* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          WE WANNA MAKE THAT A RECOMMENDATION. 
          [00:00:01]
LET'S MAKE IT A RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND IT'S UP TO THE TOWN BOARD THEN IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS, I MEAN THEIR LEGISLATIVE BOARD, TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANNA DO WITH THAT. 
          PUT ALL YOUR CONCERNS, YOUR IDEAS, TO GENERATE A REPORT. 
          YOU CAN ADD CONCERNS. 
          YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN MAKING SURE THE TOWN BOARD KNOWS OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE. 
          CONCERNS ARE, DENNIS, ISSUES ARE VALID. 
          MEGAN, YOUR ISSUES ARE VALID. 
          INCLUDE THEM IN THE REPORT. 
          BASICALLY SAY THESE ARE OUR CONCERNS AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND REZONING, BUT TAKE, PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THESE CONCERNS WE HAVE. 
          REMEMBER THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. 
          THAT'S WHY I PUT THAT DRAFT REPORT TOGETHER. 
          YOU WANNA TELL THE TOWN BOARD AND ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE, THESE ARE OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ZO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO IF YOU WANT TO ADD THOSE THINGS, DENNIS, TO THAT REPORT, PLEASE ADD THOSE, YOUR CONCERNS TO THE TOWN BOARD IN THAT REPORT, MEGAN, WHETHER WE MAKE IT A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION OR NOT, YOU COULD ADD TO THE REPORT THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE USES OF THE SITE BEYOND THIS USE, WHICH IS A VERY MILD USE. 
          YOU'RE CONCERNED. 
          WE'RE GOOD, WE'RE GOOD. 
          WE'RE ON FACEBOOK. 
          SO WHEN WE'RE DONE HERE, WE CAN GO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEP, NO PROBLEM. 
          THANKS. 
          UH, SO DREW, WHEN THE CO, WHEN THE CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE LOOKED AT THIS, DID THEY CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL VERSUS C ONE? WE DID NOT. 
          A LOT OF THE CODE REVIEW WAS BASICALLY SAYING, WHY IS THIS PROPERTY ZONE THE WAY IT IS? IT MAKES NO SENSE. 
          AND WE THOUGHT C ONE BECAUSE THAT WAS UN ALLOWABLE USE. 
          AND WE ASKED THE APPLICANT, SARAH WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION TO C ONE BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WOULD POTENTIALLY ALSO FALL INTO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. 
          YES. 
          I'VE BEEN THINKING THAT THIS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY USE OFF THE LIST. 
          13. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE, THE ISSUE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS THIS IS ALREADY ADJACENT TO C ONE ZONES. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO DO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, IT WOULD JUST BE THAT ONE LOT THAT WOULD BE ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, WHICH WOULD BE THE DONUT HOLE ZONING POSSIBLY. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT'S ADJACENT TO C ONE. 
          C ONE SEEMS LIKE IT'S A BETTER NO, I THINK, AND ALSO CAITLIN WAS POINTING OUT THAT EVERYTHING IN C EVERY, EVERYTHING IN NC IS ALLOWED IN C ONE. 
          IT IS A HIERARCHICAL ZONING. 
          C ONE ALLOWS ALL THE USES ANYWAY. 
          IN NC NC IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A LOWER ZONING THAT ACTUALLY FITS INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          BUT AGAIN, AS BILL SAID, WE THOUGHT C ONE WAS THE BEST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE AREA. 
          THERE'S C TWO ON THE OTHER CORNERS, AND THIS WAS A SMALL C ONE AND PROBABLY IF THEY THOUGHT OUT CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHY THEY MADE THIS C ONE MAJOR INTERSECTION, MAJOR COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION, BUT HAS RESIDENTIAL AREAS ADJOINING IT. 
          MAYBE THAT'S WHY THEY WENT, I CAN'T, IT HAD TO BE MORE THAN 25 YEARS AGO BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 25 YEARS AND THAT'S BEEN ZONED THAT WAY FOR 25 YEARS. 
          THEY, THEY TOOK DOWN OUR ZONING. 
          COULD I SAY SOMETHING? YEAH, YEAH. 
          I SAY ALSO, UH, NEW BUILDINGS IN THE NC ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GENERALLY 2000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM. 
          YEAH, IT'S WEIRD. 
          WELL, RIGHT, WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE REST OF THE MAP BECAUSE I SEE THIS IS C ONE, BUT THAT'S THE ROAD, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          SO EVEN IF WE DID C ONE, ARE WE STILL DOING DONUT? WHOLE ZONING? WE KNOW WHO WOULD ZONE ALL THIS AND IT'D JUST ALL BE C ONE IN THIS CORNER LIKE THIS. 
          RIGHT? I MEAN I THINK THE TRADE OFF WITH, UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS IT'S A NOD TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES AND PROVIDES SOME OF THAT RESTRICTION. 
          SO THAT'S, I GUESS WHAT I WAS SAYING IS DO EVERYTHING IN NC AND C ONE, IF WE'RE GOING EITHER RESTRICT USES FROM C ONE VERSUS NEIGHBORING COMMERCIAL, IT AT LEAST IT'S GOOD TO CONSIDER THAT. 
          I I SEE YOUR ARGUMENT BILL, BUT IT WOULD, IT'S A LOT BUT IT'S ALSO A TRANSITIONAL ZONE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, BETWEEN THE TWO AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE 2000 SQUARE FEET MAY JUST APPLY TO RETAIL. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT OR WRONG, SARAH. 
          THE GOOD THING I, THE OTHER THING, CAITLIN, TO BRING UP, WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE C ONE ZONING IS THAT THE C ONE ZONING EXCLUDES RESIDENTIAL EVEN WHEN IT GOES DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOR COMMERCIAL, AS YOU SAID, ALLOWS YOU COULD PUT AN APARTMENT BUILDING ON THAT CORNER AND WE DON'T WANT AN APARTMENT BUILDING ON THAT CORNER, OBVIOUSLY. 
          SO THE C ONE SAYS YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE NC, BUT ONLY THE COMMERCIAL USES OF NC, NOT THE RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          YOU CAN'T PUT AN APARTMENT BUILDING A DUPLEX OR ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN AN NC DISTRICT. 
          DEFINITELY NOT AN AREA TO PUT IN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A BUSY CORNER LIKE THAT. 
          DOES ANYBODY AT HOME HAVE THEIR COPY OF THE ZONING MAP? 'CAUSE THE ONE THAT WAS IN HERE IS GONE. 
          I'M PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW. 
          YEAH. 
          LIKE LOAD UP ON MY SCREEN, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT I LOOK, THE LITTLE PICTURE I HAVE. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          THE PART THAT'S C ONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE STREET. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          SO I, I 
          [00:05:01]
MEAN, I DON'T THINK THE STREET SHOULD BE ZONED, SO I MAY BE WRONG WITH THE C ONE. 
          AND BY THE WAY, NOT TO COMPLICATE THIS ISSUE, BUT IN OUR INCENTIVE ZONING ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S R TWO PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO THE MONGOLIAN RESTAURANT, WHICH WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY THAT WAS LEFT AS R TWO. 
          IT'S A PIECE KIND OF FLOATING BETWEEN THE MCKINLEY MALL AND THE, AND THE RESTAURANT ON THE CORNER THERE. 
          ALL WE CAN THINK OF IS THAT MAYBE THERE WAS A TAKINGS OR A GIVING UP OF SOME OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THERE. 
          AND THAT PIECE JUST GOT THROWN IN THERE. 
          WE DON'T KNOW. 
          THAT'S ALSO CONFUSING ON THE OTHER SIDE TOO. 
          THERE'S AN R TWO ZONING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET TOO. 
          I HAVE THE MAP HOLD UP. 
          UM, OKAY, BILL, IF YOU WANT ME TO UP ON THE SCREEN IF THAT HELPS YOU. 
          YES, PLEASE. 
          YES. 
          ZOOMED IN RIGHT TO THAT AREA. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          ZOOM A LITTLE FURTHER. 
          IT'S GONNA GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT. 
          NO, MEGAN, CAN YOU? YEP. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          SO RIGHT, YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE I'M POINTING, BUT THE PEOPLE HERE. 
          OH NO. 
          NOPE. 
          IT'S THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE. 
          THIS BIGGER PIECE. 
          THIS IS THE R THREE R TWO PART, AND THIS IS THE PART THAT'S ZONE C ONE NOW. 
          AND YOU SEE THE C ONE ACROSS THE STREET. 
          THERE'S THOSE TWO RESTAURANTS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, BUT MONGOLIAN BARBECUE AND, RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE? UH, IS IT WENDY'S? RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S, OKAY. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S THE C ONE RIGHT THERE. 
          YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT. 
          THIS LITTLE TEENY TINY THING RIGHT HERE, RIGHT? WELL, RIGHT. 
          IT'S, THAT IS THE C ONE EXISTING, BUT THE REST OF THAT LOT NORTH OF THERE IS THE PIZZA HUT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT IT ON THE MAP WITH THE SATELLITE OVERLAY, THE C ONE PART IS LIKE A QUARTER OF THE PIZZA HUT PARKING LOT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS R TWO. 
          THE PIZZA HUT SITS IN AN R TWO DISTRICT. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY, IT'S REALLY STRANGE THAT THEY HAVE SUCH A SMALL PART. 
          MORE . 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          YEP. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          NOW IT'S REALLY GETTING BLURRY, BUT AT LEAST YOU CAN SEE IT, RIGHT? YEP. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          IT'S LIKE THAT LITTLE TEENY TINY SPOT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS YELLOW, THAT WHOLE BIG ROCK. 
          RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REZONING. 
          THAT WHOLE BIG YELLOW PIECE, WHICH IS WHERE THE PIZZA HUT BUILDING THAT'S PARKING MOST OF THE REST OF THE PARKING LOT SIT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE WHAT DREW WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE YELLOW PIECES ACROSS THE KIN, ACROSS MY MC WHERE IT SAYS, PAUL, THAT WHOLE PIECE IN THERE WE'RE CONFUSED ABOUT TOO, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS WANNA BUY THIS PIECE, BUT IT'S ZONED R TWO. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY. 
          THEY'RE GONNA INCLUDE THAT, INCLUDE THE, UH, INCENTIVE ZONING. 
          RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'LL FIX THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT ANYWAY, LET'S FOCUS ON THIS PIECE. 
          WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE WANNA BRING, BRING THE SITE INTO CONFORMANCE, BUT THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SOME CONCERNS. 
          INCLUDE THOSE CONCERNS IN YOUR REPORT WITH IDEAS. 
          WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF NC. 
          I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT NC, BUT IT ALLOWS SOME USES THAT I, I CANNOT SEE HAPPENING THERE. 
          NOT THAT ANYBODY WOULD PROPOSE THEM. 
          C ONE JUST KIND OF MAKES THAT CORNER, AT LEAST THOSE TWO CORNERS ON THE EAST SIDE OF MCKINLEY BEING C ONE FOR MATCHES, THE USES ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THE USES ACROSS THE STREET, AT LEAST DON'T HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL AROUND THEM. 
          IT'S A MCKINLEY MALL. 
          THIS HAS RESIDENTIAL ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT, CONTINUE AND MAKE THE PROTECTION TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AS, AS BEST WE CAN. 
          RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S PROPOSED WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT'S THERE NOW. 
          HAVE A BIGGER BUFFER, MORE GREEN SPACE AND A LESS INTENSE USE. 
          I MEAN, A RESTAURANT IS A MUCH HIGHER GEN USE THING THAN THIS, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. 
          BUT AGAIN, ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU REZONE, UH, THEY COULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS, HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT HERE AND SOMEONE ELSE COULD MOVE INTO THE BUILDING WE WANT AND, AND CAITLIN'S WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THAT FUTURE USER COULD BE. 
          WHEN YOU REZONE PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO THINK OF NOT ONLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT IF THERE'S A FUTURE USE THAT CAN GO IN THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS ALVAN AESTHETICS REPORT RECOMMENDATION IN THE EMAILS THAT YOU TODAY I SENT YOU SENT, LEMME SEE. 
          [00:10:01]
YEAH, SORRY. 
          UM, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AT ARE NOT HERE. 
          DID YOU GET THE VENIA AESTHETICS REZONING REPORT RECOMMENDATION IN YOUR EMAIL TODAY? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AGAIN, I, I DON'T THINK SO. 
          IF THE BOARD IS UNCOMFORTABLE, JUST GIVE US DIRECTION. 
          WE'LL HAVE, RIGHT. 
          WE'LL HAVE IT ALL READY FOR NEXT MEETING. 
          IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, WE CAN GET RID OF IT. 
          MOVE THE MAY 5TH MEETING IS GONNA BE A BUSY MEETING IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE MOVING ON. 
          IF NOT, LET'S MAKE THE CHANGES AND MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION CORRECTLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          LET'S, SO DO WE WANNA BASE IT OFF THIS REPORT AND MAKE SOME CHANGES AND VOTE ON IT TONIGHT? OR DO WE WANNA MOVE IT TO MAY 5TH AND TRY AND GET THE APPLICANT HERE? THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DECIDE TO DO TONIGHT. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS AFFECTS THE DECISION EITHER WAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A NOTE IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CONSIDERED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND I THINK THAT DREW MAKES A VALID POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          IF WE DON'T WANT RECIPE PIECES IN THERE. 
          SO I, I WOULD STAND WITH C1, BUT I THINK THIS NOTE THAT WE DID CONSIDER IT HERE FOR THE RECORD AND, AND WHY WE, AND WE CAN PUT, UM, THE OTHER CONCERN, MEGAN'S CONCERNS ABOUT POSSIBLY RESTRICTING A COUPLE OF THE USES, INCLUDING THE, INCLUDING THE, UM, DRY CLEANER. 
          AND THEN DENNIS'S CONCERNS ARE, WE HAVE TO POINT OUT THE FACT IN THE REZONING THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND POSSIBLY THE ZBA TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD PROTECTION AND CONTINUE TO HAVE IMPROVED PROTECTION TO THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          DREW, ARE YOU GONNA WRITE THAT UP? THAT'S WHY I SENT YOU GUYS. 
          WE CAN CHANGE THE REPORT THAT WAY. 
          AND YOU'RE GIVING THE REPORT. 
          THANK, BUT MY POINT IS, SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU'RE GONNA NAME THE NAMES OF WHO WANTS WHAT RIGHT. 
          IF, 'CAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          AND I'LL SAY SOME OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, THESE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ASKED THAT YOU CONSIDER THESE THAT ALRIGHT, YOU'RE PROVIDING, YOU'RE PROVIDING INPUT. 
          SO WE'RE JUST DOING A RECOMMENDATION. 
          NOW IF, IF YOU WANNA MOVE TONIGHT, IT'D BE A RECOMMENDATION EITHER YES. 
          'CAUSE THEY'RE MAKING THE FINAL, WE SAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO JUST, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SEE IT PUSHED DOWN ANOTHER TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGAIN. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO YOU WANNA DO IT THIS WEEK? YEAH, I SO PUSH IT ON WHEN WE AREN'T MAKING THE DECISION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, SO WE DID IT THIS WEEK. 
          WHAT I WOULD DO IS I, I'D READ THIS AS THE RESOLUTION AND THEN WE VOTE ON IT WITH, WITH SOME CHANGES I MADE THROUGH THE REPORT TO THE REPORT BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING JUST NOW. 
          SO WE ALL WANNA DO THAT. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THIS IS A LONG ONE HERE. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND REZONING TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, FROM R TWO TO C ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT THE, THE WHOLE REPORT IN OUR RESOLUTION. 
          NO, YOU JUST SAY, AND, AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS ATTACHING YOUR REPORT BASED UPON . 
          SO THE PLANNING BOARD'S GONNA ATTACH A REPORT, UH, THE CHANGES THAT WE WILL MAKE TO THE REPORT, UM, AT THE END OF THE REPORTS, BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS, REZONING OF THE R TWO ZONED LANDS TO C ONE. 
          THE PLANNING BOARD DID CONSIDER NEIGHBORHOODS COMMERCIAL, BUT WOULDN'T RECOMMEND RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          NUMBER TWO, IT CURRENTLY SAYS THE PLAN WILL INCLUDE THE BUFFERS ILLUSTRATED AND THE APPROPRIATE SCREENING MATERIALS BE PLACED AT THE ABUTTING LOCATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          I, I THINK WOULD CHANGE THAT. 
          UH, THE PLAN MUST INCLUDE BUFFERS AND APPROPRIATE SCREENING MATERIALS TO BE PLACED AT BUDDING LOCATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          UH, THE PLAN WILL ALSO REQUIRE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 
          UH, NUMBER THREE, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HAVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ENSURE THAT THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THAT WILL STAY. 
          UH, NUMBER FOUR, WE RECOMMEND THE CONDITION OF THE REZONING THAT, UH, DRY CLEANING AS 
          [00:15:02]
AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 13, SECTION 2 80 70 SUB TWO SUB C OF THE HAMBURG TOWN CODE CODE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT. 
          ANY OTHER CHANGES WE WOULD WANT? I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO PUT IT ALMOST ALL THAT IN. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THAT ALL, THAT'S ALL REALLY PERTAINS TO SITE PLAN AND, AND OTHER PARTS AND OTHER TIMES FOR US TO TALK ABOUT IT. 
          THAT, UH, RIGHT. 
          I, I DON'T THINK, THINK THAT'S CONCERNED AT ALL. 
          MAYBE THE PART ABOUT THE, UH, UH, WELL, THE PART ABOUT THE DRY CLEANING WOULD HAVE TO, BECAUSE IF THE TOWN BOARD REZONES IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXCLUDE THAT USE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IF WE WANT THAT, IT WOULD BRING THAT UP. 
          RIGHT? NOTE THAT, BUT NOT ALL THE OTHER STUFF. 
          THERE'S NO CONCERN REALLY YET AT THIS POINT. 
          YOU COULD JUST SAY OTHER CONCERN BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ARE, ARE ARTICULATED IN THE REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT IF YOU JUST PUT A LINE THAT, UM, SAYING SOME OF THE CONCERNS BROUGHT UP BY THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS GIVEN A CHANGE IN THEM FROM R TWO TO R ONE ARE AS FOLLOWS. 
          AND THEN JUST LIST THEM LIKE, THESE WERE CONCERNS WE CONSIDERED IN THE DISCUSSION. 
          IT REQUIRE A VARIANCE SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE A C1 RIGHT. 
          BUILDING AND, UM,  CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS DRY OR BROUGHT UP ABOUT DRY CLEANING THAT CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          LIKE JUST LIST THE CONCERNS THAT WE DISCUSSED SO THAT THEY KNOW IT WASN'T, IT, IT WASN'T AN EASY SWITCH. 
          LIKE THERE ARE DEFINITE TRADE OFFS WE'RE DOING WITH MAKING FROM R TWO TO R C1. 
          SO, SO DREW, WE'RE GONNA ADD A SECTION THAT SAYS WE DISCUSSED THIS AND I WILL REDRAFT THE REPORT AND SEND IT OUT. 
          WE HAVE SOME TIME BEFORE THE NEXT TOWN BOARD MEETING. 
          SO THE PLANNING BOARD AGREES WHAT'S IN THE REPORT, AND AGAIN, IT'LL PERSONALLY WHO, WHO HAS THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONCERN. 
          AND THEN, BUT WE'LL LEAVE THE PART ABOUT THE DRY CLEANING BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING AS, AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR A CONDITION TO THE REZONING BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THAT STAGE. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT. 
          AYE, AYE. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION. 
          DO THESE MINUTES TO GET PRESS? I DIDN'T AND SARAH, IT'S GONNA BE REAL CHALLENGING BECAUSE WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE RECORDER ON FOR THAT PART. 
          YEAH, I FORGOT. 
          ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NO, I'M NOT KIDDING. 
          I, I FORGOT UNTIL YOU JUST SAID THAT. 
          I, I JUST TURNED IT ON NOW. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THAT'S ALRIGHT. 
          I CAN LISTEN TO FACEBOOK. 
          SORRY. 
          GOT THE GOOD MICROPHONE RIGHT THERE. 
          I TAKING NOTES, CONDITIONS I'VE GOT TOO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY COULD READ THEM. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, ALRIGHT, LET'S, SO, UM, THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA. 
          NOW THAT WE ARE LIVE ON FACEBOOK, WE'LL GO BACK IN ORDER. 
          FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS CO LLC REQUESTING PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT CEDAR VALLEY TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF EAST PLEASANT AVENUE, WEST OF THE THRUWAY ORIGINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WAS GRANTED JULY 15TH, 2015. 
          SO THIS IS THE PROJECT, IT'S NEXT TO THE, UH, THROUGHWAY WHERE WE ALREADY APPROVE MULTIFAMILY HOUSES, BUT THEY WANNA CHANGE THE LAYOUT. 
          YES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          CHAIRMAN CLARK AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          ALSO WITH ME ARE JOEY JEFFO, AS WELL AS ROCK THE PROJECT ENGINEER FROM NUSSBAUMER AND PARK. 
          AS THE BOARD RECALL, WE PRESENTED THIS A COUPLE TIMES PREVIOUSLY, GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO A WORK SESSION YOU HELD IN OCTOBER. 
          BASICALLY THIS IS AN UPDATE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. 
          IT WAS APPROVED FOR THIS SITE, SAME NUMBER OF UNITS AS WE ALREADY ALREADY HAD APPROVED. 
          BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE IS BROUGHT THIS INTO 2021. 
          WE HAVE THAT LARGE WALKING TRAIL AROUND AS INTERIOR GREEN SPACE. 
          WE'VE BROKEN UP THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS. 
          WE HAVE MULTIPLE FLOOR PLANS. 
          WE'VE ADDED ATTACHED GARAGES. 
          WE'VE MADE IT SO THERE ARE NO LARGE PARKING LOTS IN THE SITE. 
          SO IF WE LOOK AT THIS PLAN AND COMPARE BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PLAN, WHICH WE'VE SHOWN YOU PRIOR, UH, WE THINK IS DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT. 
          ONE TOPIC THAT DID COME UP DURING YOUR MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO WAS A POSSIBLE NEED TO LOOK BACK AT THE ORIGINAL SECRET DETERMINATION TERMINATION. 
          [00:20:01]
UH, THE TOWN BOARD ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, BOTH FOR THIS PROJECT AND THE SUBDIVISION NEXT DOOR THAT WAS ON THE SAME SITE. 
          IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 
          UM, I LOOKED AT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 
          IT WAS CERTAINLY INCLUSIVE. 
          IT WAS A RESULT OF AN EXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT INVOLVE INPUT RECEIVED FROM MULTIPLE AGENCIES. 
          UM, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE. 
          ALL WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING YOU TO DO THIS EVENING IS CLOSE THE HEARING AND WE'RE HOPING YOU'LL FINALLY BE IN A POSITION THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER ISSUING AN APPROVAL ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN DURING YOUR MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. 
          I THINK I'M GONNA KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE WE PRESENTED THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN, BUT WE DO WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 
          AND I ALSO WANNA NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT, UH, JOE AND JEFF RUSSO AND ROB AND PROJECT ARCHITECT, THEY'VE REALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME DURING THOSE INTERVENING YEARS BETWEEN WHERE WE WERE AND WHERE WE ARE NOW. 
          AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CURRENT LAYOUT, NOT ONLY IS IT AN IMPROVEMENT, I THINK IT REALLY WILL SET A NEW STANDARD FOR THE TYPE OF MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. 
          SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE'D WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND JUST FOR THE RECORD AND CLARITY, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN, UH, IMPER SURFACES? IF I, IF I SAY THAT RIGHT? SORRY. 
          IN SURFACE WHERE WATER CAN'T GET THROUGH THIS PROJECT TO THE ONE THAT I, I WOULD SAY WE'RE PROBABLY 50% RIGHT. 
          REDUCTIONS, 50% REDUCTION. 
          50% REDUCTION, POSSIBLY MORE FROM THE, YOUR RECALL, NONE OF THIS GREEN SPACE WAS ON THIS PREVIOUS LAYOUT. 
          SO YEAH, I WOULD, I I WOULD SAY THAT'S PROBABLY A PRETTY CLOSE NUMBER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO DREW, JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME INTERESTED PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC HERE. 
          THIS PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED AND THEY ARE AUTHORIZED RIGHT NOW TO BUILD AS THEY PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED THE LAYOUT IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS JUST REVIEWING THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING HERE AS WHAT'S PRESENTED FOR US TODAY. 
          YES. 
          AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, THE ORIGINAL PROJECT WENT THROUGH REZONING BACK IN 2013. 
          THEY WENT THROUGH AN ARDUOUS, UM, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, A VERY ARDUOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. 
          ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES I THINK HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE, BY, UH, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THIS WAS THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC. 
          AND MATTER OF FACT, THIS PROJECT COULD NOT GO FORWARD UNTIL THE COUNTY AGREED TO DO A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT AT THE, AT THE LOCATION. 
          THERE WAS OTHER RESTRICTIONS PUT IN PLACE. 
          AND THEN THE TOWN BOARD THROUGH THAT PROCESS GRANTED A EG DECK AND THEY ISSUED APPROVAL OF THE REZONING WITH FOUR RESTRICTIONS. 
          THE, THE RESTRICTIONS WERE THAT THE AREA THAT SHOWN R TWO, THEY ALL HAD TO BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE SUBDIVISION SIDE, IN THE SUBDIVISION PART OF IT. 
          AND THEN FOR THIS PART OF THE SITE, IT WAS APPROVED AS 168, UH, UH, MULTIFAMILY UNITS. 
          IT THEN CAME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR APPROVAL. 
          YEARS LATER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE PLANNING BOARD WENT THROUGH A PROCESS, NOT THIS BOARD, PREVIOUS BOARD WENT THROUGH A PROCESS AND APPROVED THAT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. 
          AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED HERE WE ARE YEARS ON, THAT'S ALL APPROVED. 
          THEY COULD HAVE BUILT THAT DEVELOPMENT AS AS, AS IT WAS APPROVED. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS LOOKED AT THIS, IF WE SAID NO TO THIS, WHAT'S THAT? IF WE SAID NO TO THIS, THEY COULD BUILD, THEY COULD BUILD IT HOW IT WAS BEFORE. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, BUT THEY SAID THEY WOULD RATHER DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          THEY BELIEVE IT'S A BETTER, A BETTER OPTION FOR THEM. 
          YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A BETTER OPTION. 
          THEY'RE ADDING MORE GREEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE, UH, UH, WALKING PAST THINGS LIKE THAT AND WHATEVER. 
          SO WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TODAY IS THAT CHAIN. 
          WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THEY'RE BUILDING 144 UNITS THERE THAT'S BEEN APPROVED. 
          IT'S BASICALLY HOW THEY'RE LAYING IT OUT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY AND HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE AND THAT'S, I KNOW SARAH'S GOTTEN CALLS ON THAT AND SHE'S EXPLAINED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          WE'RE NOT RE-APP APPROVING IT. 
          IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. 
          WE'RE SAYING, CAN THEY MAKE THESE CHANGES TO THAT APPROVED APPROVED PLAN? AND WE DID LOSE A LOT YEARS LATER. 
          SOMEONE COME BACK AND WANNA MAKE, IF IT'S A MINOR CHANGE, THEY DON'T SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. 
          THEY CAN APPROVE IT WITHOUT SENDING IT BACK TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 
          THIS OBVIOUSLY THEY CONSIDER AND THE APPLICANT'S CONSIDER FROM THE DAY ONE, IT'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. 
          THE CHANGE OF LAYOUT, CHANGE OF, OF FOCUS OF, OF THE SAME AMOUNT, SAME AMOUNT OF UH, UNITS, BUT A VERY DIFFERENT LAYOUT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY IS, IS DO WE WANNA PROVE THIS CHANGE IN LAYOUT? OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT, THEIR ENGINEERS, DESIGNERS ARE HERE TO, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT LAYOUT. 
          ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WAS, AND THEY EXPLAINED THAT YOU HAVE THESE, UH, MULTI-FAMILY UNITS THAT ARE GONNA BE ALONG AND APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T GO THE ROAD HERE. 
          CEDAR VALLEY. 
          CEDAR 
          [00:25:01]
VALLEY, CEDAR VALLEY THAT WILL, THOSE BUILDINGS, THE FRONT OF 'EM, FACE THAT ROAD. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN BECAUSE THERE'S PARKING SPACES THERE. 
          THEY'VE GONE FROM LARGE PARKING LOTS TO HAVING SOME PARKING SPACES AT THAT LOCATION. 
          HOW WILL THAT APPEAR TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON CEDAR VALLEY ROAD? ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A DEPARTMENT PROPOSED THERE BEFORE. 
          THIS IS A LITTLE CHANGE IN LAYOUT. 
          IS THIS A BETTER LAYOUT FOR THEM? OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT IS ARGUING IT'S A BETTER LAYOUT. 
          SO ASK THE AWAY OF THE APPLICANT AND THEN OF COURSE WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR QUESTIONS. 
          BUT AFTER THE PRIVATE ROAD IS RUNNING IN THE REAR OF THE, THE DEVELOPMENT YES. 
          MEANING THIS YEAH, THE PRIVATE. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH, THAT'S, I I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT A ROAD. 
          I WOULD CALL IT A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. 
          YES. 
          WAS THAT ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS ALSO? UH, NOT PRECISELY THERE, BUT YEAH, THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY A SECURE ACCESS AISLE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD WORRIES. 
          YEAH, I I THINK THEY BACKED UP CLOSER TO THE THROUGHWAY IN THE ORIGINAL, SO THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A DRIVEWAY THERE OVER THERE. 
          THROUGHWAY IS RIGHT. 
          SEE THE, IN THAT PICTURE. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          BUT I'M SAYING OKAY, THE ORIGINAL PLAN, YEAH, IT WAS RIGHT ON. 
          YEAH, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          THE BUILDINGS WERE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          BOB, DO YOU TAMMY HAS A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. 
          YEAH, THERE YOU GO. 
          AND BY THE WAY, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT ORIGINAL, RIGHT? THAT'S, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW WE HAVE A TEXT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I CAN SEE WHERE IT CHANGED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, REQUEST, KEEP IN MIND IT'S IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST THERE ISN'T UNDERLYING SET BEFORE WE ANSWER YOUR, SO, SO ALL THAT DETAILED REVIEWS THAT YOU DON'T SEE DAY TO DAY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED, OBVIOUSLY PRIMARILY BY CAMMY, BUT IT DOES COMPLY WITH APPENDIX VIA THE FIRE CODE. 
          SO IT CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE, UH, SAFE ACCESS BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES, THIS LAB AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS LAB. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYTHING SEAN? I, I WAS LOOKING AT MY MATERIALS AND I COULDN'T FIND THE ELEVATION FOR THE, OH, FACING CEDAR VALLEY. 
          I FIND THOSE BECAUSE THE APARTMENT, THE GARAGE ON THE SOUTH SIDE FACING, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE FACING THE HOMEOWNERS ACROSS THE STREET. 
          AND THEN FOR CLARITY, THIS IS A TOWN RIGHT NOW, IS IT? OR IS IT STILL AN APARTMENT COMPLEX? NO, SO THESE ARE, THESE ARE STILL UNITS FOR A LEASE, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. 
          THEY'RE NOT FOR SALE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE, BUT WE DO HAVE THE ELEVATIONS HERE. 
          WE, WE PREVIOUS EASILY PRESENTED IT. 
          IS THIS, CAN YOU SEE THOSE TOP ELEVATION? IF WE CAN PUT SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU CAN SEE IT BETTER? THAT WOULD FACE INNER VALLEY WAY CAMERA UP A LITTLE BIT THERE. 
          CAMERA'S ON THE LAPTOP. 
          YEAH, THE CAMERA'S ON THE LAPTOP. 
          AND AGAIN, A LOT OF TIME HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE RUSSOS WORKING WITH THE PROJECT ARCHITECT INCORPORATE HIGH QUALITY MATERIAL, DIFFERENT VARYING COLORS TO, AND THE BOTTOM IS THE BAG. 
          SO THE TOP IS WHAT THE, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING THE HOMES AND THE OTHER SUBDIVISION WOULD SEE. 
          SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS HERE. 
          LOOKS LIKE THE OUT THERE TOO, SO THAT HE'S STANDING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. 
          YEAH, HE STAYS THERE. 
          HE, HE COMES WITH A DEAL, HE RUNS AROUND THE ENTIRE, HE'S ALREADY SIGNED THE LEASE, BUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT BUILDINGS. 
          THERE'S AN A TYPE BUILDING, WHICH IS AN EIGHT UNIT AND A B TYPE BUILDING, WHICH IS ALSO AN EIGHT UNIT. 
          THE A IS TWO STORY UP AND DOWN, AND THE B IS EIGHT UNIT FLATS. 
          WE JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, WE LITERALLY HAVE 11 DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS NOW WITHIN THIS PROJECT, THE COLORS THAT YOU PICKED HERE ARE, THEY'RE NOT FINAL, YOU HAVE ANY RENDERING OR ARE THEY GONNA VARY? I HAVE THE, THEY'LL BE SIMILAR MUTED COLORS, BUT THEY'RE NOT THESE, THEY'RE NOT OBVIOUSLY FINALS. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU MAY WANT FINAL COVER COLORS BEFORE WE GET TO THE END OF THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST AS USUALLY NOT RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE'VE HAD, WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH COLOR. 
          SOME PROJECTS, IF YOU PROVIDE US WITH THE SCOPE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE, WE'LL CERTAINLY CONSIDER THERE. 
          WELL WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE'D SAY, IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE'D SAY PROVE IT. 
          UH, AND WE'D MAKE THOSE PART OF MAKE, IF THE PICTURES YOU SEND ARE APPROVAL. 
          SURE, YEAH. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT 
          [00:30:01]
COMFORTABLE WITH THE ELEVATIONS WE HAVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          THEY REFLECT A LOT AFTER ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON NOTES HERE. 
          UH, BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS. 
          READ THE NOTICE BILL. 
          YES, PLEASE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THE WILL ON A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR BY BOSTON DUKE HOLDING FOR THE VILLAGE AT CEDAR VALLEY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF EAST PLEASANT AVENUE. 
          WEST OF THE, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON APRIL 21ST, 2021 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF TOWN HALL. 
          ALRIGHT, SO AT THIS TIME I OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE OR WATCHING ONLINE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK, UH, FOR OR AGAINST THE BOSTON STATE MOLDINGS PROJECT? OKAY, SO WE COME UP AND SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          UM, THAT'S THE MICROPHONE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP HERE. 
          YEAH, IT'S KIND OF THE MIDDLE THERE. 
          OKAY, BILL. 
          YES, IF THE NAME IS NOT EASILY SPELLED, PLEASE ASK THEM TO SPELL IT TOO. 
          OKAY. 
          , IT'S, UH, PAUL CARRICK, K-A-R-P-I-K, UH, 33 70 CEDAR VALLEY WAY. 
          I AM, UH, ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          UM, I AM A LITTLE BIT DISAPPOINTED IN THE PROCESS. 
          I KNOW IT'S A, I TALKED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, ALREADY TALKED TO THE GAL ON THE SCREEN RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE, UM, OVER PROBABLY LAST WEEK. 
          AND SHE SAID THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH A DONE DEAL. 
          BUT AS A BUYER OF A $500,000 HOME, I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED AND DISAPPOINTED THAT THE, UH, BUILDER DID NOT COMMUNICATE THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE APARTMENT COMPLEX DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HOUSE. 
          UH, THAT, THAT IS A BIG CONCERN FOR ME IS THAT'S A BIG HIT IN MY PROPERTY VALUE I'M TAKING BY HAVING A APARTMENT COMPLEX ACROSS FROM A VERY NICE HOUSE. 
          UM, SO THAT IS GONNA BE A PROBABLY ALMOST A HUNDRED THOUSAND LOSS IN PROPERTY VALUE FOR ME. 
          SAY HAVING A APARTMENT COMPLEX, NO MATTER HOW NICE IT'S ACROSS THE STREET. 
          I MEAN, WE DO HEAR PRETTY OFTEN THAT REALTORS OR BUILDERS, WHOEVER DON'T TELL PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING A HOUSE, WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR AREAS NEARBY. 
          UM, WELL, WE'RE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT? LIKE WE'RE, I'M DEAD CENTER CROSSING THE PLACE AND QUITE HONESTLY, THERE'S A FORBES SIGN, LIKE RIGHT WHERE THE, UH, ORIGINAL, UH, MODEL HOME WAS. 
          THAT'S STILL UP THERE AND THAT'S ON THAT SPOT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HOUSE. 
          OH, WHAT? SO, YOU KNOW, SALES SIGN WHEN I BOUGHT IT, THAT WAS, I WAS THE, THE FIRST HOUSE THAT PURCHASED IN THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM FORBES. 
          THE OTHER HOUSE WAS THE MODEL THAT WAS EXISTING THERE. 
          SO I JUST DIDN'T, NOBODY EVER TOLD US THERE'S NOT GONNA BE HOST ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. 
          IT WAS A SIGN ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
          SO YOU'D ASSUME, KIND OF ASSUME THAT HOUSE BUILT OVER THERE, NO HOUSE BUILT OVER THERE. 
          UM, SO A LITTLE BIT DI DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT. 
          UM, NOT SO MUCH ON THIS DEVELOPER, BUT ON THE, THE ACTUAL HOME BUILDER IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, IT'S DISAPPOINTING TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT. 
          UH, MY CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS THAT I HAVE A 10-YEAR-OLD SON THAT LIKES TO BE ACTIVE OUTSIDE IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT HAVING 144 UNITS DRIVING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD. 
          AND, UM, I'M, I'M CONCERNED THERE'S ONLY ONE EXIT OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONE IN, BUT WE HAVE TWO EXITS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD ASK IS MAYBE CON CONSIDER IF THIS APARTMENT'S ALREADY DONE DEAL CAPPING OFF YOUR FIRE ONE, MAYBE MAKING THAT JUST A SERVICE EMERGENCY ROAD EXIT AND ALLOWING THE MAIN ENTRANCE OVER BY THE POOL AND MAIN AREA WHERE THE, THE GREETING IS TO THAT. 
          THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          IS THE EMERGENCY ROAD, THAT WAS THE CONDITION RE ZONING, IS THAT EMERGENCY ROAD AT THIS POINT? NO, IT, OKAY. 
          AND I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS THE CONDITION BE PLACED THAT EMERGENCY EXIT GO IN PRIOR TO, I MEAN BEFORE THIS, OKAY. 
          NO, I THINK WHAT HE WANTS IS WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT THE TWO DRIVEWAYS FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          HE WANTS THIS ONE BLOCKED OFF. 
          YES. 
          SOMETHING LIKE THAT KIND IT, SO EVERYBODY'S GOTTA GO OUT THIS WAY INSTEAD OF GOING FURTHER. 
          BUT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY NEEDS EG. 
          THE OTHER ONE, BUT THERE'S FENCE ON THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO EVEN IF WE WANTED USE THAT EMERGENCY EGRESS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE RETAINING IS IN THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, SOMEBODY, THE HOMEOWNER ON THAT SIDE IS ALSO FENCE UP SO YOU CAN'T CROSS. 
          SO YOU'RE ASKING IF THIS COULD BE ELIMINATED. 
          I'M ASKING, YEAH. 
          I'M ASKING SITUATION THAT THIS COULD BE CUT OFF TO KEEP MOST OF THE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN. 
          MAIN ROAD HERE, TRAVEL HERE. 
          [00:35:01]
THAT'S SOMETHING WE MAY HAVE TO LOOK INTO BECAUSE I BELIEVE OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT UNITS YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO MEANS OF EGRESS IN AND OUTTA THIS. 
          BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          RIGHT. 
          WE HAD AN EMERGENCY ONE. 
          THIS ONE, THIS ONE. 
          CAN YOU MAKE IT ASKING? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE NOTES WE'RE NOT HOW OUR DONE THIS IS AN ACCESS, IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PERIMETER AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS. 
          WE'VE BROKEN THIS INTO SMALL BUILDINGS THAT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD NOT BE SMART. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE ALL THESE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES ON, ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD THERE BIGGER AS BIG AS IT'S NOT BIGGER WITH ONLY ONE ONE WAY IN AND OUT. 
          RIGHT? AND, UH, I KNOW ONE HOME BACK, ANOTHER FOUR SEASONS NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU GUYS, SOME THE PLANNING BOARD HAD ALLOWED A GATE TO BE PUT THERE SO THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ACCESS TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR SOME CONSIDERATION THAT MAYBE WE CONSIDER LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT THIS IS A NICE QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW. 
