[00:13:40]
[00:13:40]
I[00:13:41]
UNDERSTAND.[00:21:34]
[00:21:35]
WE'VE GOT JUST THE REGULAR CHANNEL.NO, I'M ON A GUEST ONE RIGHT CUP THING THAT IS UH, NOT THE GUEST, WHICH DOES BETTER FOR BANDWIDTH.
WE'LL HAVE BRING IT BECAUSE I DON'T KEEP IT.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED WITH THE WORK SESSION.
I THOUGHT IT WAS RETAIL, BUT IT'S IT IS.
BECAUSE IT'S JUST TYPE ONE, MY THING.
REQUESTING SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION ON A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NINE UNIT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AT 4 1 0 0 SAINT FRANCIS DRIVE.
AND BILL, IF YOU WANT SARAH OR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE HERE.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW AS WELL,
SO THEY MIGHT, OR THIS PROJECT NEEDS A USE FERRIS, THEY WENT TO THE BOARD ZONING BOARD LAST MONTH, STARTED THE PROCESS THIS MONTH.
IT WAS ZBA WHEN'S ZBA? THIS MONTH.
AND UM, THEY'RE GOING TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW, WHICH HAS NOT GONE OUT YET.
SO THEY WON'T BE BACK TO THE ZONING BOARD UNTIL AT LEAST MARCH.
BUT I THINK THEY JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE THE PROJECTS IN CASE THEY GET THE USE VARIANCE AND THEN THEY'D BE BACK.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR APPROVALS OR ANY KIND OF ANYTHING.
JUST SORT OF LIKE AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING.
CHAIRMAN CLARK, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS OF THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS, SERGIO MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THIS SITE AT 4,100 ST.
FRANCIS TO ACCLIMATE EVERYONE.
FRANCIS DRIVE, BOTH OF WHICH OF COURSE ARE STATE HIGHWAYS.
UM, FORMERLY IT'S VACANT FORMER GAS STATION CANOPY AND PUMPS OUT HERE.
PROPERTY REALLY JUST LARGELY CONSISTS OF PAVEMENT WITH A VACANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR PROPOSING TO DO IS REDEVELOP THE BACK PORTION OF THE SITE, WHICH IS ZONED WATERFRONT DISTRICT AS A TWO STORY NINE UNIT TOWN HOME BUILDING.
THE REASON WHY WE ARE IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE ALLOWABLE USES PER SECTION TWO 80 DASH ONE 10 A OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT PERMITTED UNLESS YOU'RE CONVERTING AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO SOME OTHER FORMAT OF RESIDENTIAL USE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A CONTAMINATED SITE.
UM, APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO NEW YORK STATE DEC BROWNFIELD PROGRAM AND THE DEC IS ANXIOUS FOR THE REQUIRED CLEANUP OF THE SITE TO OCCUR.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CONTAMINATION THAT DOES EXIST ON SITE PREDATES OUR CURRENT, OUR CLIENT'S OWNERSHIP.
BUT IT IS INTEGRAL OBVIOUSLY TO HAVE A PROJECT IN PLACE SO THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, UH, THE BENEFITS OF THE BROWNFIELD PROGRAM.
THERE'S TWO REASONS WHY WE'RE HERE.
OBVIOUSLY CHRIS ULTIMATELY WOULD'VE TO PREPARE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS AND THE WIDE ASSORTMENT OF REQUIRED TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION.
[00:25:01]
SO WE WANTED TO GET YOUR INITIAL INPUT AND THEN AS SARAH INDICATED IN THE INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS, THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS DURING ITS MEETING ON JANUARY 3RD ADOPTED A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUARTER REVIEW ACT.BECAUSE THIS PROJECT ALSO WILL REQUIRE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD.
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO DO SO.
SARAH INDICATED THE LEAD AGENCY LETTER WENT OUT AND THEN ULTIMATELY WE'RE HOPING YOU'LL CONCUR.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL DO THAT.
IF NOT, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE DEC WOULD HAVE TO INVOLVE THE DISPUTE OR WOULD HAVE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN'S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND THE TOWNS PLANNING BOARD, WHICH WOULD BE SOMEWHAT STRANGE.
OTHER THAN THAT, CHRIS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO ADD? WE DO KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S DEMAND THERE.
SO THEY DON'T QUALIFY UNDER THE TOWN HOME DEFINITION, WHICH OF COURSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE LOCATED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND THEY WILL NOT BE FOR SALE.
SO WHILE WE USE THAT DEFINITION OR TERMINOLOGY, IT'S NOT THE SAME TERMINOLOGY AS CONTAINED IN YOUR ZONING CODE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY, THIS PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES A REFERRAL TO THE WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE.
AND I HAVE REACHED OUT TO JOE KILLIAN.
WE'RE HOPING IT'LL BE PLACED OUT IN GENERAL TROUBLE READING THE MAP, WHETHER THIS WAS IN THE ROOF FIVE OVERLAY OR NOT.
I MENTIONED ABOUT FRONT OF US, NOT THE, THE DISTRICT DESCRIBES IT BEING THOSE PROPERTIES FRONTING ROOF FIVE.
BUT THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE, IT APPEARS THIS PROPERTY PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY, THE BACK OF IT ARE IN THE WATERFRONT OVER THE ROOF FIVE OVERLAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT IT'S IN THE, IF IT'S TOUCHING THE PROPERTY, WE'LL JUST DO IT AS A ROOF FIVE OVERLAY.
I KNOW THE TIM HORTONS ON THE OTHER SIDE THROUGH THE, THE OVERLAY.
BUT IT JUST, IT LIKE THE BACK PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY SHOWS UP ON THE BACK.
SO WE DO THINK THIS WILL BE AT LEAST A CLEAN, PRETTY GOOD CLEANUP OF THE BACK PART OF THAT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL ALLOW THE OVERALL CLEANUP OF THE CONTAMINATION ON SITE TO OCCUR.
AND YOU'RE GONNA CLEAN UP THE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS OBVIOUSLY PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
WHICH IS A HIGHER STANDARD, WHICH IS GOOD FOR THE TOWN.
THE GAS STATION'S GONNA REMAIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL EVER REOPEN, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE CLEAN UP WOULD NEED TO OCCUR FIRST.
RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY A PLAN, MR. CHAPMAN TO REMOVE THAT.
NOW IF ANOTHER VIABLE USE BECAME AVAILABLE THERE, THAT WAS NOT THE GAS STATION, THAT BUILDING PROBABLY IS NOT IN A REAL GOOD POSITION TO REPURPOSE.
WOULD'VE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARDS FOR A FUTURE DETERMINATION.
BUT THERE'S CURRENTLY NO PLANS TO DEMOLISH THAT GAS STATION OR THE CANOPY.
NOW WERE THE TANKS REMOVED FROM THERE? I BELIEVE THE TANKS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
IT'S A CONTAMINATED SOILS THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TANKS.
AND YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THAT'S BEEN A GAS STATION FOR DECADES AND DECADES.
SO THE CURRENT PLAN
THAT'S ONLY 30 COUPLE OF DECADES.
NOT MEANT TO BE AN INSULT AS I HAVE.
SO THE CURRENT PLAN IS TO LEAVE THE GAS STATION CANOPY AND THAT BUSINESS IN PLACE AND NOT TOUCH IT? IT IS, BUT IT WILL NOT BE OPERATED AT GAS STATION.
KEEP IN MIND, GAS STATION'S NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THAT DISTRICT.
THEY'VE LOST THEIR NON-CONFORMING STATUS.
SO ANY REUSE OF THAT BUILDING OR THAT PORTION OF THE SITE IS GONNA REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF OR OR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OR, EXACTLY.
AND YOU'RE CLEANING UP THAT PART OF THE SITE AS WELL? THE GAS STATION? YEAH.
BUT TO A LARGE DEGREE, OBVIOUSLY THE CONTAMINATION IS FROM HERE FORWARD.
IT'S PROBABLY ACTUALLY ALL RIGHT IN THIS AREA.
THE OTHER THING THAT MAY COME UP, AND I KNOW IT'S GONNA COME UP IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEXT PROJECT, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THIS FAR, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY LIKELY THAT WE WOULD ALSO ASK FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION RULE TO SEPARATE OUT THE GAS STATION AND THE NONCONFORMITIES FROM THE REMAINDER.
BUT THE CLEANUP WOULD OCCUR OF THE WHOLE SITE, INCLUDING THE GAS STATION SIDE CLEANUP.
MEANING WE'RE GONNA CLEAN UP THE WHOLE SITE.
BUT MAYBE FOR PURPOSES OF OWNERSHIP IN THE FUTURE, WE'D PUT A PROPERTY LINE HERE.
SO YOU KNOW, THIS COULD BE, THESE WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME OWNERSHIP AND THIS, IT WOULD BE ATYPICAL THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE TOWN HOMES AND A GAS STATION OR WHATEVER ELSE WOULD BE THERE.
AGAIN, AS DREW MENTIONED, GAS STATION'S ACTUALLY NOT A PERMITTED USE.
SO THEN IF IT, IF IT'S NOT A PERMITTED USE, IT CAN'T, THE BUILDING CAN STILL STAY.
