEFORE YOU, MEGAN, AT THE SAME TIME? NO.
WE'LL CHECK THE, WE WILL AMEND THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT.
UM, IT'S, I, NO, I ALSO MOTIONED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH MEGAN.
SHE JUST WASN'T LISTENING TO ME EITHER.
I WASN'T FACING AND I'M, I'M NOT, I'M DOING REALLY BAD WITH THAT.
THANK YOU EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD EVENING.
SO THAT WAS OUR LAST, THAT LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SARAH, IF THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
SO SARAH, I SAW A POSTING ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
DID, IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT THAT DOLLAR GENERAL DOLLAR GENERAL WITHDREW ITS APPLICATION FROM THE OTHER SITE? OR JUST THAT THERE'S BEEN NO ACTION? NO, THEY DID NOT WITHDRAW OFFICIALLY.
SO IT IS STILL, UH, IT'S STILL IN THE SYSTEM.
SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO.
ALSO, UM, IF I, IF YOU LET ME, UH, I DID TALK TO JENNY JUST NOW, AND SHE SAID THAT THE MARCH 22ND TOM BOARD MEETING WILL BE LIVE STREAMED AT FACEBOOK.
DO WE HAVE MINUTES THAT APPROVE OR? YES, WE DO.
SO THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES BY MR. SHAW.
[02:40:01]
CARRIED.MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING.
A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY MR. SHAW.
WHO IS THAT SECOND BY MR. MONACO.