          AND YOU'RE GONNA ADD, THERE'S ONLY THE, THE WHOLE COMMUNITY ITSELF IS, I'M SORRY, UH, ABOUT A HUNDRED PROPERTIES. 
          UH, DIFFERENT VISUALIZED, WE'RE PUTTING 144 APARTMENT UNITS IN A VERY SMALL SECTION OF THAT COMMUNITY. 
          SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE THIS LARGE AREA WITH A HUNDRED A HUNDRED HOUSES AND YOU'RE GONNA PUT 144 UNITS IN ONE LITTLE SMALL SECTION OF IT ASKING FOR SOME CONSIDERATION TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT MAYBE EITHER MOVING THE FRONT ENTRANCE CLOSER TO THE FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR CUTTING OFF THE BACK CORNER AND MAKING THAT JUST AN EMERGENCY SOME ADDRESS, DEAL WITH SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS DONE IN THE PAST. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION AND CONCERNS AND THE COMMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE, I UNDERSTAND THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S CONCERNS. 
          YOU ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED IT, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THE RUSSOS ARE NOT THE HOME BUILDER. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROJECT, IT ALWAYS INCLUDED THE SUBDIVISION AND THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT THAT'S LITERALLY BEEN ON THE BOOKS NOW FOR A DECADE. 
          RIGHT? I'M NOT SAYING THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE WE DID A SUBDIVISION AND WE ADDED APARTMENTS. 
          IT WAS ALWAYS RIGHT. 
          YOU CAN'T KNOW IT UNTIL SOMEBODY TELLS HIM. 
          DISCLOSE THAT TO ME. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND. 
          IF I HAD KNOWN THAT AHEAD OF TIME, I NEVER WOULD'VE BUILT A, A 500,000 HOME IN THAT PROPERTY. 
          YEAH, NO, I, I I'M SAYING I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE. 
          WE SHOULD BE AT THE SPOT. 
          THE ORIGINAL PLAN ALSO HIT TWO ENTRANCES. 
          RIGHT? IT'S ALWAYS HAD TWO ENTRANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ANYONE ELSE ON THIS PROJECT? DREW, IS THERE ANYBODY BEHIND THE SIGN THERE? HANDS UP? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, BEING KNOWN, UH, FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANYONE HERE WANTING TO SPEAK ON BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS, UH, FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME, ANYBODY HERE SPEAK, UH, IN FAVOR AGAINST THE BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS PROJECT? UH, EXCUSE ME. 
          YES. 
          YEAH, I'D LIKE TO JUST ASK THE QUESTION. 
          I'M NOT SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. 
          SURE. 
          MY NAME IS VINCE LIO. 
          I LIVE AT 54 84 COOPER RIDGE THE NEXT YEAR TO, SO 144 UNITS. 
          IT'S LIKE A COUPLE HUNDRED CARS. 
          AND I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE, UH, UH, OVER, I HEARD THE MEETING LAST WEEK. 
          YOU WERE IN PARALLEL PARK SOMEPLACE. 
          I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S GONNA SPILL OVER. 
          THAT MANY UNITS ARE BUILD WHERE PARK. 
          SO WHERE THERE WAS JUST TO REACCLIMATE EVERYONE WHERE THERE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THERE BEING SOME SURPLUS VISITOR PARKING SPACES WAS HERE ALONG THE FRONT UNITS THAT WOULD BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS. 
          SO ON ONSITE AND NOT WITHIN CEDAR VALLEY. 
          THIS IS STREET HERE. 
          THIS IS ON, ON, YEAH, THIS IS CEDAR VALLEY. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          WHERE PARKING ON ONSITE. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE'S THREE 50 PARKING. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST SO EVERYONE KNOW, THE PARKING REQUIRED BY CODE IS TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. 
          SO BASICALLY, AS JEFF JUST INDICATED, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'VE MADE, MADE AN ACCOMMODATION PROVIDE MORE THAN THAT IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WILL HAVE VISITORS AND ALSO THAT WE NEED TO KEEP OUR PARKING ON SITE. 
          SO WE THINK WE FULFILLED THAT GOAL. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT? SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING DURING THE PANDEMIC IS IF, IF WE DO GET SOME COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE DON'T CLOSE IT SO PEOPLE CAN WATCH THE VIDEO ONLINE AND GIVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT WILL STILL BE PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO I WILL TABLE BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS 
          [00:40:02]
TO MAY 5TH, KEEPING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. 
          SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          WOULD THE BOARD BE WILLING TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO ASKING THE PLAINTIFF PREPARED DRAFT RESOLUTION AGAIN, SHORT CONSTRUCTION SEASON? I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE KEEPING THE HEARING OPEN, THEREFORE THAT THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST POTENTIAL THAT JUDICIAL DECISION AT THAT SAME MEETING. 
          WHAT DO WE THINK? YES. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I WILL MAKE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS TO BE PREPARED FOR OUR MAY 5TH MEETING ON BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS. 
          CO LLC. 
          THERE'S A MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          YES. 
          QUESTION. 
          HOLD ON. 
          THERE'S A QUESTION. 
          SO THE DRAFT WOULD JUST BE IN CASE IT'S NOT A CONFIRMED DRAFT, RIGHT? OH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          NO, IT'S, WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS. 
          WE DON'T WANNA VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          YEAH, WHENEVER WE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, IT'S NOT LIKE A TOWN BOARD MEETING OR THE PRE FILE. 
          YOU GUYS DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANNA DO ANYTHING WITH THEM, MAKE CHANGES TO THEM, WHATEVER. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YEAH, NO, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. SHAW. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THOSE WILL BE IN FOR NEXT WEEK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MAY 5TH, SORRY. 
          NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APOLLO CONCRETE COATINGS REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 6,791 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE SLASH WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON VACANT LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RILEY BOULEVARD, NORTH OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          PAUSE, THERE'S, ALRIGHT, GIVE THEM A FEW SECONDS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THIS ONE'S BEEN IN FRONT OF US, UH, A FEW TIMES. 
          PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT. 
          ANYTHING WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          AND THIS, HOW MUCH OF THIS GONNA THE WAREHOUSE AND HOW MUCH IS GONNA BE CLOSE THE DOOR BACK THERE. 
          THE BACK ENDING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT 1300 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND THEN THE REST WOULD BE WAREHOUSE. 
          HOW BIG'S THE REST? OKAY. 
          IT'S UH, 6,791. 
          SO IT'S MOSTLY WAREHOUSE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE, SO REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT A WAREHOUSE WITH AN OFFICE, NOT AN OFFICE WITH A WAREHOUSE. 
          AM I RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, NO WAREHOUSES ALLOWED IN THAT STORAGE WAREHOUSE. 
          SO I GUESS THAT BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING QUESTION. 
          YOU KNOW, AS WAS POINTED OUT BY YOU THING IS THAT WAREHOUSES ARE PROHIBITED, BUT IT'S NOT A WAREHOUSE. 
          IT'S US INDOOR STORAGE. 
          THE EXISTING BUSINESS, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS THE WAREHOUSE. 
          SORRY, I'LL JUST FINISH OUT MY BOX. 
          VERY GOOD QUESTION. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          UM, THE IDEA, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO RESEARCH THAT THE TOWN DID NOT WANNA SEE WHEN THEY REZONED THIS PROPERTY. 
          THEY PUT, THEY PUT A BUNCH OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS AN ISSUE OF WHAT THIS PARK WOULD BE. 
          THEY TALKED ABOUT IT BEING AN OFFICE PARK AND NOT BEING, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN TYPES OF USES. 
          AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT AGAIN, THE, UH, CAR WASH LATER. 
          IT WAS THE INTERPRETATION THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND AGAIN, INTERPRETATION, THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS A BUSINESS OFFICE THAT HAS MATERIALS THAT THEY STORE IN A WAREHOUSE. 
          IT WASN'T A CLEARLY A WAREHOUSING BUSINESS. 
          YES, WE COULD, WE COULD GO AROUND AND AROUND SAYING IT'S A WAREHOUSE WITH AN OFFICE OR VICE VERSA. 
          THE IDEA IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST WAREHOUSING A BIG WAREHOUSE TO STORE STORE MATERIALS LIKE TYPICAL SHIPPING IN AND OUT MATERIALS. 
          THIS IS THE PRODUCT, CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT YOU USE IN A BUSINESS THAT THEY OPERATE. 
          SO THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT DENNIS. 
          IT'S VERY HARD TO INTERPRET WHAT WE TRIED TO FIND IN THE MINUTES ABOUT WHAT THEY MEANT BY WAREHOUSE. 
          WHAT, WHY 
          [00:45:01]
DID THEY EXCLUDE OR WHATEVER. 
          THEY JUST SAW THIS MORE AS AN OFFICE BUSINESS PART AND NOT JUST A BIG WAREHOUSE LIKE AN AMAZON WAREHOUSE OR WHATEVER THAT JUST STRICTLY DOES WAREHOUSING. 
          THIS IS A BUSINESS THAT HAS A PRODUCT THAT THEY STORE AND THEN GO OUT AND, AND THEN BRING, BRING TO THE SITE. 
          SO THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION, BUT GOOD QUESTION ABOUT IT. 
          THERE WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT WE DIDN'T WANT THE JUST LOOKING LIKE WAREHOUSES IN THERE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE ASKED THAT IT WAS A REQUIREMENT. 
          THEY SHOW US WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKED LIKE. 
          IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE JUST A BIG, YOU KNOW, WAREHOUSE METAL LOOKING BUILDING. 
          SO THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS. 
          WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IT, MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT OF TRYING TO INTERPRET. 
          SO WE'RE CLEAR THE WAREHOUSE PROHIBITION, IS THAT DONE? IS THAT PART OF THE ZONING CODE OR WAS THAT ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS ADDED WHEN THEY APPROVED THE WHOLE PARK? WHEN THEY APPROVED THE WHOLE PARK, THEY DID TWO THINGS. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY IN TWO SPOTS WE FOUND. 
          SO WAREHOUSES AND CAR WASHES? YES. 
          IT WAS IN THE, THEY DID A GENERIC IMPACT STATEMENT, PART OF THE FINDINGS, WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD HAS A COPY OF IT SAID AND READ THE FRONT END OF IT FOR AESTHETIC ISSUES AND WHATEVER. 
          THEY SAID, WE ARE RESTRICTING THESE USES. 
          THEN WHEN THE TOWN BOARD APPROVED THE REZONING, THEY INCLUDED THAT LIST OF PROHIBITED USES IN THAT REZONING. 
          SO THAT PUTS THE REQUIREMENT NOT ONLY IN THE GENERIC IMPACT STATEMENT, WHICH WE COULD SAY, OH YEAH, IT KIND OF MISSED, BUT IT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE REZONING. 
          SO THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED THAT IT'S NOT A WAREHOUSE. 
          'CAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD LIKE WE'RE DOING WITH THE CAR WASH FOR, FOR THEM TO REDO THE REZONING OR SAY IT STAYS THE WAY IT IS. 
          SO THIS IS JUST FOR THEIR MATERIAL, UH, FOR THEIR UQ. 
          IT'S NOT GONNA BE, UH, ANY, ANY FORM COMMERCIAL ORDER. 
          CORRECT. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUTTING, PLEASE, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR BUSINESS. 
          AGAIN, THIS WAS AN INTERPRETATION THAT WAS MADE. 
          WE DO IS WE ACTUALLY PERFORM GARAGE COATINGS FOR GARAGE FLOORS. 
          EVERYONE KNOWS THEM AS EPOXY FLOORS. 
          WE'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT WE HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE ON THE EXACT PRODUCT THAT WE USE AT HUBS FROM MINNESOTA. 
          SO I'M PLACING ON, WE DO HAVE A LOCATION IN AN OFFICE. 
          WE DO HAVE TO HAVE AN OFFICE STAFF AND A CALL CENTER TO, FOR OUR HOMEOWNERS TO CALL. 
          BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO PLAY, HAVE A PLACE TO FOLD OUR SUPPLIES TO TO PUT 'EM INTO TRUCKS, TO TAKE IT OUT TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES. 
          SO THAT'S THE, THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE HAVE A SUPPLY AREA IN, IN OUR BUILDING DESIGN. 
          THAT WAS, THAT WAS KIND OF THE REASON WHY WE TALKED. 
          LAST MEETING I ASKED YOU ABOUT STORAGE AND VENTILATION. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          IT'S GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA STORE YOUR PRODUCT THERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND AND THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          WE PLACE, UH, WE TAKE OUR PRODUCT, WHICH IS FIVE GALLON BUCKETS. 
          WE PLACE IT INTO A TRUCK AND WE DRIVE IT OUT TO A CUSTOMER'S RESIDENCE. 
          BECAUSE I ASKED, THERE'S NO OPEN CONTAINERS, NOTHING'S GONNA BE OPEN, NOTHING'S MANUFACTURED, NOTHING LIKE THAT. 
          NOTHING'S MIXED THERE. 
          IT'S MIXED OUT. 
          IT'S ALL DONE SOMEPLACE ELSE. 
          CORRECT. 
          YOU'RE STORING THIS STUFF HERE WITH VENTILATION, CORRECT. 
          IT'S NOT OPEN. 
          CORRECT. 
          TO MATTER OF FACT, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA END UP TAKING THE OFFICE MORE INTO THE STORAGE AREA BECAUSE HE NEEDS MORE STORAGE AREA WITH COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          WE MIGHT HAVE TO SCALE BACK THE, THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE WOOD FRAME BUILDING AND PUSH IT INTO THE METAL BUILDING. 
          SO IT'S GONNA BE LESS OF A STORAGE BUILDING THAT IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW. 
          AND ALSO WE'VE MADE THE DECISION THAT THE CALL CENTER'S GONNA BE HANDLING THREE AREAS. 
          URI, PENNSYLVANIA, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, AND BUFFALO. 
          AND THAT'S GONNA BE LOCATED IN THIS BUILDING THAT WILL BE LOCATED HERE. 
          SO WE'LL BE CREATING MORE JOBS FOR PEOPLE IN HAMBURG. 
          UM, BUT WE NEEDED TO GRAB A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE INTO THE WAREHOUSE OF THE WAREHOUSE. 
          WE'LL BE SHRINKING. 
          SO, AND WE HAD TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF THE ACTUAL TOP SECOND FLOOR OFF JUST BECAUSE OF THE MATERIALS GOING UP FROM COVID. 
          MY BUDGET HAS GONE, GONE EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER, SO I HAD TO SHRINK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WILL BE EMPLOYED BY THE OFFICE AND HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WILL BE DOING WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS? OKAY, SO THE WAREHOUSE FUNCTION, NO ONE'S GONNA BE ACTUALLY IN THE WAREHOUSE WORKING AT ANY TIME. 
          THE GUYS THAT WORK ON THE FIELD WILL BE COMING BACK. 
          THEY WORK THE WAREHOUSE IN THE MORNING BY MOVING MATERIAL AROUND IN BETWEEN TRUCKS AND THEY WORK IT IN THE AFTERNOON. 
          THE OFFICE STAFF WILL BE FIVE TO SIX STRONG DURING THE DAY. 
          SO AS FAR AS THE STAFF THAT'S THERE ALL THE TIME, THAT'S MOSTLY OFFICE STAFF. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT WAY TO LOOK AT IT OTHER THAN SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          I AGREE. 
          SO I AGREE. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, CAN YOU READ THE NOTICE PLEASE? UM, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          NOTICE THIS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY APOLLO CONCRETE TO CONSTRUCT A 6,791 SQUARE FOOT 
          [00:50:01]
BUILDING AND VACANT LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LEY BOULEVARD, NORTH OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON APRIL 21ST, 2021 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. 
          ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APOLLO CONCRETE COATINGS. 
          ANYONE HERE WITH A COMMENT FOR OR AGAINST APOLLO CONCRETE? APOLLO CONCRETE COATINGS? NO. 
          FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANYONE HERE WITH ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST APOLLO CONCRETE FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME? ANY COMMENTS ON THIS APOLLO CONCRETE PROJECT? I ALSO DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS ONLINE AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC BY EMAIL OR PHONE CALL BEFORE THIS DATE. 
          SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, APOLLO CONCRETE HOLDINGS AND I DID NOT HAVE IN MY NOTES SARAH WAS TRYING TO FIND IN THE MEETING MINUTES, UM, THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE RESOLUTIONS FOR THIS. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE SIMPLE RESOLUTIONS, BUT YOU COULD RIGHT TABLE FOR TWO WEEKS AND ASK ME TO PREPARE RESOLUTION. 
          THERE'D BE TWO RESOLUTIONS. 
          FIRST OF ALL, YOU DID ASK ME AND I PUT MY NOTES WHEN YOU GIVE ME DIRECTION ON WHAT TO DO. 
          YOU GUYS WANTED A COPY OF THE FINDING STATEMENT, WHICH I SENT TO YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WHICH THE, UH, THE APPLICANT FILLED OUT. 
          UM, SO TAKE, UH, NO THAT YOU JUST HAVE THE FINDING STATEMENTS. 
          SORRY, THE OTHER ONE LATER IS WHAT ONE'S FILLED OUT? DO YOU HAVE THE FINDING STATEMENT? IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IN THE FINDING STATEMENT? FIRST WE'D HAVE TO SAY IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE, THE FINDINGS OF, OF THE, OF THAT PROJECT, THE SEEKER. 
          AND THEN IF YOU WANT IT WOULD BE A SIMPLE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 
          SO EITHER AUTHORIZE ME TO PREPARE THOSE OR DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THOSE MORE? YOU ASKED ME TO TO SEND THAT TO YOU. 
          I SEND IT TO YOU. 
          DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINDING? S DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN IT? THE ONE ISSUE THAT CAME UP WAS ABOUT THE USE. 
          WE'VE DISCUSSED THE USE. 
          AND AGAIN, I WANNA ELABORATE A LITTLE FURTHER BECAUSE I CHECKED MY NOTES. 
          I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE A RETAIL BUSINESS, YOU, YOU MAY HAVE AN OFFICE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          THEIR BUSINESS IS NOT WAREHOUSING. 
          THEIR BUSINESS IS A COATING COMPANY THAT HAS OFFICES AND A WAREHOUSE. 
          SO THE USE OF IT IS THE APOLLO CONCRETE COATING COMPANY THAT HAS OFFICES AND WAREHOUSING AS PART OF THAT. 
          SO YOU TALKED ABOUT BUDGET ISSUES THAT ARE GONNA CHANGE THE BUILDING. 
          HOW, HOW MUCH IS THAT GONNA CHANGE THE BUILDING? DO WE NEED NEW RENDERINGS? THE ONLY THING IT WOULD DO IS MAYBE JUST LOWER THE, THE UH, ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. 
          LITTLE BIT THAT OKAY. 
          THE BUILDING. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          FOOTPRINT'S GONNA STAY THE SAME. 
          EVERYTHING'S ALRIGHT. 
          SO DOES, UH, I THINK WE ALREADY ASKED THIS QUESTION, BUT UH, ARE THESE COATINGS CONSIDERED FLAMMABLE IN ANY SORT OF WAY? NO. 
          OR ANY OR EXPLOSIVE? NO. 
          EVEN THEY DON'T REQUIRE ANY EXTRA SPECIAL VENTILATION OR NO, THEY DON'T. 
          DO YOU HAVE A MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET THAT YOU CAN FILE WITH THE TOWN FOR WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BE STORING THERE? I CAN, AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE THE C TWO ZONING UNDER SEVEN DOES EXPLICITLY SAY THAT WE CAN'T ALLOW STORAGE OF HIGHLY FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL. 
          SO THE REASON I ASK FOR THAT IS IF WE COULD DOCUMENT THAT, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD. 
          SO YOU WANT ME TO FORWARD OVER MSDS SHEETS FOR YOU? YEP, YEP. 
          YEAH, AND WE USUALLY, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, CAITLIN. 
          AS PART OF THE INITIAL APPLICATION, WE SHOULD HAVE THOSE MATERIALS. 
          'CAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT LIKES TO KNOW WHAT'S STORED IN BUILDINGS AND THEY CAN KEEP A RECORD OF IT IN CASE THERE'S A FIRE THERE. 