IT CAN STAY, BUT IT CAN'T BE REUTILIZED AS A GAS STATION.
THERE'S NO APPROVAL FOR ANY OPERATION OF IT.
IT CAN BE USED FOR BOAT TOURISM.
IT'S, THERE ARE SOME USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THE WATERFRONT DISTRICT.
THEY'RE FAIRLY LIMITED, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE COMMERCIAL.
SO HE'S ONLY GONNA DEVELOP ONE PORTION OF THAT.
AND FOR NOW, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S, YOU ARE GONNA COME BACK TO US WITH THAT.
[00:30:01]
WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER, YEAH.AND I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THERE, THIS ISN'T LIKE, OH LET'S GET THIS, IT'LL COME BACK.
THERE ARE NO PLANS SIMILAR TO THE MINI STORAGE PROJECT.
THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK WITH A MINOR SUBDIVISION DIVIDE OFF THAT FRONT PIECE.
WE'RE GONNA MAKE AN APPROVAL OF THAT SUBDIVISION.
WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT CLEAR AS THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S NO APPROVED USE ON THAT, ON THAT FRONT PROPERTY.
THAT ANYTHING THAT GOES IN THERE, WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR MEMBERS.
I JUST SAW TO SNEAK IN ANOTHER, YOU KNOW.
IT'S LIKE THE TALK WE HAD WITH THE DOLLAR GENERAL DOWN HERE BY THE LAKE AND THEY WERE GONNA SPLIT IT AND WE DECIDED THE OTHER HALF OF THE LOCK WAS MOSTLY WETLAND, WASN'T A VERY USABLE LOT.
SO WE DECIDED NOT TO LET THEM SPLIT IN.
YOU COULD PUT SOME RESTRICTIONS ON IT AS PART OF YOUR APPROVAL.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE WAS THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT.
I BELIEVE WHAT THEY WERE CREATING WAS A LOT THAT REALLY WASN'T USABLE.
OR THIS WOULD BE A USABLE, WELL WE'D HAVE TO DETERMINE IF IT'S A USABLE LOT.
HAS ENOUGH AREA FOR PARKING AND MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE USE YET.
WE STILL HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT COULD GO THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT ALLOT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A USE.
I DON'T, ALSO DON'T, DON'T WANNA CREATE A USELESS SLOT EITHER.
YOU DON'T WANNA CREATE A SYSTEM.
I'M JUST SAYING WE MIGHT PROGRAM, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SPLIT.
WELL, THEY MIGHT DO IT AFTER THEY DO.
AGAIN, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE FUTURES.
CHRIS DOES MENTION A GOOD POINT.
KEEP IN MIND WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SPLIT IT TILL AFTER THE BROWNFIELD CLEANUP OCCURS.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECT.
SO BILL, I WOULD ASK THIS TO BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE LEAD AGENCY REQUEST.
SO OUR NEXT AGENDA IS FEBRUARY 2ND.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT? IS IT FORWARD SECOND? I THOUGHT IT WAS THE FIRST FEBRUARY 1ST.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE HAMBURG RETAIL TO FEBRUARY 1ST.
IT'S A MOTION BY BILL, SECOND BY J.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 3 8 0 0 HOOVER ROAD, LLC REQUESTED SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION ON A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN UNIT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AT 3 8 0 0 HOOVER ROAD.
AND THIS IS THE SAME SEEKER ISSUES.
DID A LEAD AGENCY LETTER GO OUT OF THIS ONE TOO? YEAH.
IS THIS, I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT LLC, BUT IS IT THE SAME? YEAH.
ALLOCATE DEVELOPMENT IS THE ACTUAL RIGHT OWNER OF BOTH THESE POLICIES.
THIS ONE HAS ALL THE SAME ISSUES EXCEPT THROW IN A HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
AND IS IT, IT'S NO LONGER DOCK OF THE BAY.
OR LISA IS THIS ONE THOUGH, IN A FLOOD PLAIN? WHAT? PLAIN? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I THINK THE FLOOD PLAIN BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE, THE WALL HERE.
I DON'T THINK IT IS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
WE'LL, WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT.
THAT WOULD ADD MORE OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS.
IF IT'S IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, IT WOULD.
SO THIS ONE'S ALSO ON THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THAT WAS THIS ONE INFRONT DISTRICT.
AND THE WATER, IF THIS BECOMES PRIVATE HOUSING, THEN DOES THE TOWN LOSE THE QUASI-PUBLIC USE OF THAT BEACH SPACE? 'CAUSE WHEN IT'S A RESTAURANT, YOU CAN GO THERE AND DRINK AND PLAY VOLLEYBALL AND THEY HOST LIKE COMMUNITY EVENTS.
I MEAN, IT, IT'LL STILL BE RENTALS.
IT'S OWNED BY ELEGANT DEVELOPMENT.
WHO OWNS THE RESTAURANT ALSO, RIGHT? SO I MEAN THE ACCESS, WE PURPOSELY LEFT THE ACCESS IN THERE THAT YOU CURRENTLY USE TO GET TO THE, THE BEACH AND WHATEVER.
SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MAIN FOR THE RESIDENTS, FOR ANYBODY.
'CAUSE THE, THE RESTAURANT'S STAYING STAY, YOU'RE GONNA ASK TO SEPARATE THE TWO PROPERTIES IN AS A CONDITION OF SITE PLAN.
SO LET ME, LET ME BRING UP TO SPEED AS ONE IMPORTANT TOPIC.
AND YOU KNOW, THE TOWN HAS A HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD NOW.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THAT ALREADY, IT'S ON IT WAY TO
YEAH, SO I, WHEN I WENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON JANUARY 3RD, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF, UM, THAT BOARD IS ALSO ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.
AND WE WERE ADVISED BY HER AS WELL AS THE CHAIRMAN, THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED, I BELIEVE ON DECEMBER 29TH TO DESIGNATE THAT AS THE FIRST LOCAL LANDMARK PURSUANT TO THE RELATIVELY RECENT TOWN OF HAMBURG HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAW.
WHAT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, SARAH ACTUALLY PROVIDED ME WITH THE APPLICATION TODAY.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTIONS TO DEMOLISH THAT BUILDING.
SO IF AND WHEN ULTIMATELY THAT IS DESIGNATED, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY CREATE A PROPERTY LINE.
SO THE DESIGNATION WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE ENTIRE SITE.
OBVIOUSLY WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE DESIGNATION IS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
SO I DO WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR.
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SITUATION IN TERMS OF PERMITTED USES PERMIT REQUIRED A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
THE ONLY TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS ARE, AS I INDICATED, HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT TWO OF THE ADJOINING PROP OWNERS DID ATTEND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.
[00:35:01]
AND I TOLD THEM WE'D ENGAGE IN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS.THEY DID HAVE THAT VERY SAME QUESTION ABOUT BEACH ACCESS AND THE, THE USE, UM, ISSUE IS THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THAT'S THE ONLY USE ISSUE IS RESIDENTIAL IS NOT ALLOWABLE.
RESIDENTIAL IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
AND WHEN WE DID THE LAST LWRP, WHEN YOU DO WATERFRONT USES THE STATE OF NEW YORK REQUESTED THAT WE CREATE A NEW ZONING DISTRICT THAT COMMERCIALLY RELATED THAT WERE FOR WATERFRONT DEPENDENT AND WATERFRONT ENHANCED USES.
WE DID NOT THINK AT THAT TIME THAT RESIDENTIAL WAS THE, FOR THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES THAT WERE ZONED WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING FOR USE VARIANCE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THAT IF THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S CRITERIA TO MEET THE USE VARIANCE.
SO IT'S UP TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
I CAN'T TOUCH ON WHAT THEY DO, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THEIR CRITERIA.
BUT I WOULD, BUT I WOULD NOTE AGAIN, IT'S A DECISION MADE BY THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE USES PERMIT IN THAT DISTRICT, THEY'RE LITERALLY LIMITED IN THE FOLLOWING.
MARINAS, DOCKS AND BOATYARDS VISITORS AND CONFERENCE CENTERS AND MARITIME MUSEUMS, HOTELS AND MOTELS.
NEITHER THESE SITES ARE BIG ENOUGH RESTAURANTS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS, BUT A RESTAURANT.
FISHING SUPPORT FACILITIES, BOAT LAUNCH FACILITIES, AND OTHER TOURISM RELATED USES.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY PERMITTED USES IN THAT DISTRICT FROM A BROADER PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.
WHILE THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ISSUE TO HAVE TO LOOK AT LATER, YOU KNOW, MANY MUNICIPALITIES NOWADAYS ARE ENCOURAGING HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL USES ON WATERFRONTS AS LONG AS THEY'RE DONE.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE THE TOWN SHOULD CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE.
BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DISTRICT, THERE'S JUST NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO.
WHAT, UM, WHAT'S THE, THIS IS FURTHER BACK FROM THE ROAD.
SO WHAT IS THE LAKEFRONT RISK WITH ADDING MORE RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE INTO THE HOOVER BEACH CORRIDOR? THINKING BACK TO LIKE THE HALLOWEEN STORM AND HOOVER BEACH JUST HAD TO GET EVACUATED DURING THE BLIZZARD.