          THEY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY, ANY SPECIFIC SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS TO IT. 
          THE FIRE DEPARTMENT LOVES IT, ALWAYS WANTS TO KNOW IF CERTAIN MATERIALS ARE BEING STORED IN BUILT. 
          AND I MEAN, HE AND HE IS ALSO TOLD US THAT THE CHEMICALS DON'T HAVE ANY SMELL OR FUMES UNLESS THEY'RE MIXED AND THEY DON'T GET MIXED UNTIL THEY'RE ON SITE. 
          SO, SO MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION ON THIS PROJECT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE HAMBURG CODE DEFINES WAREHOUSE ANYWHERE. 
          UM, AND I GUESS I ASKED THAT JUST BECAUSE THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED THAT THE REZONING SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE A WAREHOUSE. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE'VE MADE A REASONABLE CASE HERE THAT THIS IS A BUSINESS THAT'S REQUIRES INDOOR STORAGE TO OPERATE. 
          BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH HOWEVER ROGER WOULD INTERPRET THAT AS, AS CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          I'M SURE JEN, IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWER NOW, JENNIFER CAN GET US THE ANSWER BY OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          ROGER DID, ROGER DID REVIEW THIS AS WELL AND HAD NO ISSUES. 
          OKAY. 
          [00:55:01]
YEAH, I DON'T THINK I, I, I DID A LOOK AT THE CODE AND I DIDN'T SEE WAREHOUSE DEFINED ANYWHERE. 
          I SAW THAT IT WAS USED. 
          I DIDN'T SEE AN ACTUAL DEFINITION FOR IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S USED IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT PLACES, BUT I DIDN'T SEE A DEFINITION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT IS. 
          KAY. 
          I WILL MAKE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROVAL. 
          RESOLUTIONS FOR APOLLO CONCRETE COATINGS FOR OUR MAY 5TH MEETING. 
          SECOND MOTION BY MR. CLARKS, SECOND BY MR. SHAW. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION? AYE. 
          AND THE PLANNING BOARD NEEDS NOTHING ELSE. 
          AGAIN, I ALWAYS ADUE AT THE END. 
          MSS DS SHEETS. 
          ALL WE NEED IS THE MSDS SHEET. 
          DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM SARAH OR MYSELF OR CAMMY? UH, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS FALLS UNDER CAMI'S PURVIEW, BUT IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THE MSDS SHEETS AND JUST CONFIRM THAT YOU AGREE THAT IT'S NOT HIGHLY FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE. 
          I KNOW THEY HAVE LIKE THE TRIANGLE CODE DOWN THAT YOU CAN LOOK UP. 
          I, I KNOW ENOUGH TO TO, TO BE ABLE TO READ THAT CORRECTLY. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND CHECKING THAT AND AS LONG AS THAT'S CONSISTENT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TICKING THAT BOX. 
          WELL AND JENNIFER, CHECK THE TOWN CODE FOR A DEFINITION OF WAREHOUSE, BUT IT'S DOING PAT ON MY BACK. 
          YOU KNOW THOSE SQUARE THINGS THAT YOU SEE THE NUMBERS ON? GUESS WHO ORIGINALLY DID THOSE IN THE LATE SEVENTIES? ? YOU, YOU OKAY YOURSELF STONE TAP THEN, RIGHT? MYSELF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I SPENT THANK YOU MONTHS. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          MONTHS RESEARCHING CHEMICALS. 
          OKAY, SO NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS JSEK HAMBURG, LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A NEW CAR WASH FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND NORTHEAST OF 4 4 8 4 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          SO I GUESS WE'LL START WITH A COMMENT THAT DREW MADE LAST TIME. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR, TO HAVE THEM CHANGE THE ZONING TO ALLOW A CAR WASH. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, JSEK HAMBURG, LLC. 
          SO AS CHAIRMAN CLARK INDICATED, WE RECENTLY BECAME AWARE PRIOR TO YOUR LAST MEETING THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF WHAT WAS THEN AN OFFICE PARK PROPOSED FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 28 ACRE OVERALL SITE THAT ULTIMATELY THE TOWN BOARD IMPOSED CONDITIONS, ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS WAS DESPITE THE FACT WE ARE PROPERLY ZONED C TWO, THAT COMMERCIAL CAR WASHES WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS SUCH, THAT WILL REQUIRE THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, HOPEFULLY APPROVE A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THAT AS ONE OF THE CATEGORIES OF PROHIBITED USES. 
          THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS C TWO. 
          SO WE ARE PROPERLY ZONED. 
          THE REASON WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD RATHER THAN ADDRESS IT WITH THIS BOARD IS THAT THERE'S A TOWN BOARD THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE AS THE LEAD AGENCY AND ULTIMATELY IMPROVE THE REZONING SUBJECT TO THOSE CONDITIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND IF IT WAS JUST THE SECRET DECISION, RIGHT, THIS BOARD COULD MAKE DIFFERENT FINDINGS, BUT IT WASN'T JUST SEEKER, IT WAS IN THE REZONING APPROVAL. 
          WE HAD NO POWER OVER CHANGING THE REZONING, RIGHT? SO, SO OBVIOUSLY, UH, THAT'LL HAVE TO OCCUR IN ORDER FOR THE PROJECT TO BE APPROVED. 
          YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE HAS SPOKEN IN OPPOSITION OF THIS TO THIS PROJECT. 
          THE REASON WHY WE'RE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING FOR PURPOSES OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING IS THAT ORIGINAL SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DID NOT INCLUDE THE REQUEST FOR MITRE SUBDIVISION. 
          THAT REQUEST IS OBVIOUSLY VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          WE'RE JUST SEPARATING THIS APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRE PARCEL, WHICH WILL BE ACQUIRED BY MY CLIENT AND UTILIZED AS A PROPOSED CAR WASH. 
          I ALSO WOULD NOTE, UH, THAT WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER BACK FROM THE ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SPECIFICALLY GARRETT HACKER, INDICATING THAT HE HAD NO CONCERNS. 
          OBVIOUSLY WE DID SUBMIT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND THEN TO TAKE THIS STEP, TO TAKE THIS BACK EVEN ONE STEP FURTHER, YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED A VERY SIMILAR EXACT LAYOUT DOWN THE STREET ON A SITE THAT WAS ZONED. 
          C ONE REQUIRED A ZONING THAT ULTIMATELY YOU WEREN'T SUPPORT OF. 
          BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, OR JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, YOU HAD A CONCERN ABOUT ACCESS ON THE SOUTHWESTERN. 
          WHEN MY CLIENT SELECTED THIS SITE, IT WAS BASED ON THE ZONING BEING IN PLACE. 
          AND TWO IS JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, THAT BECAUSE OF THAT ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE OVERALL BUSINESS PARK, THE CURB CUT THAT EXISTS ON THE SOUTHWESTERN IS LIMITED TO RIGHT OUT ONLY. 
          ANOTHER BENEFIT FROM AN INTERIOR CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE IS OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA CONSTRUCT THAT ROADWAY OR DRIVEWAY BACK TO RILEY BOULEVARD AND THAT WAS ENVISIONED 
          [01:00:01]
IN CONNECTION WITH UNDERLINE OFFICE PARK. 
          FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO NOTE, BECAUSE IT'S A REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE CREATION OF ONE NEW LOT, WE WOULD BE ASKED WHEN YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A DECISION THAT YOU WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A MATH COVER. 
          AND IN THE PAST THAT'S BEEN DONE WHEN YOU'RE LITERALLY JUST CREATING ONE ADDITIONAL LOT. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT IN A NUTSHELL. 
          DREW, I DON'T KNOW, DID YOU HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS YET WITH THE TOWN BOARD? YES, AND I'LL REPORT, I DID HAVE, I BROUGHT IT UP AT THE WORK SESSION. 
          IT WAS ON FACEBOOK. 
          I BROUGHT UP AT THE WORK SESSION AND I TOLD THE TOWN BOARD THAT THE, ABOUT THE SITUATION THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK AND TALK TO THE TOWN BOARD. 
          TOWN BOARD SAID, FINE, SET AN APPOINTMENT. 
          YOU HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH THE SUPERVISOR. 
          HE CONTROLS THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SUPERVISOR'S OUT TOWN. 
          WHEN HE GETS BACK, YOU NEED TO SET AN APPOINTMENT WITH HIM TO GET IT ON A WORK SESSION MEETING. 
          THEY DIDN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          THEY SAID, WE UNDERSTAND THEY WANNA COME BACK. 
          THEY TAKE ENTERTAIN. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'D WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS 'EM. 
          OTHERWISE, UH, WE'LL GO TO THE TOWN BOARD, BUT WE DO WANNA MAKE SURE IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, THAT WE DON'T WASTE THAT TIME AND WE ADDRESS 'EM PROACTIVELY SO THAT HOPEFULLY IF THE TOWN BOARD DOES APPROVE THAT REQUEST, UH, YOU WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT. 
          AND WE DID GET A, JUST LET YOU KNOW, WE DID GET A EMAIL MEMO FROM THE TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD WHO AGREED WITH THE IDEA THAT THE ENTRANCE ON THE SOUTHWESTERN HAD TO BE RIGHT, RIGHT OUT ONLY. 
          SO THEY SAID THEY NOTED THAT ON THE PLAN, BUT THEY JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO. 
          CAN YOU READ THE NOTICE? PLEASE? NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY JSEK HAMBURG, LLC, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CAR WASH FACILITY ON VACANT LAND NORTHEAST OF 4 4 8 4 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON APRIL 21ST, 2021 AT 7:00 PM ROOM SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. 
          OKAY, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE JSEK CAR WASH? OKAY. 
          NO. 
          UM, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD BECAUSE THEY HAD SOMETHING THEY WANTED READ ONTO THE RECORD? NO. 
          I'LL, I'LL READ IT THEN. 
          UM, THIS IS A MEMO THAT WE GOT FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AFTER REVIEWING THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CAR WASH PROJECT, 21.052 AT SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND WALKING ON THE SITE ON MARCH 25TH, 2021. 
          HAMBURG CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDS AND ADVISES THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS FOLLOWS. 
          ONE. 
          ONE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CAR WASH IS ZONED PROPERLY. 
          TWO, NO WETLANDS WOULD BE IMPACTED. 
          THREE. 
          IT APPEARS THAT THE TOP SOIL WAS REMOVED DECADES AGO AND HAS PRODUCED A BOWL WHERE WATER HAS COLLECTED AND ALLOWED FOR WETLAND INVASIVE SPECIES PLANTS SUCH AS MITES, MITE MITE FOUR CAB, WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THE LANDSCAPING PLANS AND MAKE SURE THAT STRUCTURES BLEND IN WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS, COLOR, ET CETERA. 
          UH, PLEASE READ ALOUD AND ADD THIS LETTER TO THE HOT TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. 
          SINCERELY, MARK LAURAKAY, TOWN OF HAMBURG CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN, I DO WANNA NOTE THAT THE COMMENT RELATIVE TO THE PLANTINGS, WHEN WE WERE HERE TWO MEETINGS AGO, REQUEST WAS MADE TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LANDSCAPING. 
          WE WERE PROPOSED WITH NATIVE, NATIVE PLANTINGS RIGHT FROM THE TOWN'S LIST OF APPROVED TREES. 
          AND WE DID DO THAT. 
          SO WE NOW BROUGHT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN INTO COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR APPROVED LIST. 
          SO FOR, YES, BILL, DID YOU GET THAT EMAIL DIRECTLY FROM MARK OR YES. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO SEND IT TO YOU? CAN YOU, I NEED THAT PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT WAS THE DATE ON THAT? OH, THE DATE ON THAT WAS, I ALREADY EXIT OUT OF IT HERE. 
          HOLD ON. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          SO I THINK THEY PREVIOUSLY ADJUSTED SOMETHING FROM ME IN MARCH, RIGHT? WHERE WE SHIFTED THE DOGWOOD, RIGHT? WE DID THE ONE THAT WE DID. 
          YEAH. 
          WE ADJUSTED ACTUALLY, YEAH, ALL OUR TREE TYPES WERE CHANGED TO, UH, ONES ON THE, ON THE TOWN LIST. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE SUBMITTED THAT AND THEN I, WE SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCE OF LAST YOUR MEETING, YOUR LAST MEETING. 
          YEP. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, 
          [01:05:01]
SO FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON JSEK CAR WASH FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME? ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE JSEK CAR WASH? OKAY. 
          AND ALSO NO COMMENTS ONLINE. 
          SO AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JSEK, HAMBURG, LLC, AND WE WOULD, UM, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS ON TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE WHOLE ISSUE IS RESOLVED WITH THE, WITH THE CAR WASH? 'CAUSE IS THE SUBDIVISION GONNA GO FORWARD IF THE CAR WASH DOESN'T GO FORWARD? SO WE HEAR BACK FROM THE BOARD. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ULTIMATELY THEY ALL GO HAND IN HAND. 
          SO, SO YEAH, WE CAN PROVE WHEN, WHEN IS, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IS THERE A NEED TO HAVE THE SUBDIVISION IF THE THE BOARD DOESN'T APPROVE? NO, I DON'T NECESSARILY SUBDIVIDE IF SOMEBODY ELSE MAY WANNA MERGE PARTIALS LATER. 
          NO, THERE WOULD NOT BE. 
          AND BY THE WAY, I JUST SAY WE USUALLY WAIVE THE WAIVING THE FILING OF THE MEDICAL COVERAGE BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ANYWAY. 
          THE COUNTY REALLY DOESN'T WANT SEE IT. 
          NO, THEY DON'T WANNA SEE IT WHEN THE TOWN BOARD. 
          SO WHEN, WHEN DO WE WANNA PUT IT BACK ON THEN? INDEFINITELY UNTIL WE HEAR FROM YOU. 
          YOU HAVE TO GET BACK. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, WHAT I I, YOU DON'T DUNNO WHEN IT'S GONNA BE AFTER THE TOWN BOARD? NO, I JUST GOT THE UPDATE TONIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO I BELIEVE THIS TOWN BOARD MEETS, WELL, IT'LL MEET 12 DAYS FROM TODAY, SO I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST AWARE OF IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA CHOOSE TO SCHEDULE A HEARING. 
          SO I THINK WE CAN TABLE IT AND WE'LL PARK BACK AT SUPER MAY 3RD IS OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          MAY 3RD. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SEAN, IF I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU WANTED, YOU COULD EITHER CALL THE SUPERVISOR OR EMAIL HIM AND ASK TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE WORK SESSION ON MAY 3RD. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL DO THAT. 
          AND IF, IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE NOT ON THE AGENDA FROM MAY 3RD BY FRIDAY, YOU'D HAVE TO BE AT OUR SECOND MEETING IN MAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'LL MAKE YOU REALLY CAN'T, 'CAUSE THE TOWN BOARD'S NOT GONNA MAKE A DECISION. 
          NOT MAKE A DECISION. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL WE DO IS DECIDE TO ENTERTAIN SOMETHING ABOUT, ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT FOR MAY 5TH ANYWAY. 
          NO, YOU DON'T NO MATTER WHAT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE JSEK HAMBURG, LLC, SECOND MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE ALREADY DID NUMBER FOUR. 
          SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS NUMBER FIVE, SWITZER PRECISION CRAFTED METAL REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 17,022 SQUARE FOOT AND 1,159 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 4 0 2 0 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. 
          NOW WE, AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE AUTHORIZED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS AND WE HAVE THOSE RESOLUTIONS. 
          SO WAS THIS ONE OF THE ONES WHERE WE ALSO NEED A FINDINGS FORM THAT DREW WAS CREATING ONE? AM I REMEMBERING THIS RIGHT? YES. 
          AND IT WAS SUBMITTED, THIS IS, I SENT YOU A COPY. 
          IT HAS THE, WHERE THE APPLICANT FILLED IN THE FINDINGS FORM FILLED IN. 
          THE THING ABOUT THEIR PROJECT, I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT'S OUT OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN RAVENWOOD NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. 
          UM, A LOT OF THE ISSUES WITH RAVENWOOD NORTH WAS THE SEWAGE AND THEY FIXED THAT PROBLEM YEARS AND YEARS AGO. 
          SO THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON SEWAGE ANYMORE WITH NO PROBLEMS WITH SEWER. 
          AND THEN THE, THE TRAFFIC, THEY'RE WAY BELOW THE TRAFFIC NUMBERS. 
          THE BIG RESTRICTION THERE IS THAT THE TRUCKS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF RAVENWOOD. 
          AND I BELIEVE THEY, THEY ALREADY HAVE A BUSINESS THERE. 
          THEY KNOW THAT. 
          AND THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS THERE. 
          THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GO OUT TO THE NORTH OR WHATEVER. 
          SO, UM, SO DID EVERYBODY GET THAT FINDINGS FORM WITH THE, WITH THE EMAIL THAT DREW SENT US WITH THE RESOLUTIONS? IT WAS, UH, I THINK IT WAS MONDAY. 
          ANYTHING, WE GOT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING WE THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE GOING INTO THE RESOLUTIONS? AND THIS IS A FAIRLY BUILD OUT PART. 
          THIS IS JUST AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING USE OF THERE. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUTTING A BIG VIEW USE IN THERE. 
          IT'S, IT'S EXISTING USE WITH AN EXPANSION. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL HEAD RIGHT INTO THE RESOLUTIONS THEN. 
          SORRY, HOLD ON. 
          ONE LAST THING. 
          UM, THE PERCENTAGES ON HERE OR THE, THE NUMBER, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'D ASKED FOR FROM YOU DREW, WAS TO HAVE FOR THE FILE FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAT GOES IN THE, THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK. 
          WAS THIS THE ONE THAT HAD A PERCENTAGE OF BUILDOUT THAT WAS ALLOWED OVERALL OR WAS THAT THE OTHER FINDING? THIS THIS IS, UM, THEY DO HAVE, AND THEY STATED ON THE RECORD ABOUT LOT COVERAGE. 
          THERE'S A LOT COVERAGE, RIGHT. 
          NO LESS THAN 20% OF THE AREA OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE INTERESTING. 
          [01:10:01]
NO LESS THAN 20% OF THE AREA OF THE BUILDING LOT SHALL BE GREEN SPACE. 
          THE PLAN INDICATES APPROXIMATELY, UH, 0.087 ACRES OR 28.8% OF THE LOT WILL BE GREEN SPACE. 
          SO IS THAT THE PERCENTAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? NO, I, I THINK I'M THINKING OF THE OTHER ONE. 
          THE, I THINK IT WAS THE OTHER FINDINGS FORM WITH THE OTHER GEA AS THAT HAD A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERCENT OVERALL NOT OKAY. 
          I THINK WE'RE OKAY. 
          I THINK THIS ONE WAS JUST THIS ONE. 
          I'M CONFUSING MY FINDINGS FOR NOW THAT WE HAVE TWO AT ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST INDUSTRIAL PARTS IN THE TOWN. 
          SO THE OTHER ONE WE WON'T EVEN BE CLOSE BECAUSE THE TWO PROJECTS WE HAVE IN THAT PARK ARE THE FIRST TWO PROJECTS TO BE PROPOSED IN THAT PARK EVER. 
          YES. 
          THIS IS LIKE THE 20TH PROJECT OR WHATEVER. 
          AND THIS IS NOT A NEW USE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO, UH, SWITZER PRECISION CRAFTED METAL 4 0 2 0 JEFFREY BOULEVARD DRAFT SEEKER RESOLUTION. 
          WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR SWITZER PRECISION CRAFTED METAL LOCATED AT 4 0 2 0 JEFFREY BOULEVARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION. 
          AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING, AND WHEREAS THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE RAVENWOOD NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A-G-E-I-S AND FINDINGS WERE ISSUED. 
          AND WHEREAS THE HAMBRICK PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEEKER HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE SEEKER FINDINGS ISSUED FOR THE RAVENWOOD PARK AND SECTIONS OF THE FINDINGS FORM COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT IS ATTACHED. 
          AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEKER HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEKER FINDINGS AND THEREFORE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. 
          NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAVENWOOD NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK SEEKER FINDINGS AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SEEKER FINDINGS FORM, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE DOCUMENTATION FOR CONFORMANCE TO THE FINDINGS. 
          SO MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. SHAW. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. 
          THANK YOU BOARD. 
          OKAY, WELL WE GOT MORE YOUR SITE PLAN APPROVAL NOW. 
           DRAFT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 
          I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FER, THOUGH  RIGHT. 
          DRAFT SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION SWITZER PRECISION CRAFTED METAL 4 2 4 0 2 0. 
          JEFFREY BOULEVARD, THE PLANNING BOARD BASED ON THEIR DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEKER FINDINGS ISSUED FOR THE RAVENWOOD NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. 
          REVIEW, UH, REVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XLIV SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ZONING CODE HAVE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, COMMITTEES, AND ADVISORY BOARDS. 
          AND HAVING COMPLETED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING, HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SWITZER PRECISION CRAFTED METAL LOCATED AT 4 0 2 0 JEFFREY BOULEVARD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 
          ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED APRIL 16TH, 2000, 2021. 
          TWO. 
          THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THREE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT. 
          FOUR SIDEWALKS ARE WAIVED. 
          SO MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR A AYE AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          THAT'S THE LAST ONE WE GOT. 
          THANKS AGAIN. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST, JUST FOR YOUR RECORDS HERE, THE MEMO, BUT YOU, YOU TOOK CARE OF THE ENGINEERING ISSUE IS MY THANKS. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BOARD. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA IS THE BROADWAY GROUP REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A NEW DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND EAST OF 4 0 5 0 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          SO SINCE THE LAST MEETING, UH, BOB TALKED TO OR REACHED OUT TO BURT BIKES TO TALK ABOUT THE, UH, PROPOSED CONNECTED DRIVEWAY THAT, UH, WE MENTIONED. 
          [01:15:01]
AND, UH, HE WAS ABLE TO GET THE PEOPLE AT BURT'S BIKES IN TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE AT BROADWAY GROUP. 
          AND I GUESS THEY'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT. 
          SO THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE AT LEAST WANTED TO TRY AND WE'RE ON OUR WAY TOWARDS TRYING THAT. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE GO INTO THE RESOLUTIONS? I DON'T THINK SO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO EVERYBODY GOT THE, UH, DRAFT RESOLUTIONS? ANY CHANGES THAT WE FEEL LIKE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US? NOTHING THERE. 
          I'M JUST CONFIRMING, UH, BILL, I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ANY COMMENTS THAT MARK WANTED READ INTO THE RECORD ON THIS ONE FROM THE CAB. 
          AM I JUST REMEMBERING THAT RIGHT? I KNOW  IF THERE, IF THERE, IF THERE WERE, MARK WAS HERE AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HE MADE SOME COMMENTS ON PROJECTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THIS ONE IN SPEC SPECIFICALLY OR NOT. 
          UM, BUT IF THERE WERE, THEY WOULD'VE MADE 'EM LAST WEEK OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          'CAUSE I, I MADE SURE TO HIGHLIGHT THEM WHEN THEY WERE HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          I HE JUST SAID QUITE A FEW THINGS OVER. 
          I COULDN'T REMEMBER. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, BUT HE, THEY DID REVIEW AND HAVE NO COMMENT ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 
          SO THAT WAS MY ONLY THING THAT WAS, AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL IS OUR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 
          AND I, I CAN HAVE MARK LOOK AT IT AGAIN JUST IN CASE, UM, BEFORE WE DO THE RESOLUTION, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE ATTORNEY'S HERE FOR AND JENNIFER'S HERE, WE DO HAVE A POTENTIAL CONDITION IN THERE FOR, OBVIOUSLY THE CROSS CONNECTION CANNOT OCCUR AT THIS TIME. 
          THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE SOME AGREEMENT OF SOME SORT WITH OBVIOUSLY CAVEATS TO HAVE THAT AT A FUTURE DATE THAT WHEN THE NEXT PHASE I, BUT YOU WERE THE ONE TALKED TO BIRDS, IF THEY GO TO BUILD ON THAT NET, ON THAT ADJOINING PIECE OF THAT PLAZA THAT THEY, THAT A, WE CONTROL THEIR APPROVAL THEN AND SAY, LOOK, YOU'VE GOT TIME TO ADJOINING PROPERTY AND WE HAVE SOME APPROVAL FROM DOLLAR GENERAL TO OFFER TO HAVE THAT THERE. 
          WE'LL HAVE A NOTE ON THE PLAN, BUT ALSO THAT BE SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT. 
          DOT LIKES TO SEE THAT AHEAD OF TIME, THAT THERE IS SOME AGREEMENT THAT HAVE THAT CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN, AND OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT WILL LET THE ATTORNEY SPEAK, THERE'LL BE SOME RESTRICTION ABOUT NOT COMPETITORS AND WHATEVER. 
          BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW JENNIFER, AND, AND IF YOU GUYS WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'M PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE TWO ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM TO, TO WORK OUT SOMETHING ON THAT. 
          SO JOE ARIA, RIGHT, RIGHT HAND ON BEHALF OF BROADWAY GROUP. 
          OKAY. 
          I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO JEN AND I BELIEVE SHE'S PRESENT VIRTUALLY SO SHE CAN CHIME IN IF I'M MISUNDERSTANDING ANYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. 
          UM, OUR PRIMARY POINT, PRIMARY POINT OF CONCERN IS, UM, IS THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BROADWAY GROUP IS OPEN-MINDED TO SHARED ACCESS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN, UM, SOME COMMUNICATION WITH BIRD SPIKES THROUGH WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          UM, HOWEVER, WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND CONCEPTUALLY HOW WE CAN PUT ANY CONDITION ON SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONSIDERING THAT IN ADDITION TO COMPETITORS, OF COURSE, ANYTIME YOU HAVE A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY, THERE'S SO MANY OTHER LEGAL FACTORS THAT GO INTO THAT, SUCH AS LIABILITY INSURANCE, HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS, STUFF OF THAT NATURE, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS. 
          AND LET ME GO OVER WITH WHAT I, WHAT I KIND OF WROTE IN HERE AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE WHAT I, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO AND, AND WHAT I THINK WE CAN DO. 
          SO, SO FOR SEVEN I WROTE BROADWAY GROUP WILL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IN AN, IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR BECAUSE WE WOULD DEFINITELY OPEN MY, 'CAUSE WE, AND I JUST WANNA GO ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I'M THE ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH D-O-T-D-O-T TELLS US ON STATE HIGHWAYS LIKE THIS IS THAT AFTER YOU GUYS APPROVE THE PROJECT, IT IS 10 TIMES HARDER TO GET CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENTS. 
          IF YOU INCLUDE IT IN YOUR APPROVALS, THEN IT'S MUCH EASIER, MUCH EASIER NOT GUARANTEED TO GAIN THOSE THOSE WORKS BECAUSE ALONG THESE MAJOR HIGHWAYS, AS THIS GETS CONTINUED TRANSIT ROAD AND AMHERST AND CLARENCE, THEY'VE HAD TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE LONG AND HARD TO GET CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENTS BECAUSE IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF OF TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON A HIGHWAY LIKE THIS. 
          IF YOU IMAGINE AS THIS GETS DEVELOPED FURTHER ALONG THERE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE DRIVEWAYS ALL ALONG THERE. 
          PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO FROM ONE BUSINESS TO THE NEXT GOTTA PULL OUT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN PULL INTO THE NEXT BUSINESS. 
          SO THEY HAVE BANGED INTO MY HEAD THAT YOU GUYS PLANNERS AND AND PLANNING BOARDS MUST TAKE CARE OF THIS AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE LATER DATE BECOMES, THEY'VE BEEN BATTLING FOR FIVE YEARS NOW UP AND DOWN TRANSIT ROAD 
          [01:20:01]
TRYING TO GET ACROSS THESE ACCESS AGREEMENTS. 
          WE'RE NOT ASKING, WE COULD MAKE THE WORST COMPENSATION SCENARIO IS SAY, HEY, YOU GUYS GOTTA SHARE AND ACCESS. 
          WE HAVEN'T ASKED THAT. 
          WE'RE JUST SAYING AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT CROSS ACCESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M JUST REINFORCING BECAUSE I'M THE ONE WHO GETS THE CALL SAYING, HEY, YOU GUYS DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER THIS AGAIN IN OUR LAW, NOW IT'S IN OUR LAW, THE SITE PLAN REGULATIONS HAVE IT IN THERE, CROSS ACCESS AND, AND WE CAN, IT TAKES BOB WORK TO GET, UH, BURT'S BIKES TO COME TO THE TABLE. 
          UM, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE THEM MAKE AN AGREEMENT. 
          I MEAN, IF THEY WERE HERE IN FRONT OF US WANTING SOME TYPE OF CHANGE TO THEIR BUILDING, THEN WE, WE CAN SAY TO BOTH OF THEM, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A, A RESTRICTION. 
          UM, AND OUR ONLY CONTROL IS WHEN BUR COMES IN AT A LATER DATE, WHOEVER IT IS TO DO THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONTINUE ON THAT SIDE, WE'RE GONNA DO THE SAME THING WE'RE DOING HERE SAYING, RIGHT, YOU GOTTA DO SOMETHING. 
          AND OH, BY THE WAY, WE HAVE A, A GENERIC AGREEMENT WITH DOLLAR GENERAL, WE GOTTA WORK THIS OUT AND GET THEM TIED TOGETHER. 
          SO I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP, THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT IN THE LAW. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE HISTORY BECAUSE WE WERE BEATEN UP ON THIS SO MANY TIMES OF NOT DOING OUR WORK AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 
          SO I COULD SAY SOMETHING, UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO LET JEN GO FIRST 'CAUSE SHE'S BEEN TRYING TO SPEAK TO I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH JOE LAST WEEK AND I DID LET HIM KNOW THAT WE CANNOT MAKE A CONDITION BASED ON A THIRD PARTY. 
          SO OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT MAKE IT A CONDITION THAT, YOU KNOW, HE, THAT BIRDS MAKE A AGREEMENT RIGHT. 
          AT THIS TIME. 
          HOWEVER, I THINK A POTENTIAL RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM COULD BE ADDING A CONDITION THAT WHEN THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY BURTS IS DEVELOPED AT A LATER DATE, THAT ALL PARTIES HAVE TO RETURN BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO ADDRESS, ADDRESS THIS CROSS ACCESS POINT THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT HELPS. 
          WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY TOO, BECAUSE CAMMIE DOESN'T SIGN OFF ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS UNTIL ALL THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR APPROVAL HAVE BEEN MET, THAT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFICULT ONE TO, HOW WOULD WE HANDLE THAT AND THEN HOW WOULD ROGER GIBSON HANDLE THAT GIVING PERMITS OUT IF YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO SOMETHING. 
          NOW THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. 
          I I REALLY DO. 
          I DO AGREE WITH BILL. 
          I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND ATTEMPT IF YOU WANNA INCLUDE THAT. 
          I THINK THAT'S FAIR. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST, I KNOW I DON'T THINK WE CAN, YOU KNOW, STANDING ALONE AND MAKE IT, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. 
          I'LL LET YOU, I'LL LET THE BOTH ATTORNEYS TALK TO DOT AND THEY'LL TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT. 
          YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS NOW EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CONNECTION NOW BECAUSE THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE ONE SIDE AND, AND THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
          BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOME AGREEMENT IN PLACE AT THIS TIME, IT'S GONNA BE 10 TIMES HARDER IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE WANNA HAVE THE PROCESS. 
          OH, I I I THINK, I THINK I GOT IT HERE. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M JUST SAYING IT'S JUST, SO I LIKED THE LANGUAGE THAT JENNIFER JUST SAID. 
          YEP. 
          BETTER THAN WHAT BILL SAID, WHICH WAS THAT THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE FOR CROSS ACCESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M WRITING THAT IN NOW. 
          THAT PART. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF YOU COULD REWRITE IT TO I LIKE THAT TROY WOULD KEEP YOU AROUND. 
          JENNIFER, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LIKE YOU JUST SAID THOUGH TOO, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE OTHER SIDE GETS FIRST? RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS RIGHT NOW. 
          ONE SIDE ONLY. 
          WE'RE WE'RE NOT MAKING, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO MAKE ANY PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. 
          WE'RE JUST BASICALLY SAYING THE LAW REQUIRES NOW SITE PLAN APPROVAL THAT CROSS ACCESS BE CONSIDERED. 
          IN THIS CASE YOU CAN'T TIE IN BECAUSE BOTH ADJOINING PROPERTIES HAVE NO DEVELOPMENT ON THEM. 
          SO WHEN THAT DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, WE'LL SAY, HEY, WE ALREADY HAVE A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH DOLLAR GENERAL. 
          IF WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT, LET'S TIE THE TWO PROPERTIES TOGETHER SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO LIKE THIS IN AND OUT ONTO SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          IF I WANT TO GO TO DOLLAR KURTZ BIKE, I CAN GO TO DOLLAR GENERAL IF I WANNA GO WHATEVER THE USER IS ON THE NEXT SIDE. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THE LIABILITY ISSUES, THERE ARE SOME LIABILITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          BUT DOT HAS ASKED US TO DO THIS AT TIME OF SITE PLAN. 
          THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT INTO THE LAW. 
          SO, SO I'VE GOT THE, THE ATTEMPT TO CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT. 
          UM, NEXT SENTENCE ON THAT CONDITION. 
          I, I WROTE SUCH ATTEMPTS WILL CONTINUE IF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER RETURNS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ANY REASON BEFORE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT IS FINALIZED. 
          SO IF THEY COME BACK IN FRONT OF US TO DO A, SOME TYPE OF EXPANSION, WE'LL CALL YOU AND SAY, HEY, REMEMBER WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT CROSS ACTION ACCESS AGREEMENT? WELL NOW WE'VE GOT THEM HERE TOO AND WE CAN MAYBE FORCE THEM TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          BUT IF YOU REACH AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THEN, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          UM, I I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT LANGUAGE. 
          THAT'S 
          [01:25:01]
KIND OF THE ONE LINES THAT I THOUGHT WOULD MAKE SENSE. 
          OKAY. 
          AGAIN, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, HOWEVER, THAT THE ISSUE WE HAVE, AND IT'S NOT WITH BURT SPICE JUST IN GENERAL, AND I'VE HAD ISSUES WITH DOT AND OTHER, UM, UH, ON OTHER PROJECTS IS THE PROBLEM IS WE CAN'T FORCE A THIRD PARTY TO COME TO THE TABLE. 
          AND I USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE, EVEN IF THEY COME DOWN FOR A PROJECT DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY PUT THEIR FOOT DOWN ON THE TABLE SAYING, OKAY, WE NEED $5 MILLION INSURANCE POLICY, YOU'RE GONNA COVER 95% OF MAINTENANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE DOLLAR GENERAL, YOU'RE A BIG CHANGE. 
          WE CAN'T, IN MY INSTRUCTIVE IMAGINATIONS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF WE SAY NO TO THEM. 
          IF, IF THEY COME IN FRONT OF US, MOST LIKELY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE PLAN THAT'S APPROVED WOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO, TO YOUR PROPERTY. 
          NOW, WHAT HAPPENS ON THEIR PROPERTY, I MEAN THE THE PLAN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE GOING, WE'RE WE'RE PLAYING THIS OUT, THAT THEY WANNA DEVELOP THAT OTHER HALF EVENTUALLY THEN WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME HERE. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE WANT THEM TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          YEP. 
          AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE WANT YOU TO TAKE AND HAVE THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE. 
          SURE. 
          AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO BRINGING THAT DIALOGUE IN THE EVENT THAT COME FORWARD, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO COME BY, UM, AND PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCESS. 
          SO, UM, I MEAN I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WITH IF, WHEN THERE'S THE TWO DRIVEWAYS AS FAR AS INSURANCE AND THINGS GO. 
          UM, BUT AT THE END WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, UNDERSTAND THE PLANS THAT WE WOULD SIGN WOULD HAVE THE DRIVEWAYS CONNECT. 
          I DON'T DOES THAT, I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE TO EVERYBODY, RIGHT? IS THAT, OH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          I'M NOT POSITIVE, BUT I GO BY THERE A LOT AND I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A CURB CUT, UH, WITH A PARTIAL DRIVE THAT GOES INTO NOWHERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT IT MIGHT BE WHERE THEY'RE BUYING THE PROPERTY. 
          NO. 
          AND THEN THEY CAN YOU, THAT'S NOT WHERE THEY'RE BUYING IT. 
          THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S A BIG GAP BETWEEN THAT CURB CUT AND THIS PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THEY PUT THAT THERE BECAUSE THE OWNERS OF BURT'S BIKES EVENTUALLY, SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, WHO KNOWS WHEN, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR PARKING LOT. 
          AND WHAT DREW'S SAYING, AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF IT GETS TO THAT POINT AND YOU'VE GOT BURT'S BIKES AND A DOLLAR GENERAL AND THEY PUT SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, WE'D LIKE A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES ACROSS ALL OF 'EM. 
          UM, AND IT'S HARD TO DO. 
          YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN'T MAKE BURT'S BIKES DO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN FRONT OF US. 
          AND THE WORRY WOULD BE WHEN BURT'S BIKES IS IN FRONT OF US, DOLLAR GENERAL WON'T BE. 
          SO WE'VE GOTTA COME UP WITH A WAY TO TRY AND GET IT. 
          SO IT'S, IT IT'LL STILL WORK OUT OR THE OTHER SIDE. 
          RIGHT. 
          DON'T LIMIT IT, JUST THE BIRDS THEN. 
          WELL RIGHT. 
          'CAUSE BIRDS COULD SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE TOO. 
          NO, BUT I MEAN, ON THE ORCHARD PARK SIDE, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT IF FORT DOESN'T, OH, IT'S A DRIVEWAY TO THE ORCHARD PARK SIDE CAN'T BUILD IT IF SOMEONE BUILDS SOMETHING FIRST. 
          RIGHT. 
          ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, WHAT WAS THAT DENNIS? SORRY? YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF FORT'S BIKE WON'T PUT AN ACCESS THAT THEY CAN USE THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD? IS THAT WHAT DREW'S SAYING? THE STATE IS TELLING US. 
          NO, I I'M SAYING THAT IF BURT COMES IN WITH ANOTHER, I'M SAYING, HOLD ON, DENNIS. 
          DENNIS, DENNIS, LET ME SAY WHAT I'M SAYING PLEASE, BEFORE YOU TELL ME WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          DENNIS. 
          DENNIS. 
          YEAH. 
          BEFORE YOU TELL ME WHAT I'M SAYING, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          IF BURT'S BIKES BACK IN FRONT OF US, DREW WAS SAYING, OKAY, I WAS TALKING WHAT DREW WAS SAYING, THAT THE STATE SAID THE STATE WANTS US TO ENCOURAGE THESE AGREEMENTS. 
          WHAT YOU SAID, THE STATE WANTS US TO TRY AND GET THESE AGREEMENTS AND THE STATE WILL CRITICIZE US IF WE DON'T, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM? NO, BECAUSE A STATE JUST LIKE US CAN'T MAKE SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT PART OF THIS COME TO THE TABLE. 
          WE CAN'T FORCE WE, WE CAN'T FORCE 'EM TO DO IT. 
          BUT IF SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A DEVELOPMENT AND WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE CROSS ACCESS, WE CAN SAY AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN, WE REALLY WANT THIS TO THE POINT WHERE IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, THEN WE MAY BE WORRIED ABOUT OTHER ISSUES. 
          AND JUST LIKE WE DO WITH, WITH EVERY OTHER PROJECT WHERE WE SAY, HEY, WHAT ABOUT THIS, WHAT ABOUT MOVING THE DUMPSTER? WHAT ABOUT DOING THAT? IF THEY COME BACK IN FRONT OF US, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          AND IF THESE CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENTS ARE A PRIORITY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY 
          [01:30:01]
TO TRY AND ACHIEVE THAT. 
          I DUNNO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WOULD WOULD THAT BE CLASSIFIED AS BULLYING OR JUST, I DON'T MIND CRITICISM IF WE MAKE A DECISION AND THE STATE DOESN'T LIKE IT, I'LL TAKE CRITICISM IF I THINK I'M RIGHT. 
          I DON'T FEEL THEY, I I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE TELLING A THIRD PARTY THAT YOU CAN HOLD THIS UP BECAUSE WE WE'RE NOT BE CRITICIZED. 
          WE'RE NOT TELLING THEY CAN HOLD IT UP. 
          WE ARE, WE CAN'T. 
          WE'RE WE'RE UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT TELLING THE THIRD PARTY THAT THEY CAN HOLD IT UP. 