AND ARE WE ADDING MORE OF A BURDEN BY ADDING MORE HUMANS THIS CLOSE TO THE LAKE OR DOCKED FURTHER, FURTHER BACK? BECAUSE HOOVER BEACH RE HOMES ARE A PROBLEM FOR EVERYBODY.
THERE'S A BRICK WALL THAT'S OUT HERE.
AND THERE'S THAT SAND AREA THEY USE FOR VOLLEYBALL.
IN BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE UNITS AND THAT BRICK WALL OR RETAINING WALL.
SO THAT IS A, THAT IS A RETAINING WALL.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL THAT RUNS ALONG.
THERE'S A LARGE, THERE'S NOT A BEACH THAT GOES LIKE DOWN THE WATER.
THERE IS NOT A BEACH THAT GOES NO.
THEY'RE SAND HERE THAT THE RESTAURANT USED IN THE PAST FOR BEACH VOLLEYBALL STUFF AND IT'S SUSTAINED NO DAMAGE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF STORMS HERE.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A BIG PATIO OUT HERE AND THEN A NOT OUTDOOR BAR OUT THERE.
OR THE BREAK WALL HAS NOT SUSTAINED ANY DAMAGES.
I, THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN AS WELL.
THERE'S A LOT OF HICCUPS THAT YOU WANNA BUILD RIGHT ON THE LAKE.
ESPECIALLY IN THERE WITH THE HISTORY THAT'S BEEN FORMING UP AND DOWN THAT AREA WITH THE, WITH THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE OF THE STORMS THAT ARE GOING ON.
I I WOULD HAVE TO RESERVE MY RIGHT FOR THE ZONING BOARD WHAT THE ZBA HAS TO SAY.
AND I THINK THE ZBA, WHETHER A ZBA OR US, WE WILL WORK WITH THE EMERGE.
UH, WHAT'S THE COMMITTEE? THE TOWN HAS THE
BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE THEY DEALT WITH ALL THOSE EMERGENCIES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF THE HOT WIND, HIGH LAKE CONDITIONS, ET CETERA.
THEY'LL KNOW OF ANY ISSUES THAT OCCURRED HERE.
SO THEY WOULD BE A GOOD, GOOD GROUP TO, UH, COORDINATE WITH, WHETHER IT'S THE ZBA OR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT, AND THE LWRP WILL COME INTO PLAY AS WELL.
WE JUST HAVE TO BE COMPLIANCE.
WELL, AND THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT.
UM, FOR THEM, FOR THE ZBA TO MAKE A USE DECISION, THE USE VARIANCE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE THE WATER, THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE, ON THE, A CONSISTENCY.
I JUST HAVE TO CHECK THE LAW WHETHER THE ZBA HAS THE ABILITY TO ISSUE THE COASTAL CONSISTENCY OR IT HAS TO BE THE PLANNING BOARD.
I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN.
I HAVE A FEELING WE WEREN'T MAKING AN ACTION TONIGHT.
SO, BUT I HAVE TO FIND OUT IN THOSE LAWS, THEY DETERMINE WHO HAS THE CAPABILITY OF, OF MAKING THAT COASTAL CONSISTENCY APPROVED APPROVAL.
THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEE MAKES A RECOMMENDATION.
THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T MAKE THE ACTUAL APPROVAL.
WELL THAT'S, I THINK WE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW MEMBERS AND THIS BEING A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, WE SHOULD HAVE SOME PROCEDURAL CONVERSATIONS ON IT.
THE SECRET LEAD AGENCY LETTER WENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND NOT TO US, BUT WE HAVE TO APPROVE THAT.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THERE CONSISTENTLY WE'RE, WE ARE WORKING ON THAT ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
ESPECIALLY ON THE PROCESS PROCEDURE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF APPROVALS HERE, A LOT OF BOARDS INVOLVED, HOW IT'S GONNA WORK AND HOW IT'S GOING TO, UH, GO FORWARD.
SO WE'RE GONNA PUT TOGETHER, AND THAT'S WHY BY THE NEXT MEETING WITH THIS REQUEST FROM THE Z B'S GONNA GO OUT HOW THIS IS GONNA
[00:40:01]
WORK.OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANTS ARE GONNA KNOW THAT TOO.
ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, SO I'LL
UM, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ONE TO FEBRUARY 1ST, ALSO SECOND.
I WAS LOOKING FOR THE CLOCK BACK THERE.
WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GOT INTRODUCED TO OUR NEW MEMBER.
SO, SO CYNTHIA, SHE WAS, UH, CINDY.
ON PLANNING BOARD AND WHERE WAS IT? NO, FIVE MICHIGAN.
FOR HOW LONG? UH, WELL BETWEEN ZONING AND PLANNING.
SO A NEW MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION.
A NEW MEMBER WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE.
SO I JUST GOTTA TALK TO ATTORNEY REAL QUICK.
THE REGULAR MEETING WILL START IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
[00:49:07]
TO THE JANUARY 18TH MEETING AT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD.PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MARCO, DID YOU CHECK THE FACEBOOK WORKING? DID EVERYBODY CHECK WORKING JUDGE BILL RECORDING ON.
OKAY, I, NO, I DIDN'T PAUSE IT.
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION BY DAVE MANKO TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD SOUTH OF BIGTREE RIVER.
BILL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS GOT A BIG PACKET TONIGHT FROM US.
THERE'S A LOT OF NEW STUFF, BUT IN THERE IS A SCOPING DOCUMENT
[00:50:01]
IF YOU WANT TO TAKE NOTES WITH IT.WE, WE STARTED TO, TO PUT OUR COMMENTS IN THERE.
BUT THEN YOU CAN DO IN THE PACKET AS THE PACKET JOSH AT THE BACK OF YOUR PACKET WOULD BE A SCOPING DOCUMENT.
WE TOOK THEIR DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENTS, STARTED TO PUT COMMENTS TO IT.
BUT OBVIOUSLY DURING TONIGHT'S PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING, IF WE WANT TO CARRY ALONG AND, AND MAKE COMMENTS ON YOUR SCOPING DOCUMENT.
THE DOCUMENTARY WHILE I HAND THAT OUT, DO YOU WANT ME TO DO A QUICK FOR YOU GUYS KNOW WE POSITIVE DECK A PROJECT A LITTLE WHILE AGO? YOU'VE GOT A DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT FROM THE APPLICANT UNDER THE SECRET LAW.
THE SCOPING DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES THOSE THINGS ARE GONNA BE STUDIED, HOW THEY'RE GONNA BE STUDIED, ELIMINATING WHAT'S NOT GONNA BE STUDIED IN THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
WE NOW HAVE TO TAKE THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT WITH 60 DAYS AND PRODUCE A FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD.
WE HAVE TO OFFER THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT SCOPING DOCUMENT AND GET OTHER AGENCIES TO COMMENT SO WE CAN FINALIZE THAT SCOPING DOCUMENT, WHICH IS TELLING THEM WHAT HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, WHAT HAS TO BE STUDIED, HOW HAS TO BE STUDIED, WHAT MITIGATIONS MAYBE THEY SHOULD LOOK AT, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT AFTER THEY DO THEIR PRESENTATION.
'CAUSE AGAIN, I THINK THE PRESENTATION'S WORKING 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS PROJECT IN LITTLE WHILE.
THE PLANNING BOARD GOT REINTRODUCED TO IT.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN OVER A YEAR.
SO WHAT THIS PROJECT'S ABOUT AND WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AREA BILL, SORRY, BACK TO YOU.
WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE MORE THAN HALF THE PLANNING BOARD'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT WHEN WE SIGNED ON THIS.
UM, SO THE, THE CURRENT DRAFT IS NOT AVAILABLE.
WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHEN IT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO GO TO THE PUBLIC, CORRECT? WELL IT'S AVAILABLE ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE, RIGHT? IT IS.
THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE CAN COMMENT ON.
WE THEN HAVE TO PUT THE FINAL ONE TOGETHER, WHICH GOES TO THE APPLICANT.
THE NEXT STEP IS ONCE THE EIS COMES IN, THE DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT COMES IN, YOU'LL DETERMINE WHEN IT'S COMPLETE.
WHEN IT'S COMPLETE WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY'LL GET THE COMMENT ON THAT DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE SCOPING DOCUMENT.
WE HAVE TO ADOPT ONE BY OUR NEXT MEETING.
I MEAN THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED, BUT WE'RE GONNA TRY TO MEET THE SCHEDULE OF THE SECRET LAW, WHICH IS BY NEXT MEETING TO ADOPT THE FINAL SCOPE OF DOCUMENT.
WE'RE GONNA DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO DO THAT.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO IDENTIFY THINGS IN THE, THE APPLICANT'S DRAFT SCOPE THAT WE THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BETTER, MORE THOROUGHLY.
UH, IDENTIFY ANYTHING THAT'S MISSING.
IT'S BENEFICIAL TO YOU AND THE APPLICANT.
THEY'VE GUESSED THAT WHAT YOU THINK YOU, THEY HAVE THE STUDY BASED UPON YOUR COMMENTS AND OUR POSITIVE DECK.
WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT AND MAKE SURE WE GET WHAT WE WANT.
OUT OF THE DOCUMENT THAT'S FOR THE PUBLIC TOO, I'LL SAY.
SEAN HOPKINS WILL LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS SURGEON MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
ALSO WITH ME IS CHRIS WOOD AS THE CHAIRMAN INDICATED THERE'S BEEN SOME TURNOVER ON THE THE BOARD SINCE THIS WAS LAST PRESENTED IN 2021.
SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND THE TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT ULTIMATELY WILL BE ON THE TABLE AT SOME FUTURE DATE WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ISSUE A DECISION ON THIS PROJECT.
SO WHEN THE POSITIVE DECLARATION WAS ISSUED, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL WATER REVIEW ACT IN THE FALL OF 2021, THERE WERE TWO SPECIFIC TOPICS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS INVOLVING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AND THAT WAS AFTER DISCUSSION OVER THE COURSE OF COUNTLESS MEETINGS, THE PREPARATION OF AN ENHANCED PART TWO OF THE AF AND PART THREE OF THE AF AS A CHAIRMAN WILL RECALL A SEPARATE COMMITTEE FORM TO TAKE A LOOK AT A WIDE ASSORTMENT OF ISSUES.
AND THOSE TWO TOPICS WERE AS FOLLOWS, IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER LARGELY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SMALL WETLAND LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE TO SHOWN OVER HERE.
AND THEN THE SECOND IMPACT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT WAS CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLAN AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACT THAT WHILE NOT ZONED FOR IT, HISTORICALLY THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.
THE REASON WHY I MENTION THOSE TWO TOPICS SPECIFICALLY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE PURPOSE OF SCOPING PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUARTER REVIEW LAW IN IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS IS TO TRY AND NARROW WHAT WILL BE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, NOT EXPAND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
THE PLANNING BOARD REALLY DID DO A THOROUGH JOB IN TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OBJECTIVE.
SO THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT THAT WE SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 7TH OF LAST
[00:55:01]
YEAR PROBABLY ACTUALLY GOES BEYOND WHAT I THINK WAS ULTIMATELY REQUIRED PER THE PLANNING BOARD'S POSITIVE DECLARATION.WHEN WE GET THE FINAL VERSION, WE'LL ADDRESS IT.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WANNA START WITH WHERE WE ORIGINALLY BEGAN.
WE ORIGINALLY BEGAN PROBABLY GOING BACK INTO 2020 I THINK WAS WHAT WAS AN AS OF RIGHT SUBDIVISION ON THIS 35.3 ACRE SITE THAT IS PROPERLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
AND WHAT THAT AS OF RIGHT SUBDIVISION SHOWS IS A 67 LOT SUBDIVISION PUBLIC ROADS, TWO ACCESS POINTS ONTO PARKER ROAD, PRESERVING SOME GREEN SPACE ON THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DITCH.
OBVIOUSLY PROVIDING ADEQUATE SPACE FOR REQUIRED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS, ALL SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND ENGINEERING TO BE CONDUCTED BY CHRIS.
AND OF COURSE REVIEWED BY THE TOWN'S ENGINEERING CONSULTANT.
OPTION TWO, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS BY THE APPLICANT.
ALSO BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS IS WHAT WE CALL A CLUSTER PLAN.
CLUSTERING IS PERMITTED IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ZONING CODE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
AND WE THINK IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INSTANCE, IN THIS INSTANCE, WE HAVE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT WE'RE SHOWING UNDER THE CLUSTER LAYOUT IS INSTEAD OF 67 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THE 35.3 ACRE SITE, WE'RE SHOWING 60 LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IN ADDITION, UNLIKE THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN, WHICH YOU SAW PREVIOUSLY, THIS PLAN WOULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE 15.3 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
LITERALLY HALF OF THIS SITE WOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.
AND THOSE AREAS IMPORTANTLY WOULD INCLUDE THE PARKER ROAD FRONTAGE.
A TOPIC THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AGAIN AND AGAIN AS IMPORTANT BY THE PLANNING BOARD AS WELL AS NEARBY RESIDENCE.
WE WOULD HAVE A WALKING TRAIL WHICH WOULD CONNECT TO THE ADJACENT GLEN WETZEL PROJECT.
WE HAVE BERMS AND LANDSCAPING.
WE HAVE SOME GREEN SPACE OUT ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
WE REALLY THINK THIS IS A MUCH IMPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO THE AS OF RIGHT LAYOUT.
DO I RECALL CORRECTLY THAT ONE OF THOSE ACCESS POINTS IS ALSO EMERGENCY ONLY? YES.
THIS, THIS ONE'S EMERGENCY ONLY.
SO UNDER THIS POINT, UNDER THE, UNDER THE CLUSTERING PLAN, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC ROAD ACCESS POINT AND ONE ACCESS POINT THAT WHILE WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO INSTALL IT, WE'D BE INSTALLING IT.
IT WOULD BE FOR GATED EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.
IN THE EVENT THAT ROADWAY IS BLOCKED, THERE'D BE AN XBOX EMERGENCY.
PERSONNEL WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE SITE.
WE'D BE IMPLEMENTING EXTENSIVE WALKING TRAILS, EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING PLAYING BOARD, SPENT A LOT OF TIME HELPING US IDENTIFY WHERE THAT LANDSCAPING IN BERMS WOULD GO.
AND THEN ANOTHER TOPIC THAT WAS IMPORTANT, PRIMARILY ACTUALLY TO MR. MCCORICK WHO'S NOT HERE THIS EVENING, IS WHILE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUIREMENTS, WHAT WE COULD DO UNDER THE CLUSTERED LAYOUT IS PROVIDE A DENSE RIP BUFFER PRESERVE THAT DITCH AND AND ENHANCE THAT DITCH AND EARTH DIMENSION.
SPECIFICALLY SCOTT LIVINGSTON WAS RETAINED TO COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR THAT DITCH RESTORATION THAT INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE PROJECT SITE WHICH WOULD WIND THROUGH THIS FIRM OPEN SPACE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE ON CLUSTERING, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE ADJACENT WETZEL PROJECT.
IT PROVIDES EXTENSIVE PLANTINGS PER THE DEC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANTINGS IN SUCH AN AREA.
SO WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE SOME REAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THAT DITCH.
SO IT NOT ONLY FUNCTIONS AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES, BUT ACTUALLY ACTS AS AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING RIP PERIAN BUFFER.
WE THINK THERE'S SOME NEIGHBORS HERE.
THE NEIGHBORS PREVIOUSLY HAVE EXPRESSED A CLEAR PREFERENCE FOR THE CLUSTERED LAYOUT.
ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT DID COME UP WHEN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD WAS, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE FORMER ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MR. GIBSON, SAYING HE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT CLUSTERING WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
IN RESPONSE TO THAT, SOME OF YOU RECALL, CHRIS WOOD CAME UP WITH SOME PLANS AND THESE PLANS REPRESENT WILL BE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZES ON THOSE CLUSTER LOTS.
AND THOSE PLANS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FRONT YARD, THE COMBINED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, WHILE THEY'RE CLUSTERED BLOCKS FOR CLUSTERED BLOCKS IN WEST NEW YORK OR ELSEWHERE, THEY'RE STILL FAIRLY LARGE.
THEY HAVE 75 FOOT OF WIDTH AND DEPTH OF 140 FEET GENERAL.
SO THEY HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE ROOM, COMPLY WITH FRONT YARD SETBACKS, SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND STILL LEAVE A RELATIVELY LARGE BACKYARD IN ADDITION TO HALF OF THE SITE NEARLY BEING PRESERVED.
HOW MUCH AS PER OPEN SPACE, WHAT DID YOU SAY? HOW MUCH SETBACKS DID FOR THE FRONT YARD BACKYARD? WORST CASE BACKYARD.
WE HAD 52 FEET OF GREEN SPACE.
AND REMEMBER NOW UNDER THE CLUSTER PLAN, MANY OF THOSE LOTS ACTUALLY BACK UP TO MORE GREEN SPACE IN THE FRONT.
[01:00:02]
TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.BECAUSE I, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT AND I, WE WENT OVER SOME IDEAS TO RIGHT TO, TO DEAL WITH THIS.
UM, I KNOW SIDE YARDS WE 15 TOTAL FIVE, ONE SIDE 10 ON ANOTHER PROPERTY LINE.
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT NUMBERS WE CAME UP WITH FOR THE FRONT AND THE BACK, BUT 30 AND 52 EXCEED THOSE NUMBERS.
BUT THE WIDEST, THE WIDEST HOUSE WE HAVE HAS EIGHT AND A HALF FEET ON EACH SIDE.
THAT'S AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE OPTIONAL BUMP OUT HERE AND THE OPTIONAL COVERED PATIOS AND AND SUNROOM AND STUFF IN THE BACK.
AND AS YOU RECALL, CHAIRMAN CLARK, WE DID THESE PLANS IN RESPONSE TO THAT COMMENT.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT COMMENT DID COME UP AND WE DID, WE DID ADDRESS IT.
SO ALL THESE ARE CLUSTERED LOTS.
THEY'RE NOT MINUSCULE TINY LOTS.