          NO. 
          CAN I TRY AND TRANSLATE HERE? I THINK TO ANSWER DENNIS'S QUESTION, I THINK THAT DENNIS'S CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE TRYING, THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE COURSING BIRDS INTO AN AGREEMENT IN THE FUTURE THAT THEY DON'T WANNA BE IN. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE, DENNIS. 
          I THINK WE ARE GONNA MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR DOT TO ADDRESS CROSS ACCESS AND TO CONSIDER IT AND HAVE THOROUGHLY EVALUATED IT WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF BOTH PARTIES AND ALL WE'RE COMMITTING DOLLAR GENERAL TO, AND ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BURS PARCEL, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OWNED BY BURS BIKES AT THAT POINT, IS THAT THEY COME BACK TO THE TABLE FOR CONVERSATION. 
          AND WHAT IS WORKED OUT AT THAT TIME IS DEPENDENT ON THE SITE PLAN, THE DISCUSSION, THINGS THAT HAPPEN AT THAT TIME. 
          WE JUST HAVE TO CONSIDER IT. 
          AND THIS, ALL THIS DOES IS PROVIDE, IS A MECHANISM FOR US TO BRING BROADWAY GROUP OR DOLLAR GENERAL BACK TO THE TABLE TO PARTAKE OF THE CONVERSATION. 
          AND, AND AS DOUG POINTED OUT BEFORE WE GOT GOT OFF ON THIS TANGENT, UH, THE RESOLUTION THAT I, THE CHANGES I WROTE SAID ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. 
          SO THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY IF SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE CLOSER TO ORCHARD PARK WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING AT THE SAME, THEN, THEN WE WOULD LOOK AT A CROSS AXIS IN THAT DIRECTION ALSO. 
          SO, DENNIS, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NOT REALLY. 
          ALRIGHT, LET'S, LET'S SURE. 
          JUST THAT PORTION OF S SO UNDER, I THINK IT'S THE POST HOLD ON GUYS, HOLD ON. 
          GO FORWARD WITH IT AND THEN LET THE STATE CRITICIZE. 
          HOLD ON. 
          HAVE WE RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD UP. 
          OKAY. 
          SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE VOTING ON AND WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE DOT TO THAT EFFECT. 
          HOLD ON. 
          SO THE, SO NUMBER SEVEN WITH THE CONDITION, THE CONDITION THAT I WOULD PUT ON THERE, UH, BROADWAY GROUP WILL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, I I'LL SAY OWNERS IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT. 
          SUCH ATTEMPTS WILL CONTINUE IF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ANY REASON BEFORE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT IS FINALIZED. 
          PERFECT. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY FROM EITHER SIDE COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, WE'RE GONNA CALL YOU AND SAY, HEY, REMEMBER WHEN WE DID THIS RESOLUTION, YOU AGREED TO THIS, BUT LET'S TRY AND GET CROSS ACCESS DONE. 
          YEP. 
          UNDERSTAND. 
          AND, AND DENNIS, THE REASON THAT WE CARE, THE REASON WE WANT TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IT HELPS TRAFFIC FLOWS IF WE CAN ROUTE PEOPLE OFF THE MAIN ROAD TO ENTER AND EXIT AT AT THE LIGHT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE ULTIMATELY CARE. 
          I DON'T THINK THE DOT AT ANY POINT IS GONNA CHECK IN ON US. 
          I THINK IT JUST ULTIMATELY HELPS US DO BETTER PLANNING AS A TOWN. 
          SO WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS UNTIL NO, NO, WE'RE GONNA, DENNIS DENNIS, I'M GONNA READ IT AS SOON AS YOU STOP TALKING, WE'RE GONNA APPROVE IT NOW AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE'RE NOT HOLDING UP APPROVALS FOR ANYTHING, DENNIS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET ME, LET ME KEEP MY PROMISE OF WHAT I JUST SAID. 
          NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOLLAR GENERAL 4 0 5 0 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM THE BROADWAY GROUP REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 4 0 5 0 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED ACTION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER. 
          AND WHEREAS THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN'S ADVISORY BOARDS AND TOWN STAFF, AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, 
          [01:35:01]
THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE FEAF COMPLETED PART TWO AND PART THREE OF THE FEAF AND REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER. 
          NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT ONLY ADVERSE, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE 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. 
          AND BILL, BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THAT, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. 
          THE TWO RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO 40 50 SOUTHWESTERN, THAT'S BERT SPIKES, IT SHOULD SAY, LOCATED TO THE EAST OF 40 50. 
          40 50. 
          SO OTHERWISE WE'RE, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. 
          IT SHOULD SAY TO THE EAST, THERE IS NO ADDRESS FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          IT IS A VACANT PARCEL. 
          SO JUST ON BOTH THOSE . 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, SO, UH, I'LL AMEND THAT TO BE EAST OF 40 50 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND BY MRS. ERFORD. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED SITE PLAN, APPROVAL RESOLUTION, DOLLAR GENERAL PROJECT EAST OF 4 0 5 0 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          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 APPLICANT AMEND THE DRAWINGS BASED ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S COMMENTS HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE DOLLAR GENERAL PROJECT TO BE LOCATED EAST OF 4 0 5 0 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 
          ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED APRIL 16TH, 2021. 
          TWO. 
          THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THREE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 
          FOUR, NO OUTDOOR STORAGE WILL BE ALLOWED. 
          FIVE. 
          THE APPLICANT SHALL ILLUSTRATE AN AREA ON THE SITE PLAN FOR POTENTIAL CROSS ACTION CONNECTION AND ENTER INTO AN ATTEMPT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN TO PROVIDE THIS CROSS ACCESS. 
          WHEN ADJACENT PROPERTY IS FULLY DEVELOPED, SIX CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED. 
          CAN YOU AMEND THAT? CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED BECAUSE SIDEWALKS ALREADY EXIST AT THE SITE. 
          CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED BECAUSE SIDEWALKS ALREADY EXIST ON THE SITE. 
          I WAS GONNA SAY THE SHEET THING, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD CHANGE THE ORDER AROUND, BUT I'LL, I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
          SEVEN BROADWAY GROUP WILL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT. 
          SUCH ATTEMPTS WILL CONTINUE IF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER RETURNS TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD FOR ANY REASON BEFORE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT IS FINALIZED. 
          SO IT'S A MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND BY, UH, MR. SHAW. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, IT'S BEEN QUITE A LONG ROAD FOR YOU GUYS. 
          , THANK YOU FOR YOUR, OH, SHOOT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DAVID MANKO REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 67 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD. 
          SHOULD WE TAKE A PAUSE FOR WHY I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE'D BE, THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE FOR THAT PROJECT, BUT THIS OH, JUST THIS, YOU, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL TAKE A BREAK THOUGH. 
          [01:40:05]
KEEP IN MIND, NO GOOD DECISIONS ARE MADE AFTER NINE O'CLOCK STANDARD TIME. 
          UH, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR, UH, DOUG TO COME BACK, UH, MR. HOPKINS, DID YOU BRING IN SOME BINDERS? UM, I ACTUALLY DID NOT BRING THE BINDERS, BUT THEY'RE ALMOST, ALMOST COMPLETE. 
          THERE IS SOME COPYING ISSUES AND THEY SHOULD BE READY IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, LITERALLY. 
          BUT FOR BE COMPLETELY CANDID, BUT FOR A COPYING ISSUE LATE IN THE DAY, I WOULD HAVE THE BINDERS. 
          SO I SHOULD HAVE THEM TOMORROW. 
          AND THEN WHILE WE'RE SITTING HERE, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES EVERYONE WANT ME TO DO AS FAR AS GETTING THEM TO WHO, UH, ONE OF US CAN MEET YOU IN THE PARKING LOT AT TOWN HALL OR, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, UH, I THINK THAT DENNIS HAD OFFERED TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER MAKES SENSE. 
          KAYLIN, WOULD IT BE OKAY IF I, IF I CALL YOU AND WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT HOW TO DO IT? I'M OKAY AS LONG AS JENNIFER'S OKAY WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO IT. 
          AND THEN I'M ALSO GONNA, I WILL, UM, PROVIDE A VERSION VIA, UH, EITHER DROPBOX OR A LINK TO ADOBE ACROBAT. 
          SO ANYONE WANTS AN ELECTRONIC COPY, CAN ALSO HAVE ONE. 
          AND SARAH, I'M ALSO GONNA MAKE A HARD COPY FOR YOUR FILE AS WELL. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, BUT I DO WANNA KNOW, I, I WAS ONLY MAKING PLANNING ON MAKING THREE NOW THAT, UH, MR. CLARK'S NO LONGER GONNA BE ON THE BOARD AND HE HAS A REPLACEMENT, I SHOULD PROBABLY MAKE AN EXTRA HARD COPY. 
          RIGHT. 
          REMEMBER YOU HAD SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT A PHYSICAL COPY? I I NEEDED A PHYSICAL COPY ANYWAY, SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS TO BRING EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED FOR THE RECORD, UH, DENNIS CHAPMAN, UH, ASKED TO BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, SO I, I TOOK MYSELF OFF AND PUT HIM ON. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T MET YET, IF ANYBODY ELSE REALLY, REALLY WANTS TO BE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, UH, WE CAN STILL MAKE ANY CHANGES IF, IF WE HAVE ANY VOLUNTEERS. 
          SO, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE, MR. CHAPMAN, I YOU PROBABLY WANT A HARD COPY YEAH. 
          IN THE BINDER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GOTTA MAKE ONE MORE COPY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I, I GUESS WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF THAT, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK ANOTHER IF I COULD ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OF PROVIDING COPIES OF THINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS ONE THAT PEOPLE DON'T USUALLY ASK FOR ON THIS BOARD, BUT I'M GONNA ASK, UH, CAN CHRIS WOOD, UH, PROVIDE A KMC FILE OF THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE OF BOTH PROJECTS AND THE DELINEATED RESOURCE DATA THAT HE HAS? WHAT DID YOU ASK? I'M SORRY. 
          DID YOU ASK FOR A CAD FILE? NO, NO, NO. 
          YOU CAN EXPORT FROM CAD TO A GOOGLE EARTH FILE, SO YOU CAN BRING IT UP IN GOOGLE EARTH, WHICH IS FREE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT YOU CAN ZOOM IN AND LOOK AT STUFF WITH THE AERIAL MAPPING. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE CAN PROVIDE AN EXPORT OF THE KMC FILE FOR US TO USE OR NOT, OR HE'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. 
          YEAH, I WOULD ASK, HEY, IS, CAN YOU SEND AN EMAIL TO SARAH OR, OR DIRECTLY TO ME WITH THAT? SO I JUST FORWARD IT SO I GET IT CORRECTLY? YEAH, I'LL SEND IT UP TO SARAH. 
          OKAY. 
          DID YOU WALK UP THE EMAIL FROM KAMI AS WELL ON THIS, UH, MANKO PROJECT OR ON RIGHT. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA BRING THAT UP, SARAH. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE, WELL, I, I GUESS I WON'T SPEAK FOR YOU. 
          UH, I, I, I THINK CAMMY WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY'S GOING BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF WHAT OUR ROLE IS AND INTO THE BOUNDS OF WHAT HER ROLE IS. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO, TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT OR NOT. 
          WELL, IT, SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT THERE. 
          NO, IT'S OKAY. 
          UM, IT, IT'S KIND OF A COMBINATION OF TWO THINGS BECAUSE I WAS NOT HERE AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND I KNOW A LOT OF IT WAS ENGINEERING RELATED OR AT LEAST ADJACENT TOO. 
          AND SO I WANTED TO TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS THAT I WAS TOLD ABOUT, UH, IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS, UM, BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES. 
          UM, SO I, I UNDERSTAND A LITTLE MORE, EVEN SINCE THAT EMAIL, HAVING TALKED TO PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS GO BEYOND REALLY JUST AN ENGINEERING, BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION ON HOW THE ENGINEERING DESIGN IS ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED AS FAR AS STATE STANDARDS AND, AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          SO DO YOU WANNA DO THAT FOR ALL OF US OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED, OR? I THOUGHT I WAS PRETTY CLEAR IN THE EMAIL, BUT OKAY. 
          IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, ANYONE I HAVEN'T TALKED TO YET THAT WAS UNCLEAR BY MY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING, I, I'M 
          [01:45:01]
OPEN TO DISCUSSION. 
          I'M YOUR TOWN ENGINEER, SO NOW IS A, AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO ASK ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS TO ME AS OPPOSED TO THE OFFICE ENGINEER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I SPOKE WITH CAMMY AFTER SHE SENT HER EMAIL, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I CLARIFIED WITH CAMMY AND THAT SHE CLARIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR HER TO SAY TO EVERYBODY IS I TALKED TO HER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MEETING THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS VERSUS THE SCOPE OF THE SEEKER ANALYSIS. 
          AND SHE INDICATED TO ME TO MAKE THAT HER COMMENTS COVER THE SCOPE OF THE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER ISSUES OR NEED TO EVALUATE SOMETHING UNDER THE SEEKER LAW THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS THOSE THAT SHE'S EVALUATING FOR WITH THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? DID I SAY THAT RIGHT, KAMY? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, I'M NO SEEKER EXPERT AND SEEKER, YOU KNOW, AS A LAW. 
          AND IT'S, I, IN MY OPINION, IS DESIGNED FOR DISCUSSION. 
          THEY PROVIDE QUESTIONS AND THRESHOLDS AND, BUT THEY TRY TO GET, I THINK THE BOARD THAT IS LEAD AGENCY TO REALLY SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES AND THEIR CONCERNS AND HOW IT'S MITIGATED AND, AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          ENGINEERING IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          IT, THERE IS OUR DESIGN STANDARDS, THEY MEET THOSE STANDARDS AND THEY DON'T MEET THOSE STANDARDS. 
          THANKS, TAMMY. 
          UH, I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT IN SOME CASES WHEN A SECRET COMMENT IS MADE ON SUCH AS STORMWATER, WHICH I KNOW IS ONE ITEM THAT'S DISCUSSED, OFTEN THE MITIGATION RESPONSE IS WE WILL DESIGN TO STATE STANDARDS. 
          SO IT, IT IS, BUT IT'S ALWAYS UP TO THE LEAD AGENCY TO DECIDE IF THOSE ARE ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I DID ASK, AND I KNOW CHRIS ISN'T HERE TONIGHT, SEAN, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I HAD REFERRED TO CHRIS AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE COUNTY PLAN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN. 
          I DID ALSO ASK CAMMY TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A LOOK, AND I KNOW SHE DID A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT THAT AS WELL TO SEE HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF CAMMY WANTS TO SHARE ANY OF THAT WITH ANYBODY OR, OR CHRIS HAS PROVIDED ANY WRITEUP THAT HE WANTS TO SHARE OR, OR COMMENTS ON THAT? WELL, FOR THE PLANNING BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE, THE COUNTY PROGRAM, THE COUNTY IS, IS DOING A LARGE SCALE SORT OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE PROGRAM. 
          THEY'RE, UH, STARTING, THEY'RE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF PHASE THREE, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO RUN 2020 TO 2025. 
          AND THEY'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL WATERSHED FOR ERIE COUNTY. 
          UH, AND I THINK IT EXTENDS INTO NIAGARA COUNTY, BUT THIS IS WITH THE ERIE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          SO THEIR FOCUS IS LIKELY ERIE COUNTY. 
          BUT LOOKING AT THE OVERALL WATERSHED, UH, OVERALL ISSUES, POLLUTION OF CONCERNS, SOURCES OF POLLUTION, HOW COMMUNITIES ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT, HOW THEIR CODES HANDLE, UH, IMPAIRMENT IN THEIR WATERS, UH, IT IS, IT IS EXTREMELY LARGE SCALE, UH, TO THE POINT THAT THE PHASE TWO REPORT THAT I SKIMMED THROUGH, UM, JUST SECTION EIGHT WAS I THINK 60 PAGES LONG. 
          SO, UH, IT, IT DOES GET INTO A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT, UH, EVERYTHING FROM LOSS OF WETLANDS AND HABITAT TO, UH, HOW ZONING ORDINANCE ORDINANCES ARE SET UP AND SETBACKS AND BUFFERS. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, IT IS VERY HIGH LEVEL. 
          SO IT, IT IS AN INTERESTING RESOURCE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THIS SORT OF THING. 
          I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT MIGHT ACTUALLY APPLY AT TO A PLANNING BOARD WHO IS LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT. 
          OBVIOUSLY WOULD'VE BEEN, WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD'S GONNA START CHANGING ZONING LAWS AND, AND TOWN CODE RIGHT NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF REVIEWING PROJECTS. 
          UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          IT DOES SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, LOWER DENSITIES, UH, MORE GREEN SPACE, UH, YOU KNOW, GREEN DESIGNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE WATERSHED AS A WHOLE. 
          BUT THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY. 
          ALRIGHT, MR. HOPKINS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YEAH, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, DAVE MANKO, DAVE'S ALSO HERE WITH ME AS WELL, IS A BOARD RECALL FROM THE NUMEROUS PREVIOUS MEETINGS. 
          THIS IS A PROPOSED 67 LOT SUBDIVISIONS ON LAND THAT IS PROPERLY ZONED. 
          I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL LOTS THAT ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. 
          UH, THEY'VE BEEN THERE RIGHT FROM THE GET GO. 
          WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENTATION, BOTH FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL AS THE WETZEL PROJECT. 
          AND I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD, I THINK WE'VE PROVIDED, UH, NUMEROUS VERY DETAILED STUDIES ADDRESSING A WIDE ASSORTMENT OF TOPICS INCLUDING TRAFFIC, WETLANDS, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DOWNSTREAM, SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY, CULTURAL RESOURCES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          SO OBVIOUSLY A DECISION YOU'LL 
          [01:50:01]
NEED TO MAKE IN THE FUTURE IS WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 
          FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MR. MANKO AND MR. WETZEL, WE THINK IT'S CLEAR THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 
          WE OBVIOUSLY WELCOME THE INPUT THAT CAN BE PROVIDED RELATIVE TO HER JOB AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS. 
          WE'VE ALSO INDICATED AS WELL, I DO WANNA FOLLOW UP ON ONE NUANCED POINT ABOUT A POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEEKER AND THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS THAT APPLY AND GOVERN YOUR DECISION MAKING. 
          FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME MEANING IN TERMS OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. 
          IF WE DESIGN A SYSTEM THAT COMPLIES WITH THE STORMWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY STANDARDS, INCLUDING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, RUNOFF REDUCTION VOLUME, RETAINING A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, I'M UNAWARE, COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF ANY CASE LAW OR ANY DECISION WHATSOEVER FROM A LOWER COURT INTERMEDIATE COURT, A APPELLATE COURT, OR THE DEC, WHICH WOULD GIVE ANY MUNICIPALITY THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE A MORE STRINGENT STANDARD. 
          THAT STANDARD APPLIES TO EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ACROSS NEW YORK STATE. 
          SO THAT THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY. 
          MEANING WE CAN'T SAY WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE, THEREFORE WE'RE GONNA HOLD YOU TO A STANDARD ABOVE WHAT THE TECHNICAL STANDARD IS. 
          AND THAT'S A NUANCED POINT. 
          I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT THERE'S, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION. 
          SO I BELIEVE WHAT I'VE RECEIVED, AND SARAH WAS KIND ENOUGH TO LET ME LOOK THROUGH THE TOWN'S FILES AND GET DOCUMENTATION. 
          OBVIOUSLY THAT'S BEEN A LITTLE CHALLENGING WITH COVID-19. 
          I HAVE THREE SEPARATE MEMORANDUMS THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATION BOARD ON THIS PROJECT. 
          I HAVE NO MEMORANDUMS ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATION BOARD ON THE WETZEL PROJECT. 
          THOSE MEMORANDUMS ARE DATED APRIL 5TH, MARCH 29TH, AND THEN FINALLY DECEMBER 19TH, 2020. 
          WHILE I DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS THEM POINT BY POINT, I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT BACKS 'EM UP. 
          MEANING THEY MAY HAVE SOME USEFUL INFORMATION, BUT THEY ARE LITERALLY SUBJECTIVE COMMENTS. 
          THERE'S NOTHING OBJECTIVE ABOUT THEM. 
          I HEAR REFERENCES TO THE MONEY GRAB THAT DESTROYING THE TOWN. 
          I THINK SOME OF IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVER THE TOP FOR WHAT A CONSERVATION BOARD BE. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF SOMEONE COULD PROVIDE ME WITH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS WHERE THESE WERE ADOPTED, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          AND WE WOULD BE MORE THAN GLAD TO MEET WITH THE ACTUAL CONSERVATION BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH ONE, BOTH OR BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS SIMULTANEOUSLY SO WE CAN HAVE A TRUE DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE POINTS. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT WORTHWHILE, BUT TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THIS STUFF, I THINK WOULD BE AN EXERCISE IN FRUITION. 
          MEANING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA CAUSE THE SEWER SYSTEM TO OVERFLOW. 
          WE'RE FLOODING OUT PEOPLE DOWN DOWNSTREAM. 
          WE'RE TAKING THE TOWN'S MONEY WE'RE, IT'S A MONEY GRAB ONLY, WE'RE DUMPING DUMPING PHOSPHORUS INTO RUSH CREEK, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          SO, SO JENNIFER, IF THEY WERE TO MEET WITH THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD, UM, THE CONSERVATION, THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD, I DON'T BELIEVE, UH, HAS PUBLIC MEETINGS THE SAME WAY WE DO. 
          THEY, THEY DEFINITELY DON'T DO, UH, NOTIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC. 
          IF SOME MEETING LIKE THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, WOULD THERE BE A NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT? WOULD THE PUBLIC BE, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND SUCH A MEETING? HOW, HOW WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT ACTUALLY WORK? I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO MEETING STANDARDS BECAUSE THERE'S SIMPLY AN ADVISORY BOARD. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE SAME OPEN MEETINGS LAW THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS. 
          YEAH. 
          RESPECTFULLY. 
          I WOULD, AND I, WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION OFFLINE. 
          I, I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS, THEY HAVE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO PUBLIC. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK. 
          RIGHT. 
          I, WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS. 
          WELL, BUT THAT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED. 
          SO WE DON'T THINK THEY HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS EITHER. 
          THAT'S, SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO. 
          THAT'S SEAN AND I CAN DISCUSS THAT. 
          WE CAN, BUT I GUESS MAY HAVE THE THIRD THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH WHERE THEY USED TO. 
          BUT WHY, WHY I'M CONFUSED HERE IS THESE, ALL THREE OF THESE MEMORANDUMS ARE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD. 
          I TRIED TO LOOK FOR MINUTES, I TRIED TO, I CAN'T, I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IT'S A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THESE ARE BEING VIEWED AS BEING IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND WITH OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, BUT I, I, I KIND OF NEED SOMETHING TO RESPOND TO THAT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, JUST SOME SO THOROUGH BROAD STATEMENTS. 
          UM, I I GUESS WHY DON'T WE TRY AND HAVE THAT MEETING IN THEIR MAY MEETING, WHICH THIRD THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH. 
          UM, THE REASON I DON'T SAY APRIL IS BECAUSE IF, IF WE ARE GOING TO SAY IT'S TO BE A PUBLIC MEETING, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO SOME TYPE OF NOTICES AND IT WOULD BE TOO LATE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          [01:55:01]
SO I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE MEETING IN PERSON YET. 
          RIGHT. 
          AS FAR AS I KNOW. 
          BUT I, I THINK THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER. 
          I THINK THAT'D BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN. 
          SO WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THAT. 
          AND IF WE DECIDE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TYPE OF PUBLIC NOTICE, WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME IF WE TRY AND GET THAT TO HAPPEN ON THE THIRD THURSDAY OF MAY. 
          UM, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THURSDAY OF APRIL WAS YES. 
          LAST WEEK. 
          'CAUSE THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH WAS A THURSDAY. 
          YEAH. 
          MEETING MAY. 
          OH, THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE APRIL STARTED ON A THURSDAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO JUST, JUST JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, THE TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD MEETS WITH APPLICANTS. 
          WE SEND THEM AND WHATEVER ALL ADVISORY BOARDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, THEIR MEETING DATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ADVERTISED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE DURING COVID. 
          IT IS BEEN A DIFFICULT ISSUE, BUT YES. 
          ALL, WELL, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          ALL THE BOARDS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR MEETING DATES ON THE TOWN WEBSITE. 
          AND NOT THAT THEY'RE PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT PEOPLE CAN ATTEND A TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD MEETINGS OR A CONS, ANY BOARD OFFICIAL BOARD OF THE TOWN CONSERVATION BOARD OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARDS ARE OFFICIAL BOARDS FORMED BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. 
          THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT DURING COVID, THEIR MEETINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE. 
          SO, SO WE'LL TRY AND, AND, AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO MAKE THIS MEETING ON A DATE WHERE THAT CAN BE NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC. 
          SO, SO PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WANT TO ATTEND AND, AND SEE WHAT'S DISCUSSED. 
          THEY CAN ATTEND AND PLUS THEN THAT CAN BE TAKING PLACE SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE REVIEWING THE EXTENSIVE PROJECT DOCUMENT ISSUE. 
          I WANNA KNOW. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST SO YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED, IT'S TWO BINDERS WORTH OF DOCUMENTS. 
          I BELIEVE THERE ARE 58 SEPARATE DOCUMENTS. 
          SO IT, IT'S LOT. 
          IT'S TWO SEPARATE THREE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT THE INCHES OF THERE'S THREE, TWO SEPARATE THREE. 
          IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION. 
          AND I DID SIX INCHES OF PAPER. 
          I ORGANIZED IT REVERSED CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH, WITH IT NOTED WHICH PROJECT IT APPLIES TO OR IF AND WHEN IT APPLIES TO BOTH PROJECTS. 
          SO I'M HOPING IT'LL BE RELATIVELY EASY TO USE. 
          AND, AND WE, WE APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT, JOHN. 
          WE KNOW IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION AND WE DO, I WANT YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT BOTH, BOTH DEVELOPERS HAVE PROVIDED A, A LARGE SWATH OF INFORMATION AND WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS SURE. 
          FOLLOWING UP. 
          BUT WE, WE DO INTEND TO GO THROUGH IT AND RECOGNIZE THAT BASED ON THAT DOCUMENTATION, THERE ARE PROBABLY QUITE A FEW ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE APPROPRIATE BACKUP TO SAY HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHERS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S COMMENT, BUT PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          UH, AND I I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE THE CAB DIDN'T PROVIDE THOSE COMMENTS, SOME OF 'EM ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS NECESSARILY, AT LEAST I COULD SPEAK FOR MYSELF AS SOMETHING THAT IS HOW WE WOULD VIEW OR REPRESENT THE PROJECT AND RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF THEM WERE NOT BACKED UP STATEMENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND JUST, I WAS JUST SAYING THE CONSERVATION BOARD, THAT ONE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES IS TO PROVIDE SEEKER INPUT TO THE PLANNING BOARD. 
          I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM IN THE PAST BECAUSE THEY READ IT AS THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE TO DO SEEKER, THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO DO SEEKER. 
          THEY CAN FILL OUT PART TWO, THEY CAN WHATEVER IS PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR TOWN BOARD OR WHOEVER IS ACTING AS LEAD AGENCY. 
          SO THEY DO HAVE AN OFFICIAL ROLE TO PROVIDE INPUT ON SEEKER. 
          AND SO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. 
          SO, AND I I AND I, I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANT'S JUST SAYING IS THEY, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD PUT AN INPUT, THEY WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT, BUT THEY FEEL, BE THEY, THEY THINK IT'D BE BETTER IF THEY ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS. 
          RIGHT. 
          EXACTLY. 
          AND FROM THAT STANDPOINT TOO, THE CONSERVATION BOARD, THE MEMO SHOULD COME FROM THE BOARD. 
          THERE SHOULD BE MINUTES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, NOT FROM INDIVIDUALS ON THE BOARD, FOR THE BOARD ITSELF. 
          SO I WAS ONLY BRIEFLY ON THE CAB BEFORE JOINING THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT AT THAT TIME THERE, THERE HAD BEEN MINUTES BEING GENERATED. 
          SO THERE MAY BE SOME MINUTES, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE MEETING RIGHT NOW. 
          I HAVE OKAY. 
          I HAVE NOT FORMALLY CHATTED WITH ANYBODY, UH, TO THAT EXTENT, BUT THEY MAY HAVE MINUTES THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE TO YOU, SEAN. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONSERVATION BOARD ALSO SHOULD COMMENT ON WETZEL IF WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING OFFICIAL FROM THEM, THEY SHOULD PROVIDE US, SINCE WE'RE TREATING SEEKER TOGETHER ON PARKER AND WETZEL, WE DO NEED INPUT ON THE WETZEL PROJECT. 
          I, I'M SURE IF THIS MEETING HAPPENS, THAT WE WILL GET SOME COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S FINE. 
          I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN ANY, FOR THE RECORD THOUGH. 
          I THINK THAT I'VE SEEN COMMENTS ON PARKER, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ANY OF THE OTHER PROJECTS. 
          YEAH, I, I WAS NOT, I DID NOT SEE ANY THAT PERTAIN TO THE WETZEL PROJECT SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO IF THERE ARE COMMENTS, ALL I'M SAYING IS WE'D LIKE TO BE PROVIDED A COPY OF THEM. 
          SO OBVIOUSLY WE CAN PREPARE A RESPONSE. 
          SO I THINK THEY'LL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT. 
          [02:00:01]
IF I COULD SAY SOMETHING, I DID HAVE A CON CONVERSATION WITH MARK A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. 
          I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD COMMENTS ON THAT PROJECT OR I, I, I THOUGHT HE HAD COMMENTED ON THE WETZEL PROJECT LAST TIME HE DID AT THE MEETING. 
          SO I ASKED HIM FOR, HE, WE DON'T TYPICALLY SUBMIT REZONING REQUESTS TO THE CAB. 
          WE WAIT UNTIL, IF IT'S REZONED, THEN IT GOES TO CAB. 
          SO, SO THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVEN'T GOT A MEMO FROM THEM. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          TYPICALLY THEY, THEY RESPOND ONCE THE PROJECT IS REZONED. 
          SO THAT'S TRUE. 
          HE MAY HAVE PROVIDED A COMMENT TO THE TOWN BOARD THOUGH, BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE SPOKE AT THE TOWN BOARD MEETING. 
          SO SOMEONE MAY HAVE A RECORD SUPERVISOR STRAW OR SOMEONE ON THE TOWN BOARD MAY HAVE A COPY OF THE, UH, IS SEAN THE LIAISON? SEAN CONLEY MAY OR SOMETHING? I, I DO HAVE THE MINUTES OF THE TOWN BOARD. 
          SEAN CONLEY'S THEIR LIAISON. 
          I HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE WETZEL. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I, I HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE WETZEL HEARING IN THE PROJECT BINDER, THE MARCH 22ND REZONING HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK ON THE MANKO PROJECT, UH, WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONTINUE TO TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE EXTENSIVE INFORMATION. 
          UH, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 
          WE'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE CONSERVATION BOARD AND PRESENT THE PROJECT, BUT I THINK OTHER THAN THAT, UM, THAT'S ALL OF THE UPDATE FOR TONIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, WHEN SHOULD WE BRING THIS PROJECT BACK? UH, I, I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST LEAVE IT ON THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE MAY NOT BE AN UPDATE NEXT TWO WEEKS FROM NOW AND I KNOW THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE GONNA NEED SOME TIME TO REVEAL, BUT IF I DON'T THINK IT HURTS, JUST TO LEAVE IT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE DAVID MANKO TO MAY 5TH. 
          MOTION. 
          SECOND MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? A MOTION CARRIED. 
          OKAY. 
          NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS GLEN WETZEL REQUESTING REZONING OF VACANT LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BIGTREE ROAD, EAST OF 4 2 5 5 MCKINLEY PARKWAY FROM C ONE TO R THREE. 
          JIMMY, ONCE AGAIN, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          WETZEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 
          ALSO WITH ME IS GLEN WETZEL. 
          UH, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, ALTHOUGH IT IS OBVIOUSLY A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROJECT WITH A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROJECT SPONSOR. 
          AS THE BOARD WILL RECALL, WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT THIS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. 
          WE ORIGINALLY STARTED WITH A PROJECT THAT WAS MUCH DIFFERENT AND DID INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH A CONNECTION ONTO WILSON DRIVE, WHICH IS SHOWN THERE BASED ON SOME INPUT RECEIVED FROM THIS BOARD GOING BACK SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, WE ELIMINATED THAT, CHANGED OUR REZONING REQUEST. 
          UH, WE DID PRESENT THIS TO THE TOWN BOARD DURING A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON MARCH 22ND. 
          THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. 
          OBVIOUSLY THE TOWN BOARD DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION DURING THAT PUBLIC HEARING AS A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ACTING AS A LEAD AGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH BOTH THIS PROJECT AND THE MANCO PROJECT ON THE ADJACENT PROJECT SIDE, I WOULD NOTE THAT WE DID FINALLY RECEIVE THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DATED APRIL 9TH. 
          THAT AGREED ENTIRELY A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH THE RESULTS IN THE WETLAND DONATION REPORT PREPARED BY EARTH DIMENSIONS DATED JUNE OF 2020. 
          ALL WE ARE DOING HERE IN TERMS OF WETLAND IMPACT IS FOR 107 ACRE. 
          SO IT IS LITERALLY ABOUT THE MOST MINIMAL IMPACT OF FEDERAL WETLANDS YOU COULD HAVE BECAUSE THAT IS LESS THAN ONE 10TH OF AN ACRE IN SIZE. 
          IT QUALIFIES FOR A NATIONWIDE PERMIT WITHOUT THE NEED TO CONSIDER MITIGATION MEASURES EITHER ON SITE OR OFFSITE. 
          I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, TWO THINGS. 
          NUMBER ONE, WE ARE SHOWING 20.1 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED AND GREEN ON THE PLAN. 
          WE WILL BE COMPLYING WITH REQUIRING, UH, CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND OR DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS TO ENSURE EVERYONE NOT ONLY THE TOWN BUT NEARBY RESIDENCE ON WILSON DRIVE, CCA, ET CETERA. 
          THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT. 
          AND THEN THE FINAL POINT, ONLY BECAUSE IT'S COME UP AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO WILSON DRIVE IN THE FORM OF A PUBLIC ROADWAY, A PUBLIC A, A PRIVATE ROADWAY OR A GATED EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE. 
          SO THOSE TWO STOP STREET AREAS THAT ARE LOCATED ON WILSON DRIVE THAT COME INTO THIS SITE THAT MR. WETZEL WILL BE PURCHASING WILL ALSO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. 
          SO WE THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OVER THE COURSE OF LITERALLY THE PAST YEAR LISTENING TO THE INPUT WE RECEIVED. 
          WE'RE HOPING IN THE NEAR FUTURE YOU COULD BE IN A POSITION TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 
          THAT WOULD ALLOW US THEN TO PROCEED TO THE TOWN BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENDING REQUESTED REZONING A PORTION OF THE SITE. 
          AND THEN IF THE TOWN BOARD APPROVES THAT FOR REZONING, WE 
          [02:05:01]
STILL HAVE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU, OBVIOUSLY WITH FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 
          SO I THINK THAT SUMMARIZES WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS? I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SURE. 
          THIS IS GONNA BE AGREED IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION. 
          UM, I BELIEVE AS PART OF PRIOR DISCUSSIONS, MR. WETZEL HAD, UH, COMMITTED TO CONTINUING THE SNOWMOBILE TRAIL RIGHT THROUGH THIS PROPERTY. 
          DO YOU HAVE A MAP OR COULD YOU PROVIDE A MAP THAT TENTATIVELY SHOWS WHERE YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT ROUTING THAT? YEAH, I, I BELIEVE, AND SARAH WALKED AWAY FOR A SECOND. 
          I BELIEVE SARAH PROVIDED US WITH A MAP THAT SHE RECEIVED FROM THE ORGANIZATION. 
          GLEN, DO YOU RECALL WHERE THAT WE'VE SHOWN WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          UH, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A PREFERRED ROUTING FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I ALSO WANNA NOTE, WE DO ALSO HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE EFFORT WE'VE MADE TO AVOID WETLANDS, WE WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO IMPACT WETLANDS TO INSTALL SNOWMOBILE TRAIL. 
          WELL THAT WAS GONNA BE PART OF MY QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY AREAS THAT WERE GONNA BE ANY CULVERTS OR ANYTHING, EVEN IF THEY WOULD BE SEASONALLY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT PATH THAT GOES THROUGH THERE. 
          YEAH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A SARAH, THE QUESTION CAME UP, DID YOU EVER GET A MAP OR PLAN THAT SHOWED THE PREFERRED ROUTING FOR THE SNOWMOBILE TRAIL ON THE WETZEL SITE? I DON'T THINK SO. 
          I MEAN, YOU KIND WENT THROUGH THAT FILE TOGETHER AND IT WASN'T IN THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW WE HAVE, WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY OF GETTING FURTHER INPUT ON THAT? UH, THE SNOWMOBILE FOLKS SHOULD HAVE A COP COPY OF BECAUSE THEY GET, IT'S AN OFFICIAL SNOWMOBILE TRAIL, RIGHT? MAYBE THE EXISTING TRAIL. 
          YEAH, THAT'S THE EXISTING EXISTING ONE. 
          YOU MEAN THE FUTURE ONE, RIGHT. 
          OR WHAT THEY'RE, SO AT LEAST WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSS. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST SHOWN ON THE FRED HOLMAN MAP AS A POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, EXTENSION OF THE THING. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S NOT ANY SCALE. 
          IT'S A MAP OF THE ENTIRE TOWN. 
          THIS BIG SHOWN SHOWN LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I THINK, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK, BUT IT'S IN THE OLD FRED HOLMAN PLAN. 
          NO, BUT I THINK THE QUESTION'S BEING ASKED IS MORE SPECIFICS IN TERMS OF WHERE COULD IT BE LOCATED ON OUR SITE. 
          RIGHT. 
          ISN'T THAT THE QUESTION? AND HOW YEAH. 
          WHERE IS IT, I GUESS WHERE IS IT GONNA GET ON THE SITE? IT, AND I GUESS THAT'S PART OF WHERE I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE IS I KNOW THAT IT COMES FROM SOMEWHERE DOWN PARKER. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT CURRENTLY CROSSES THROUGH THAT THE FARM CROP, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. 
          IF IT'S NO LONGER THERE, WHERE IS IT LOOKING AT BEING REROUTED? I GUESS WHERE IS IT COMING IN FROM AND WHERE IS IT GOING TO AND COMING OVER HERE, I THINK I WILL, I WILL RESEARCH THAT. 
          'CAUSE NOW I HAVE A, I HAVE A RECOLLECTION THAT MR. MANKO MIGHT HAVE TOLD US THAT FOR A SECOND. 
          MR. MANKO IS HERE TOO. 
          SO LET, LET'S LET HIM CHIME IN AND KEEP MIND. 
          MR. MANKO IS INVOLVED WITH THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, NOT THIS PROJECT, BUT DAVE BETWEEN JUST LEFT KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, UH, YEAH. 
          DAVID MANKO. 
          UM, YEAH, THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS HERE FROM THE SNOWMOBILE CLUB AND SARAH, I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, HE HAD SHOWED US A PROPOSED MAP OF THE NEW ROUTE. 
          AND BASICALLY IT WAS, IT WAS COMING DOWN THE, THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          THERE'S A SEWER EXTENSION, UH, WHICH WOULD BE SOME TOWN PROPERTY THAT'S BACK THERE AT THE REAR OF THE SITE OF GLEN SITE. 
          THERE'S AN ACTUAL SEWER EXTENSION, I THINK AS PART OF A TOWN EASEMENT AREA. 
          AND THERE'S A EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND THEY WERE GONNA GO AND TURN AND CUT AROUND THE BACKSIDE OF AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND ENTER BACK OUT, OUT TO PARKER ROAD. 
          SO YES, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER TOO. 
          AND THERE WAS A MAP. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS SOMEWHERE. 
          SOMEBODY HAS IT, BUT IT'S, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN QUITE A WHILE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL LET'S, WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT. 
          BE LET'S BE PREPARED. 
          WE'LL BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT DURING YOUR NEXT MEETING. 