THEY CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE THE PRODUCT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? WE DO.
I DO SHOW THE SHED IN THE BACK TOO.
IT'S 12 BY TWO SO YOU CAN SEE IT DOESN'T TAKE UP THE ENTIRE BACKYARD.
WELL YEAH BUT SINCE WE, WE HAD THIS ISSUE, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE LOCAL CLUSTER LAW.
UM, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME BENEFITS TO IT AND THERE'S SOME DRAWBACKS IN HOW TO FIND THE HAPPY MEDIUM.
RIGHT? SO WE, WE WERE HAVING PROBLEMS ON LIKE THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BOX WHERE SOMEBODY WAS BUILDING A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO BACKYARDS AND PEOPLE WERE COMING IN TRYING TO GET VARIANCES FOR, FOR SHEDS IN THE BACK.
AND THEY ALSO HAD PROBLEMS, ALTHOUGH IT'S A GOOD NEW URBANIST TECHNIQUE, PUTTING THE BUILDINGS CLOSE TO THE ROAD, IT ALSO CAUSES PROBLEMS WITH UTILITIES IN THE FRONT.
THE TOWN WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE UTILITY LOCATIONS, THE FRONT.
SO THERE WAS SOME CONCERN OVER THE REAL SMALL, THE BUILDING'S BEING CLOSE TO THE ROAD ALSO IS WHEN PEOPLE PARK IN FRONT OF IT, THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS.
SO I DO WANNA KNOW WHAT MR. RILEY MEANS BY THAT.
AND THIS IS COMMON AND YOU SHOULD PROBABLY START WESTERN YORK.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THEIR CLUSTERING IN YOUR CODE IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
YOU HAVE SOME INSTANCES IN HAMBURG WHERE THERE ARE LOTS THAT ARE 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE HERE UNDER OUR CLUSTER LAYOUT IS DOUBLE THAT SIZE 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO IT CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE A HOME, A DECK, A PATIO.
THE TYPICAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT AS DREW MENTIONED, WHEN YOU HAVE A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A BIG DECK ON THEIR BACK, GUESS WHAT? THEY HAVE A PROBLEM 'CAUSE A LOT'S SIMPLY NOT BIG ENOUGH.
WE CAN ACCOMMODATE ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
WHY IS THIS BENEFICIAL? FROM THE TOWN'S PERSPECTIVE? WE THINK IT'S CLEARLY BENEFICIAL FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S PERSPECTIVE.
WE THINK IT RESULTS IN A MUCH NICER COMMUNITY.
ONE OF THE KEY BENEFITS OF CLUSTERING IS REDUCED INFRASTRUCTURE.
OBVIOUSLY THE TOWN MAINTAINS PUBLIC ROADS.
SO IF YOU CAN REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ROADS, OBVIOUSLY YOU REDUCE THAT RECURRING COST ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE AND EVENTUAL REPLACEMENT OF THAT ROAD.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
AND THEN THE FINAL NOTE THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IS ONE OF THE BIG TOPICS THAT COMES UP IN CONNECTION WITH NEARLY ALL THE FAIRWAY SUBSTANTIAL PROJECTS IS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.
OF COURSE WE'RE ALSO HAVING A CORRELATING REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND ALSO PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THAT DITCH IN THE WETLAND ON SITE.
SO WE THINK IF YOU TAKE ALL THOSE CLUSTERING FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION AND YOU'RE NOT MAKING THIS DECISION EVENING, THE CLUSTERED LAYOUT IS FAR PREFERENTIAL TO THE
AND THAT'S WHY DENNIS ASKED THAT QUESTION.
THE WHAT'S BEING ANALYZED IN THE EIS IS THE REGULAR LAYOUT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED.
BUT AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THEY'RE TRYING TO SHOW YOU THAT THE CLUSTER HAS LESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
YOU STILL WOULD'VE TO MAKE A DECISION ON ALLOWING THE CLUSTER, THE DECISION WE VOTED ON WAS THE FIRST PROJECT, NOT THE CLUSTER.
AND WE DECIDED THAT THAT CREATED SOME ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AND THE APPLICANT PART OF THEIR COMING BACK THROUGH THE SEEKER PROCESS, THEY'RE SAYING THE CLUSTER MITIGATES A LOT OF THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WE IDENTIFIED IN OUR POSITIVE DECK.
SO YOU'RE USING THE CLUSTER AS A MITIGATION FOR WHAT WE CAME UP WITH.
AND AS AS AN ALTERNATIVE, MR. CHAPMAN, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT SEEKER SAYS WE SHOULD BE DOING.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A DECISION ON THAT.
I JUST WANT TO TEE IT UP, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME NEW PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.
CAN CAN WE SEE THE NOT CLUSTER LAYOUT AGAIN? AND JUST TO, SO I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I KNOW THIS WAS BEFORE J AND I'S TIME, RIGHT? YES.
UM, AND WE HAVE A BRAND NEW PERSON.
UM, WE'RE TALKING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A PRIVATE ROAD IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY.
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD EITHER, EITHER WAY IT'S BUNK ROAD.
SO THIS RING ROAD IS PUBLIC ROAD THEN.
I WAS CONFUSED BY THE SNOW PLOWING COMMENT.
AND THEN CAN WE JUST BACK IT UP TO HOW, I'M SORRY FOR THOSE QUESTIONS UP.
HOW IT RELATES TO THE WEZEL PROJECT.
LIKE I'M HAPPY TO SEE THIS ALL TOGETHER, BUT LIKE WHY ARE THESE MARRIED TOGETHER? I CAN TELL YOU WHY.
NUMBER ONE, THEY WERE BEING REVIEWED AT THE SAME TIME.
THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE, COMPLETELY SEPARATE ORDERS.
CHRIS AND I HAPPEN TO BE INVOLVED WITH BOTH, BUT THEY WERE GOING IN FRONT OF THE BOARDS AT THE SAME TIME.
AND SECONDLY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
BOTH PROJECTS WERE BEING PROPOSED AT THE SAME TIME.
WE HAVE THAT CREEK THAT CROSSES THE SITE.
YOU HAVE CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
[01:05:01]
ULTIMATELY, WHILE WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT YET FOR THE WETZEL PROJECT, I HOPE TO HAVE THAT IN BY THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THESE ARE GONNA PROBABLY HAVE TO REVIEW, BE REVIEWED ALONG SOME KIND OF PARALLEL PATH.WITH THAT BEING SAID, ONE PROJECT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE APPROVED FOR THE OTHER TO OCCUR OR VICE VERSA.
AND REMEMBER, REMEMBER THE WETZEL PROJECT IS A REZONING.
RIGHT? THE TOWN BOARD ALLOWED YOU TO BE LEAD AGENCY 'CAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS BEST THAT THE PROJECTS BE REVIEWED TOGETHER.
WE'RE NOT MAKING THE APPLICANTS DO ONE SINGLE EIS BUT EACH EIS HAS TO LOOK AT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE OTHER PROJECT BECAUSE EACH WILL HAVE ITS OWN DECISION.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ISSUE A, YOU KNOW, NEGATIVE FINDINGS ON THE ONE PROJECT AND A POSITIVE FINDINGS ON THE OTHER.
SO THEY'RE, THEY HAVE TO CONSIDER EACH OTHER.
BUT WE'RE RUNNING 'EM AS TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS, WHICH ARE TWO SEPARATE APPLICANTS.
AND BY THE WAY, THE TOWN BOARD HAS TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION ON THE REZONING ON THE WET ZONE.
SO WE WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE DOWN ZONE FROM COMMERCIAL R THREE.
SO THANK YOU I YOU'RE WELCOME THEM ALL TOGETHER.
AND THEN MY, MY FINAL QUESTION IS JUST SOME CONTEXT OR PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT I'VE HEARD A DITCH A CREEK AND THERE'S SOME KIND OF WETLAND THAT'S GETTING A BIG PREPAR AND BUFFER FOR SOME KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REASON.
CAN YOU JUST WALK ME THROUGH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WATER BODY ON THIS? YEAH, SO LAND, SO WHAT I CALL A DITCH, THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CLASSIFIES AS A STREAM USING THEIR TERMINOLOGY.
WHO CARES ABOUT THAT? THIS IS A WATERWAY THAT'S SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO HAVE A SMALL WETLAND THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DITCH.
AND CHRIS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WE PROPOSING ANY IMPACT UNDER THE CURRENT PLANT OR THE WETLAND RIGHT HERE IN A TINY WETLAND IMPACT HERE.
SO THIS, THIS WETLAND IS 6 107 ACRE, WHICH IS HERE.
AND THEN THE ONE THAT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING AN IMPACT HERE IS 0.644 ACRES.
IT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT.
SO SORT OF UP HERE IN THIS GREEN SPACE.
ON BOTH SIDES WE'RE NOT PROPOSING IMPACTS.
IT DOES STRADDLE THE CREEK MOST OF THE ON OPPOSITE SIDE.
SO THERE ARE TWO SMALL WETLAND AREAS.
AND THE DITCH SLASH STREAM ACROSS SITE IS ALSO SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
I UNDERSTAND IT IS IMPORTANT NOTE.
THAT'S A FAIRLY MINOR STREAM OR IT'S NOT A NAVI WATERWAY.
AND IS IT, IS IT A, DO YOU KNOW, AND THIS WILL HAVE BE ADDRESS IN THE EYES.
IS IT A A NO CLASSIFIED, NO RUSH CREEK.
IS IT A TRIBUTARY OF RUSH CREEK? I BELIEVE IT IS, YES.
BECAUSE THE, THE CONSERVATION BOARD HAS POINTED OUT AND WHETHER YOU HAVE TO CHECK INTO THIS, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ADD TO IT, THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT HAS A PHOSPHORUS, PHOSPHORUS AND PATHOGEN ISSUES AND THAT SHOULD BE TIED IN THIS.
BUT WE'LL TRY TO CLARIFY THAT WITH THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
BUT THEY DIDN'T MAKE THAT COMMENT EARLY ON IN THE PROJECT THAT THIS WAS A TRIBUTARY RUSH CREEK, WHICH HAS SOME RESTRICTIONS ON IT.
RUSH CREEK ABOUT PHOSPHORUS AND PATHOGENS.
RUSH CREEK HAS A LOT OF LOADINGS.
IT DOES, UM, ONE PART OF THAT GREAT SHAPE AND PART OF THAT'S BECAUSE AGRICULTURAL USES MM-HMM
AND FOR, FOR THE STORMWATER STUFF WOULD BE A 3 0 3 D WATER BODY.
IF IT HAS PHOSPHORUS PROBLEMS STUFF IT MAY, I HAVE TO LOOK IT UP.
BUT UH, IF THAT DOES, THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS, THE PHOSPHORUS STUFF.
SO THAT IF I HAVE THE IMPACT TO SURFACE WATER THEN IS UM, NOT GOING TO BE FILL, IT'S GOING TO BE DISCHARGE.
RIGHT? WHAT'S THAT? THE IMPACT TO THE SURFACE WATER THAT'S RAISING THE FLAG IS NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE FILLING THE CREEK, THIS IS A DISCHARGE ISSUE.
IT'S A DISCHARGE NOT TOUCHING THE CREEK AND THERE HOPEFULLY ENHANCING IT.
BUT THERE ARE THE, AND THAT SAME, THAT SAME COMMENT FROM THE CAB CAME UP DURING RIGHT.
AND BY THE WAY, WE HAVE REPRESENTED CAB MAKE SURE THE CAB GETS OUR COMMENTS ON THE SCOPING DOCUMENT SO YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF THE, OUT OF THIS EIS SO AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET TO, TO US BY UNFORTUNATELY FEBRUARY 1ST.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL CONTEXT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE, SO THE, THE DRAINAGE IS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE WE PROBABLY NEED A BIT MORE IN THE SCOPING DOCUMENT.
SEAN WAS CORRECT THE PURPOSE OF ALWAYS CORRECT, BUT THE PURPOSE OF SCOPING IS TO NARROW IT.
BUT WE UNDERSTAND WE POSITIVE DECK BASED ON ONE OR TWO ACTIONS DOESN'T MEAN THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT NEED TO BE STUDIED.
WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A REASONABLE DOUBT.
I ALWAYS SAID WHEN I DO THE TRAININGS ABOUT STATE IS I DON'T WANNA SEE EISS THAT ARE ENCYCLOPEDIC IN NATURE.
I DO NOT WANNA SEE ABOUT HOW THE, HOW THE GLACIER CAME DOWN, DOWN, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER 10,000 YEARS AGO IN FORM TILL I WANNA, I WANNA KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND WHAT AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO STUDY HERE AND RESOLVE.
SO JUST, I JUST FINISHED WRITING THEM GLACIERS.
YEAH, I ALWAYS LIKE READING ABOUT THE GLACIERS BUT GLACIAL LAKES, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THAT SAID? THEY'RE GLACIAL LAKES.
YEAH, I KNOW, BUT I DON'T LIKE TO READ ABOUT 'EM IN EIS
[01:10:04]
SO BILL, I THINK THE PROCESS OF, WE'RE GONNA GET SOME PUBLIC INPUT TONIGHT.WE'RE GONNA INPUT FROM OTHER AGENCIES.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BECAUSE OF THE DEADLINE.
WE'RE GONNA SEND YOU THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS TOMORROW AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO START GETTING YOUR COMMENTS TO US SO WE CAN HAVE SOME SORT OF DOCUMENT READY FOR YOUR POTENTIAL ACTION AT YOUR FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING.
SO BEFORE WE OPEN IT PUBLIC, BUT ANY MORE COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I ACTUALLY HAD A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, DID YOU SEND THE PAPERWORK ESTABLISHING HOW THE CLUSTER, HOW CLUSTER, HOW THE CLUSTER PLAN SATISFIES THE, THE TOWN STATUTE? WE DID AT SOME POINT.
THERE'S A VERY DETAILED LETTER ACTUALLY SAW TODAY THAT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN AN 18 PAGE LETTER WHERE I DO ADDRESS THE CLUSTERING CRITERIA THAT WILL BE PACKAGED UP AND INCLUDED IN THE EIS AGAIN.
THE OTHER THING I WANNA NOTE ALSO, 'CAUSE CHRIS BROUGHT IT UP UNDER THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN.
WOW WE CAN PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT'S DELINEATED AS STREAM ONE, THE FEDERAL WATER.
WE CAN'T DO THE RIPARIAN BUFFER BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE ON LOTS.
THAT'S ONE OTHER BENEFIT AGAIN OF THE CLUSTER, ANOTHER CLUSTERING.
AND THAT'S VOLUNTARY DC NOR THE DC OR THE ARMY CORPS ASKING FOR THAT.
THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR BY THIS BOARD THEN THE ORIGINAL ONE.
I SEE THE LOTS GO INTO THE STREET.
UM, I NEED CLARIFICATION IF YOU WILL.
SO IT SAYS SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.
WE HAVE 67 LOTS FOR HOMES, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE DOWN TO 60 LOTS.
SO 67 67 UNDER THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN, THE, THE BASIS FOR THE POSITIVE DECLARATION.
BUT UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN, THE CLUSTERING PLAN, WE WOULD LOSE SEVEN LOTS.
WE PRIMARILY DO THAT BY ELIMINATING THE FRONTAGE LOTS.
WHICH IS WHAT, SO THE APPLICATION S WERE 67.
THE MITIGATION THAT THEY'RE OFFERING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT LED TO THE ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS TO REDUCE THE LOSS, TO CHANGE THE LAYOUT AND ADD THE 15.3 ACRES OF ROOF SPACE.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK JEB IS SAYING THAT THERE'S A LETTER FROM DREW EXPLAINING ALL OF THAT REASONING THAT YOU WERE RESENT TO US.
BUT THAT ALL, I MEAN THE CLUSTERING CRITERIA WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE A BUT, SO THE, THE BOARD VOTED THAT IT DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER THE TOWN CODE FOR CLUSTERING AS A SECRET MITIGATION.
SO WE CAN CONSIDER IT DIFFERENTLY.
WELL YOU DIDN'T VOTE, YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T GET YOU, YOU MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CLUSTER AND IT WAS NOT APPROVED, IT WASN'T NOT A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE.
YOU'RE JUST THINKING APPROVED.
SO THEIR APPLICATION HAS TO REMAIN THE 67 LOT APPLICATION.
THEY ARE OFFERING THE CLUSTER AS A MITIGATION AS THEY TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU AS, AS THEY BELIEVE.
AND THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO PROVE THAT IT'S A BETTER PLAN, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY AND THE CRITERIA OF MEETING THE CLUSTER LAW, WHICH SAYS WHY ARE WE ALLOWING CLUSTERS SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH CERTAIN THINGS IN THE TOWN AND FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NEARBY PROPERTY ORDERS.
SECOND, READ THE MEETING MINUTES, MR. CHAIR, COULD YOU VERIFY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON THIS EVENING? SO THIS EVENING WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE ON ANYTHING.
SO THEY SENT US, UH, WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THE FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT AND THE SCOPING DOCUMENT WILL BE OUR GUIDELINE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
THEY DID A DRAFT, WE UPDATED THE DRAFT A LITTLE BIT, WE ADDED SOME OF OUR COMMENTS TO IT.
WE'RE HOPING YOU'RE GONNA ADD YOUR COMMENTS, THE OTHER ADVISORY BOARD, THE PUBLIC, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA FINALIZE THAT DOCUMENT.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE SARAH DID DISTRIBUTE THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT TO WHY SHORT INVOLVED IN INTERESTED AGENCIES.
AS AS THE PLANNING, AS SOME OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS KNOW, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT STEP BECAUSE WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, WE'RE GONNA COMPARE IT TO THE SCOPING DOCUMENT AND MAKE SURE THEY DID WHAT WE ASK THEM TO DO.
AND IF THEY DON'T DO WHAT WE ASK THEM TO DO, WE CAN REJECT IT, MAKE THEM DO IT AGAIN.
BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT, THAT FIRST STEP OF, OF ACCEPTING THAT DOCUMENT SAYING THEY DID WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO.
AND SEAN WROTE THE LETTER, NOT DREW.