          YEAH, THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SARAH, I MEAN, AND SARAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S JUST A QUESTION THAT WILL COME UP LATER ON IT. 
          SO I, THERE'S LIKE THE TOWNLAND THAT'S OFF LIKE TEKA DRIVE, SO IT COMES OVER THAT WAY. 
          RIGHT BACK OVER THAT WAY. 
          SARAH, I OH YOU ON WAY? OKAY. 
          YEAH, IF YOU CAN GET THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          IT'D BE HELPFUL. 
          WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WEZEL PROJECT? AGAIN, WE, WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, I KNOW WE PRESENTED THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN. 
          WE WANNA MAKE SURE IF YOU DO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION TO ANSWER. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD IN THE NEAR FUTURE. 
          I WAS JUST , BUT JUST GONNA SAY I GOTTA CALL THIS AFTERNOON. 
          I KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE AND SARAH DOES IN, IT'S NOT HURTING BECAUSE IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT OFFICIALLY REZONING, BUT WE GOTTA INCLUDE THE, IN THE, IN THE DEFINITE IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S C ONE AND R 1 2 2 R THREE. 
          OH. 
          RIGHT NOW EVERYTHING WE HAVE ON RECORD GET THE C ONE, C ONE TO R THREE. 
          AND REMEMBER I'M POINTED THAT OUT AT THE TOWN BOARD HEARING. 
          RIGHT? WE RIGHT. 
          WE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECT AT THE TOWN BOARD WHEN THEY NOTICE IT AND WHATEVER. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT SOMEBODY CALLED ME AND SAID, OH, DID THEY DROP THE, OKAY, THE OTHER PART OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN? I SAID, NO, IT'S STILL IN THERE. 
          WE JUST FORGOT TO INCLUDE IT AGAIN. 
          [02:10:01]
ALRIGHT, SO IT'S, IT'S C ONE AND R ONE. 
          THERE'S A SMALL R ONE PIECE OF THE . 
          JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, THIS IS THE R ONE PIECE. 
          AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS EXTENSIVELY AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE REAR OF ANY OF THE EXISTING HOMES, THIS IS TO THE REAR OF THEIR PROPERTIES IS 200 FEET. 
          WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT, THAT LITERAL ENTIRE 20 AREA WHERE REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. 
          AND THAT WAS THE BIGGEST CONCERN WE INITIALLY RECEIVED, AS YOU RECALL, WAS NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORS ON WILSON WILSON AND TEKA DRIVE SAYING WE DON'T WANT A ROADWAY CONNECTION. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN YOU REMIND ME, I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAD PERHAPS THAT MR. WETZEL PERHAPS COMMITTED TO BEING WILLING TO PUT SOME SORT OF EASEMENT ON THE WETLAND PORTION, LIKE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO AS YOU HEARD EARLIER IN THE MEETING, PEOPLE GET AGITATED WHEN THEY THINK SOMETHING'S UNDEVELOPED AND THERE'S NOT SOME SORT OF FOLLOW UP TO COMMIT IT TO THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          NO. 
          SO AS YOU RECALL, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS AT YOUR FEBRUARY, WAS IT 18TH MEETING? I PREPARED A LETTER WITH A LIST OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS. 
          SO ULTIMATELY WHEN YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING, YOU'LL HAVE TO REVISIT THAT LIST. 
          BUT I BELIEVE I COVERED EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAD ASKED TO BE INCLUDED. 
          AND BY THE WAY, THIS BRINGS UP, WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT COUNTIES AND WHATEVER THE COUNTY STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT WE TIE THIS DEVELOPMENT INTO THE ADJOINING, UH, SUBDIVISION. 
          BUT IT'S MORE OF A LOCAL CONCERN AND WE KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, JUST SO WE, WE WEIGH AND BALANCE WHAT, WHAT ADVICE WE GET FROM DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND, AND MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS THAT ARE SOUND. 
          IF WE LISTEN TO THE COUNTY, THERE WOULD BE A ROADWAY INTO THAT ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. 
          UM, THAT THAT LETTER WAS DATED FEBRUARY 8TH WITH THE ZONING CONDITIONS SAW WINDOWS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THIS ONE, INTERESTINGLY THOUGH, DREW AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING LAST NIGHT. 
          AND FROM THE COMMENTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHILE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS FROM A VEHICLE PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS SOME INTEREST POTENTIALLY IN HIKING AND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS THAT'S SAYING IS A LOCAL ISSUE. 
          THE COUNTY, UNDER THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK OR WHATEVER SAYS ALL ROADS SHOULD BE CONNECTED. 
          YOU SHOULD CONNECT ALL DEVELOPMENTS. 
          IT SHOULD BE AUTOMOTIVE AND AND WALKING AND WHATEVER THAT YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THESE FORCING ALL THE TRAFFIC TO MOVE AROUND AND WHATEVER. 
          BUT WE KNOW THERE ARE LOCAL ISSUES AND YOU MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS BASED ON GENERAL STANDARDS. 
          IF THERE WAS A STRONG ISSUE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD DO THAT. 
          BUT IN THIS CASE IT WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC THROUGH A VERY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR A ROAD . 
          THIS, THIS IS A, BOTH THESE DEVELOPMENTS TOGETHER TALK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES YOU NEVER WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN, IN SOUND PLANNING OR WHATEVER. 
          SO YOU'RE TRYING TO COMBINE, YOU HAVE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE A REZONING, YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE ISSUES OF CREEK CARTERS, YOU HAVE ISSUES OF, YOU KNOW, SO YOU'RE TRYING TO BALANCE, WEIGH AND BALANCE THOSE THINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE CAN DO ANYTHING MORE ON THIS ONE TONIGHT, RIGHT? NO, NO. 
          I THINK, I THINK THIS IS THE SAME AS THE MANCO. 
          ALL I WOULD ASK IS THAT YOU TABLE TO YOUR NEXT MEETING, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP ITEMS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO TAKE A LOOK AT. 
          SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE GLEN WETZEL TO MAY 5TH. 
          MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. SHAW. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          CAN I, CAN I ASK A, A QUESTION? HOW IS, HOW IS THE REZONING SUPPOSED TO READ? IS IT WRONG ON THE AGENDA? IT'S WRONG ON OUR, OUR AGENDA. 
          IT JUST SAYS C ONE R THREE. 
          REMEMBER IT'S C ONE AND R ONE AND R ONE TWO, R THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I'LL, I'LL CHANGE IT. 
          YEAH, SORRY. 
          I I IT WAS THE OLD ONE. 
          WE JUST KEPT CARRYING THE OLD ONE AND NOT ADJUSTING IT WHEN THEY MADE THE CHANGE. 
          I GOT A CALL FROM SOMEONE I THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL . 
          I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE DESCRIBED IT CORRECTLY. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO ON OTHER BUSINESS WE GOT A REQUEST FROM THE OAKS AT SOUTH PARK THAT'S, UH, THE IMMACULATA SITE. 
          THEY WANT TO MOVE THE FENCE, UH, FARTHER AWAY FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          SO THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO DECIDE IS DO WE WANT THEM TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO TALK ABOUT MOVING THE FENCE FARTHER AWAY OR IS THAT A SMALL CHANGE THAT WE DON'T THINK NEEDS TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US? CAN I SPEAK TO THAT BILL? YES, PLEASE. 
          UM, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S A GOOD 
          [02:15:01]
AMOUNT OF WOODS BETWEEN THE REAR PROPERTY LINES OF TWILIGHT AND THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO IN THERE AND TAKE THOSE TREES DOWN IN ORDER TO PUT A FENCE UP. 
          SO THEY'RE ASKING THAT THE FENCE BE ALLOWED TO BE AT THE EDGE OF THE WOODS RATHER THAN RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINES. 
          AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF EMAILS THAT YOU WILL GET TOMORROW BECAUSE THEY CAME IN MONDAY FROM NEIGHBORS WHO'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS. 
          AND BOTH NEIGHBORS SAY THEY DON'T EVEN THINK THERE SHOULD BE A FENCE AT ALL. 
          BUT IF THERE IS GONNA BE ONE, THEY, THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING IT ON THEIR REAR PROPERTY LINES. 
          THEY'D RATHER KEEP THE STAND OF TREES THAT THEY HAVE FROM THEIR REAR LOT, LOT LINE SOUTH AND PUT THE, PUT THE FENCE WHERE THE TREES END. 
          AND KAITLIN HAD TO QUESTION, WHICH I ASKED 'EM WHO WOULD MAINTAIN THOSE TREES AND THE, THE, UM, APPLICANT WOULD MAINTAIN THOSE TREES, UH, GET RID OF ANY DEAD, DEAD TREES, ET CETERA. 
          AND, AND I KNOW WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT, UM, I MEAN I, I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS DID LIKE THE IDEA OF THE FENCE, BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT SATELLITE IMAGES, SOME OF THOSE RESIDENTS KIND OF EXPANDED THEIR BACKYARD BEYOND THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND THIS FENCE WOULD'VE CROSSED OVER THAT. 
          AND I GET, I THINK THIS CHANGE WOULD, WOULD NOT HAVE THAT HAPPEN. 
          AND WHILE IT'S NOT REALLY THEIR PROPERTY, THEY THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE WHAT THEY'VE BEEN USING. 
          UM, ABSOLUTELY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO INSTEAD OF BEING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, IF YOU KNOW THE, THE BALL FIELD, THEY WOULD GO CLOSER TO THE BALL FIELD. 
          AND THE NICE PART ABOUT IT IN THE BACK OF THE SITE WHERE THE TWO STORMWATER PONDS ARE, IT WOULD GO RIGHT UP TO THE STORMWATER PONDS AND NOT ON THE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY LINES. 
          I DID DRIVE OUT THERE AND LOOK THE BEST I COULD. 
          I WENT BEHIND THE TWO BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT THERE AND LOOK DOWN THAT LINE AND IT MAKES SENSE. 
          WHY WOULD YOU GO IN THERE AND TEAR DOWN ALL THESE TREES TO PUT IN A FENCE ALONG PEOPLE'S PROPERTY LINES WHEN YOU CAN JUST GO BACK FURTHER AWAY FROM THE, THE TREES AND PUT THE FENCE IN. 
          IT STILL ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME THING OF SOME PRIVACY THAT PEOPLE FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT WON'T WALK INTO PEOPLE'S NEIGHBORS BACK INTO RIGHT INTO THE BACKYARDS. 
          BUT IT ALSO, SO I WOULD PUT THE FENCE, I WOULD NOT SAY NOT TO PUT THE FENCE. 
          'CAUSE I'M SURE SOME PEOPLE WANT NOT TO HAVE PEOPLE ABLE TO WALK ONTO THEIR PROPERTY. 
          THEY'RE GONNA HAVE BALL FIELDS WHICH ARE GONNA BE LEASED BY, WHAT IS IT? THE SCHOOL AND WHATEVER TO USE. 
          THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE JUST WALKING THROUGH THEIR BACKYARDS AND WHATEVER. 
          SO I THINK I'LL FORWARD, I WILL FORWARD YOU TOMORROW THE EMAILS. 
          YEAH, I SAW THE EMAILS. 
          YES. 
          SOME OF THE PEOPLE SAID WHY EVEN PUT UP A FENCE, BUT THAT'S NOT RIGHT. 
          I I I EVERY RESIDENT, THERE'S PROBABLY, I THINK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE FENCE WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP AND WAS SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED. 
          SO, AND THEN WINTER HITS AND ALL THE WEEDS ARE GONE AND YOU SEE A LOT MORE AND YOU KNOW, WELL, AND WHEN THOSE BASEBALL FIELDS ARE THERE AND THERE'S KIDS RUNNING AROUND AND THEY COME TO YOUR BACKYARD AND YEAH, THEY WANT A PLANE IN TREES AND SO ON, BUT A FENCE STOPS. 
          I, I THINK ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS CAUGHT ON THIS BECAUSE THEY SAW SOME YELLOW FLAGS OUT THERE AND WONDERING WHAT THE YELLOW FLAGS WERE AND SOMEONE SAID, WELL THAT'S THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING TO GO. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING. 
          WHY ARE YOU, WHY ARE YOU GONNA PUT A FENCE THERE? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          I GOT A PHONE, I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM AN, UH, RESIDENT ON TWILIGHT WHO CALLS ME A LOT. 
          AND UM, I TOLD HER WHAT THE REQUEST WAS AND SHE GOT THE WORD OUT. 
          SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE EMAILS THAT WE DID FROM THE NEIGHBORS. 
          WE'VE ONLY GOT THREE OR FOUR EMAILS. 
          RIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, SO THE QUESTION IS PROBABLY 30 HOUSES. 
          DO WE NEED TO SEE THIS FORMALLY ON OUR AGENDA OR CAN WE TELL ROGER, WE'VE GOT NO ISSUES WITH THE FENCE AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE FENCE, I SAY LET ROGER TAKE CARE OF IT. 
          WE GOT ONE VOTE FOR LETTING ROGER TAKE CARE OF IT. 
          BILL, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          UM, AND BECAUSE CAITLYN ASKED ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TREES, IS THIS A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OR IS THIS LIKE, THAT MAINTAINS THE PROPERTY AROUND? NO, IT'S, IT'S, IT IS APARTMENTS THAT ARE LEASED. 
          SO THE OWN, THE OWNER OF THE UNITS AND THE OWNER OF THE SITES ONE AND THE SAME. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M JUST MAKING SURE THE RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE A, A FORMAL WAY TO REACH, THEY WOULD REACH OUT IF IT WAS, THEY WOULD, UM, PROBLEM WITH A TREE. 
          OKAY. 
          WOULD PERFECT. 
          AND IT'S ALSO NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN, THE ORIGINAL ONE OF THIS ONE IS THAT THAT AREA OF VEGETATION IS TO REMAIN, RIGHT. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION GOING AND TEAR DOWN THAT VEGETATION. 
          OH. 
          AND IT WILL NOW BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FENCE. 
          SO THERE'S NO NEVER BE A REASON, REMEMBER THERE WON'T BE AN ASSOCIATION. 
          JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          THERE'S NOT AN ASSOCIATION, THE APARTMENT MANAGER. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD HAVE, AND I I AGREE WITH DOUG, THAT THIS SHOULD PROBABLY JUST GO TO ROGER, IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IN ADDITION TO MAINTAINING THE TREES, THAT IF THERE'S ANY BOEING 
          [02:20:01]
THAT HAS TO HAPPEN ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE, BY THE, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX, THAT IT WOULD BE CLEARED ACCORDING, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WOULD BE MOWED EVEN IF, IF NEEDED AND REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS IF THERE'S A NUMBER AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO REACH. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS, THAT'S PART OF THE TOWN CODE. 
          THERE WON'T BE MUCH LAND AND MOW I DON'T THINK BECAUSE THERE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY BUT THE WOODS AREA. 
          BUT IF GRASS GETS TOO LONG, THAT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT AND, AND YOU YOU'D CALL AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE AND SURE. 
          BUT THAT APPLIES ANYWAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. 
          YOU ALSO GOTTA REMEMBER A LOT OF THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE TREATED, ESPECIALLY BOB ANYWAY, RIGHT? THEY ARE, YES. 
          BOB KNOWS. 
          OH YEAH. 
          AS FAR AS I, THERE'S SOME SHEDS LIKE RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE BACK THERE. 
          THERE'S SOME SHEDS BEYOND SHEDS ON YEAH. 
          I'M CURIOUS WHAT DENNIS THINKS LONG AS THEY GET A PERMIT. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T HAVE A BETTER EFFECT. 
          I THINK IT'S A BETTER IDEA IF IT WERE ME TO FURTHER THAT FENCES FROM MY PROPERTY, THE HAPPIER I AM AS LONG AS THEY'RE GONNA MAINTAIN. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          THANK YOU FOR ASKING. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THIS IN FRONT OF US FORMALLY. 
          WE'LL LET ROGER TAKE CARE OF IT. 
          UM, ANYTHING ELSE IN OTHER BUSINESS? YEAH, BILL, I JUST HAVE ONE THING AND, AND UH, IT'S REAL QUICK. 
          IF THE BROADWAY GROUP DOES BUILD ON THEIR CURRENT AREA THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, HOW CAN WE GO BACK AND REZONE THAT PARCEL LAND, UH, SOUTHWESTERN AND HELPED? UH, IT'S GONNA BE A PROBLEM FOR RIGHT? SO T'S NOT GONNA LET US PUT A CURB CUT IN THE SOUTHWESTERN. 
          SO HOW DO WE GO BACK AND MAKE THE TOWN BOARD'S GOTTA DO IT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER REZO AND THEY CAN, THEY CAN DO IT ON THEIR OWN. 
          THEY USUALLY DON'T. 
          BUT I MEAN, ONE OF MY HOPES IS AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS THAT WE PULL OUT A MAP AND CAITLIN MADE THE SUGGESTION YESTERDAY THAT WE DO SOME STUFF WITH MAPS THAT AREN'T IN THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AND WE SAY WE, WE CIRCLE AREAS WHERE THE ZONING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND THEN SEND THAT. 
          YES, SARAH, THAT'S THE COMMITTEE THAT I'M ON, RIGHT? ON THE COMPREHENSIVE CLAIM COMMITTEE. 
          RICK FEL AND I, AND WE'VE ALREADY OUTLINED THAT WHOLE HEALTH ROAD AREA THAT ZONE C TWO NEEDS TO CHANGE TO RESIDENT. 
          SO, SO THERE YOU GO, DENNIS. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S THE PROCESS AND THE PROCESS HAS ALREADY STARTED AND THAT AREA HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PROBLEM AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AT DENNIS IS THAT THE, THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS YOU CAN THEN NOT REZONE ANY LANDS IN THE LAKEVIEW AREA TO COMMERCIAL ANY ADDITIONAL LANDS. 
          SO IF WE REMOVE THOSE, DO WE STILL PUT THE RESTRICTIONS SAYING AND NO REZONINGS OF COMMERCIAL LAND WILL OCCUR IN THAT AREA? SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT TOO, TALK ABOUT YEAH, THERE HAS BEEN NO REZONINGS IN THE LAKE VIEW AREA TO COMMERCIAL IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. 
          BUT IF WE TAKE AWAY THOSE AREAS, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE. 
          WE, WE, WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT, TALK ABOUT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE PEOPLE ON HEALTH ROAD HAD NO IDEA THEY WERE ZONE C TWO. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT WAY FOR THAT'S GOTTA GO BACK TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S ONLY REALLY FAIR THING TO DO. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, UM, SARAH OR DREW, WE CAN'T TELL THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS IN A EXISTING USE CAN PERSONALLY REQUEST TO HAVE THEIR OWN PROPERTY REZONED BACK, CAN'T THEY? YES. 
          THEY CAN TELL THEIR OWN . 
          THEY CAN DO THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          THEY COULD COME FORWARD AND SAY WE WANT OUR LAND REZONED AND MAKE A REQUEST TO IT. 
          AND THEY PROBABLY SHOULD. 
          YEP. 
          NO, NO REASON FOR THEM TO WAIT. 
          UM, ANYTHING ELSE? ANOTHER BUSINESS PROBLEM REASON TO WAIT WAS IN CASE THE BROADWAY CAN'T WORK THE DEAL ON SOUTHWESTERN. 
          THEY STILL HAVEN'T TAKEN THE, UH, THE HEALTH ROAD OFF THE BOARD. 
          AND THEY, DENNIS THAT'S THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO TARA MATTHIAS, SHE SAID THAT THEY WERE ON PAUSE. 
          DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T REALLY DO THAT UNTIL RIGHT. 
          WE RESOLVE. 
          AND THAT WAS, AND AND I WAS GONNA BRING THAT UP, BUT THE MEETING KIND OF WENT LONG. 
          I I WAS GONNA ASK THEM WHERE THEY STOOD ON THAT BEFORE WE DID OUR RESOLUTIONS ON SOUTHWESTERN, BUT I DIDN'T, UH, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD'VE ANSWERED YOU ANYWAY. 
          THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE READ YOUR SITE TIME. 
          IF THOSE THREE NOTES WITHIN ACTIVITY, THEY START OVER. 
          YOU WANNA MAKE THAT PUBLIC? UH, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 7TH MEETING. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION BY MR. MCCORMICK. 
          SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          [02:25:01]
AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          GO. 
          I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING MOTION BY MR. SHAW. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          DON'T YOU CARRY.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.