YEAH, WE WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE JOSH GETS THE CREDIT LEFT HERE.
SO ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY ON THE BOARD BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC? NOT DO WE HAVE A NOTICE FOR THIS ONE? NO, NO.
SO BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR ANY COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARKER ROAD PROJECT? OKAY.
CAN YOU COME UP AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE, SIR.
[01:15:01]
ROAD.UM, OBVIOUSLY, UH, MY MOTHER LIVES IN THE HOUSE AND THIS, THE WHOLE PLAN SINCE IT STARTED, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR THE CLUSTER.
'CAUSE TO US COMMON SENSE IS WE WANT MORE GREEN SPACE.
WE WANT, UH, LESS MITIGATION FOR NATURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO TO, TO THOSE OF US THAT LIVE IN THE AREA, THAT WAS COMMON SENSE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL WRANGLINGS AND EVERYTHING.
IT DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS A COMMUNITY, THE CLUSTER MORE GREEN SPACE.
THAT BEING SAID, IT'S GONNA BE INTERESTING ONCE THE STADIUM GOES IN AND ALL THE TRAFFIC CRANKS UP ON THAT ROAD, EVEN MORE SO THAN IT IS NOW.
UM, NOT SURE THAT THAT MAKES A BIT OF DIFFERENCE WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING A SUBDIVISION NOW ON THE CORNER, BUT, UM, I THINK IT'S JUST AN ADDED QUESTION MARK FOR THE, UM, FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND ALL THAT.
RIGHT NOW HAVING 60, HOPEFULLY ONLY 60 HOMES GOING INTO THAT AREA.
I MEAN, WHEN YOU'RE USED TO SEEING DEER OUT IN THE YARD OR THE BACKFIELD IN NATURE AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA SEE 60 HOUSES, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN THAT.
BUT JUST FROM OUR STANDPOINT, COMMON SENSE SAYS LET'S NOT PUT MORE HOUSES IN THERE THAN WE HAVE TO.
LESS MITIGATION IS BETTER, MORE GREEN SPACE IS BETTER.
SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
AND UNLIKE A PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE ASK CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS IF, IF YOU HAVE ANY.
COULD YOU CLARIFY WHO OUR, ACCORDING TO OUR, UH, OUTLOOK ON IT, WHO, WHO'S OUR, I MEAN WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING THE NAME DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE DID IT WHEN WE UM, DID A PETITION TWO YEARS, 2020 AND EVERYBODY PUT IN THERE THAT THEY'D RATHER SEE THE CLUSTER VERSUS THE REGULAR.
THAT'S WHEN I'M SAYING THE HOUR, IT WAS THE COMMUNITY THAT PUT THAT UP.
I THINK IF I GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL FIND WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE WANTED THE WRITE UP AND NORMALLY THEY DIDN'T WANT THE CLUSTER BACK THEN.
I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE EVERYBODY ON THERE, I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE.
SO, WELL HOLD ON ONE PERSON TALKING AT A TIME.
SO, SO, UH, UM, IS, IS THAT IT SIR? THAT'S ALL FOR ME.
SO ANYONE ELSE? YES, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR.
NO, THE GUY IN THE BACK REAL QUICK.
AND GETTING TO YOUR QUESTION ON THAT, WE DID HAVE A PETITION, I THINK I HAD PROBABLY THREE NAMES ON THERE.
ONE WOMAN OBJECTED, SHE HAS SINCE SOLD HER HOUSE AND MOVED
SO, YOU KNOW, SHE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE REGULAR SUBDIVISION.
WE WERE NOT, I MEAN TO ME THIS IS LIKE A NO BRAINER COMMON SENSE, MORE GREEN SPACE.
I MEAN, WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT KEEPING THE COUNTRY FEEL AND THE INTEGRITY OF HAMBURG.
I THINK THAT KIND OF ANSWERS THE QUESTION WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY ON THAT ROAD, A LOT OF THESE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN THERE 30 YEARS, LIKE MYSELF.
SO I YOU WERE AT 40 69? PARDON ME? YOU'RE AT 43 69? CORRECT.
SO I'M SMACKING ACROSS FROM THAT AND WE'LL SEE IF YOU CAN PUT THAT, IF WE HAVE THE RECORD OF THAT PETITION, YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR I I HAVE IT.
AND TO THANK YOU, ONE OF THE, THE POINTS YOU MADE WAS THE AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER AND AS MR. HOPKINS SAID, THE PLANNING BOARD SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WERE FRUIT TREES AS, AS AN HOMAGE TO THE AGRICULTURAL, UH, HISTORY OF THAT LOT.
SO ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTED TO MAKE COMMENTS? YES SIR.
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, HI, MY NAME IS JACK FOLEY.
I LIVE AT 47 26 JOHN MICHAEL WAY.
AND I'M PRETTY MUCH, I JUST WANNA ECHO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID.
UM, SPEAKING WITH MY NEIGHBORS ON JOHN MICHAEL WAY, THIS PROJECT COMES RIGHT INTO OUR BACKYARD.
UM, EVERYBODY THAT I'VE SPOKEN WITH ON JOHN MICHAEL WAY IN HARMONY IS TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE CLUSTER PLAN.
UH, PRIMARILY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GREEN SPACE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE FEEL WILL BE MUCH BETTER FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAN BACKYARDS.
BACKING UP TO OUR BACKYARDS BASICALLY.
UM, AND REALLY THE BACKYARDS WOULDN'T REALLY AFFECT ME.
I'M KIND OF IN THE CORNER BEHIND MY HOUSE WITH EITHER PLAN IS GOING TO BE THE WATER RETENTION AREA.
UH, SO I'M NOT REALLY GONNA BE AFFECTED BY BACKYARDS.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE AREA BACK THERE, AND I'VE WALKED IN THAT FIELD MANY TIMES, IT IS REALLY, REALLY WET BACK THERE.
AND IF PEOPLE ARE GONNA HAVE THEIR BACKYARDS WITH THE CONVENTIONAL PLAN BACKING UP THERE, IT'S GONNA BE CONSTANTLY
[01:20:01]
A, A WATER SITUATION.IT IT, I MEAN, WHEN WE HAVE ANY KIND OF SNOW MELT OFF OR ANY KIND OF HEAVY RAINS, WATER COMES INTO MY BACKYARD ON JOHN MICHAEL RIGHT NOW, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW IT WILL BE, UM, IF THEY HAVE OTHER PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS THERE.
I I CAN ONLY THINK IT'S GONNA BE WORSE, NOT BETTER.
THE, THE RETENTION PONDER I THINK WILL HOPEFULLY SOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES I HAVE AND MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HAS WITH WATER COMING OUT OF THAT FIELD.
UM, BUT, BUT I THINK EVERYONE I'VE TALKED TO AND I'VE GONE DOOR TO DOOR SINCE THIS PROJECT BEGAN TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, UH, EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE CLUSTER PLAN IS THE PLAN THAT SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR THIS.
IT'S, IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA WANT.
UH, IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR EVERYONE AND, UH, I URGE, UH, THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT PLAN AS BEING THE BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RECORD.
UH, NAME IS RICK KEMP AT 47 46.
WAY THE, UM, ONE OF THE POINTS ON THE WATER IS PRETTY BIG FOR US THAT THE FIELD, OUR BACKYARD SOMETIMES I CAN'T EVEN CUT IT TILL HALFWAY THROUGH THE SUMMER THE WAY IT IS NOW.
IF THERE'S YARDS BACK THERE, I THINK IT'S JUST GONNA BE TWICE AS BAD.
BUT IF THERE'S A RETENTION AND WATER CONTROL, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US A LOT.
I THE CLUSTER WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR US.
I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA LOOK OUT IN SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD WHEN I HAVE AN OPTION TO LOOK OUT INTO A 12 ACRE GREEN SPACE.
SO JUST ECHOING WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AND I HOPE YOU CONSIDER THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? BY THE WAY, THE COMMENT MADE ON THE BILL STADIUM, I DID INCLUDE THAT UNDER CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
I THINK YOU CAN GET YOUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO TALK TO, I BELIEVE IN MY READING OF IT, OF THE IMPACTS THAT THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BEING GENERATED IN THAT SCENARIO.
BUT YOU WOULD PUT THAT IN THAT, IN YOUR CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
DOES THE CHANGE IN THE STADIUM, I'M SORRY, DOES THE CHANGE IN THE STADIUM AFFECT THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON THAT STREET OUT THERE? MY NAME IS MICHAEL FROM 43 81 ON PARKER ROAD.
AND UH, I MEAN I TOTALLY CONCUR WITH, UH, THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE AS FAR AS THE CLUSTER PART OF IT.
BUT MY ONE CONCERN IS I JUST THINK THAT, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME TRAFFIC SURVEYS DONE AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT SOMEBODY CONSIDER THE STADIUM SITUATION BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT LEAST DURING THE TWO OR THREE, FOUR YEARS, WHATEVER IT IS OF CONSTRUCTION, THERE IS GONNA BE A SHIFT TO PARKING CLOSER TO PARKER ROAD.
AND I WILL ABSOLUTELY TELL YOU THAT THIS YEAR, MORE THAN EVER, UM, I'VE ALREADY NOTICED A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ON GAME DAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE USED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CARS GO BY AND, AND WHATEVER, THERE'S ACTUALLY LINES.
UH, THE OTHER DAY THERE WAS A LINE THAT WENT ALL THE WAY FROM, UH, BIG TREE, BIG, UH, BAYVIEW ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MY HOUSE AT 43 81 PARKER ROAD AND IT WAS STOPPED.
AND THAT WAS CARS LEAVING THE, THE STADIUM TO GO UP.
NOW, YOU KNOW, THIS CLUSTER, WHEN YOU START PUTTING SEVEN, EIGHT ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS ONTO PARKER ROAD AND STUFF, I JUST THINK IT'S, YOU'RE ASKING FOR EVEN MORE PROBLEMS. I THINK THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT CLUSTER WAS YOU HAD ONE INFERENCE, ONE DRIVE GOING IN AND OUT, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO US.
BUT AGAIN, I, I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME TYPE OF TRAFFIC SURVEY OR SOMETHING DONE BASED ON WHAT THE STADIUM IS DOING FOR THE NEXT THREE, FOUR YEARS WITH CONSTRUCTION.
'CAUSE UH, I KNOW EVENTUALLY THAT PARKING IS GONNA END UP WHERE THE EXISTING STADIUM IS, BUT THAT MAY BE EIGHT OR NINE YEARS FROM, FROM NOW.
FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN ON PLANS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE THE STADIUM'S UP, I DON'T THINK, I THINK THERE'S STILL ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO BEFORE THEIR PLANNING ON HAVING THAT, THAT, UH, EXISTING STADIUM CUT DOWN, WHICH MEANS THAT ALL THAT TRAFFIC IS GONNA BE TO THE LEFT SIDE OF ABBOTT ROAD AND SHIFTING, YOU KNOW, TOWARDS THE TOWN OF HAMBURGER.
I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED.
THERE IS A COMMENT ON FACEBOOK FROM A PERSON AT 47 12 JOHN MICHAEL WAY, WHO SAID, I AGREE WITH TIM COOK AND JACK FOLEY.
ALRIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WANTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME WE'LL CLOSE THE SCOPING SESSION.
UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE THIS ONE BACK ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE TABLE IT? AND AGAIN, ON JUST REQUEST IF THE PLANNING BOARD CAN REVIEW IT, GET US INPUT OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR 10 DAYS.
WE'LL GET INPUT FROM EVERYBODY, THEN CONSOLIDATE THE INPUT, GET IT BACK OUT TO YOU SO YOU HAVE A DRAFT.
I'M GONNA ALSO ASK SARAH TO MAKE SURE THAT
[01:25:01]
THE ADVISORY BOARDS HAVE, HAVE THE DOCUMENT, MAKE SURE WE GET INPUT FROM THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CONSERVATION BOARD, ESPECIALLY THOSE ARE, WELL I THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO BOARDS, RIGHT? IF WE CAN GET THEIR INPUT, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY MEET OR IF THEY CAN GET US INPUT.SO BY JANUARY 28TH YEAH, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND THEN WE CAN GET IT BACK OUT TO YOU.
SO YOU'RE PREPARED FOR DOING SOMETHING WITH IT ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
ALRIGHT, SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE DAVID MANKO TO FEBRUARY 1ST, SECOND.
BUT I DIDN'T SECOND CINDY DOES.
I DON'T GOTTA GET USED TO THE VOICES.
I'VE NEVER SECONDED ANYTHING AND I'M NEVER ANYTHING EVER AGAIN.
I KNOW YOU'VE NEVER SECONDED EVERYTHING.
THAT'S WHY I JUMPED ON HIM LIKE, OH, YOU DID? NO, THAT'S NOT EXCITED.
DENNIS ACTUALLY SIGNED IT FIRST, BUT I WAS LIKE, YOU WANT TO PASS THEM AROUND? I LIKE TO PASS THEM AROUND.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS MAKI REQUESTING SITE PLAN.
APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC MINI STORAGE AT 5 6 6 1 CAMP ROAD.
AND WE'VE HAD SOME, UH, SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BEING A FORMER JUNK AREA.
LET'S, UH, LET START EVENING ONCE AGAIN.
SEAN HOPKINS WITH CHRIS WOOD ON BEHALF OF MATT JAWORSKI.
THIS ONE'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AS YOU RECALL, DAVE.
AS YOU RECALL, YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BOTH REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, ALSO ISSUED A USE VARIANCE.
WE'VE DISCUSSED A WIDE ASSORTMENT OF CONDITIONS, WHICH I'M SURE IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, BUT SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS INCLUDE OBVIOUSLY PUTTING, UM, SOME HARDSCAPE BETWEEN THE UPPER, THERE WE GO, PUTTING SOME LANDSCAPING, SEPARATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THE OUT PARCEL, WHICH WILL BE LEFT FOR THE FUTURE.
CROSS ACCESS BEING ESTABLISHED, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT SECTION OF CAMP ROAD, IT WOULD NOT BE SAFE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT PROTECTION WITH THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, ENSURING THAT THAT PERMANENT OPEN SPACE THAT INCLUDES 4.03 ACRES OF WETLANDS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION, REMAIN IN PLACE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO WE THINK YOU ARE FINALLY IN A POSITION THAT YOU CAN GRAB BOTH THE PENDING APPROVALS, MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
I WOULD REITERATE IN CONNECTION WITH MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PARCEL SIMPLY BEING DIVIDED IN TWO, WE HAVE ASKED THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT A MAP COVER BE REPORTED AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE BE WAIVED.
WE CAN SIMPLY CREATE THE ADDITIONAL PARCEL VIA THE RECORDING OF A DEED AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
I THINK OTHER THAN THAT, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I WE WOULD WELCOME THEM, BUT I THINK WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.
SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS, UH, AT ALL THE HEARINGS WELL, YEAH.
ABOUT, UH, POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION ON THE SITE.
WE ASKED THE TOWN ENGINEER TO LOOK INTO THAT.
KAMI, CAN YOU KINDA GIVE US A, A, I KNOW YOU SENT US AN EMAIL, BUT CAN YOU, FOR THE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU FOUND.
SO I HAD, UM, UH, BASICALLY SOME OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS AT GHD PEOPLE WHO CONDUCT THESE TYPES OF STUDIES AS WELL AS, UH, REVIEW THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS, LOOK AT IT.
UM, GENERALLY THEY FELT THAT THERE WAS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF CONTAMINATION FOUND ON THE SITE.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT WAS POINTED OUT WAS THAT THERE WAS ONE SOIL BORING LOCATION OUT OF, I WANNA SAY 13, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
ONE DID HAVE, UH, SLIGHTLY ELEVATED ARSENIC LEVELS IN THE FIRST TWO FEET OF SOIL.
NOTHING IN THE DEEP PROPORTIONS.
UM, THE PREFERRED HANDLING OF THAT IS FOR THAT TO BE AN AREA THAT IS CAPPED BY SOME KIND OF SOLID SURFACE, A CONCRETE FLOOR, A PAVEMENT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OR THAT THE TWO FEET BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF AS, AS, UH, CONTAMINATED SOIL.
UM, THE REST, THE, UH, GROUNDWATER LEVELS WERE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
UM, THEY SAID THAT THE, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY MOVING ANY MATERIALS AROUND THE SITE, YOU JUST KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR ANYTHING UNUSUAL AND NOT ODOR A A COLOR OR SOMETHING THAT COULD INDICATE THAT THEY FOUND A, A ISOLATED POCKET OF SOMETHING.
BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, REUSING FILL ON SITE IS FINE.
IF THEY WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE SITE, THERE COULD BE, UH, CONCERNS AND THEY RECOMMEND ANALYSIS OF IT BEFORE IT'S USED ON A DIFFERENT SITE UNLESS IT'S BEING DISPOSED OF PROPERLY.
UM, BUT GENERALLY THEY AGREED WITH THE RESULTS OF THOSE STUDIES AND FELT THAT THEY WERE GLAD TO SEE A SITE BEING, UH,
[01:30:01]
CLEANED UP AND ADDRESSED.ANY QUESTIONS? UH, CAN WE MAKE A CONDITION THAT NO REMOVAL OF FILL? THAT COULD BE NO REMOVAL OF FILL.
CAN WE MAKE THAT A CONDITION? I'M GONNA DEFER TO CHRIS WHO'S DOING THE ENGINEER PLANS.
UM, WELL, OR THE REMOVAL TO FILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
YEAH, I MEAN, AND ANY, ANY PROJECT WOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME CRITERIA WHERE IF THEY FOUND SOMETHING QUESTIONABLE, THEY'D HAVE TO NOTIFY DEC TEST IT.
AND IF IT WAS CONTAMINATED, THEY'D HAVE TO TAKE IT TO PARTICULAR SPECIAL LANDFILL.
CHAIRMAN CLARK, DO YOU MIND IF WE ACTUALLY ENCOUNTER CONTAMINATION? WE DO HAVE TO REMOVE THAT, THOSE SOILS FROM THE SIDE.
SO, AND THE WHOLE THING IS, UM, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
AND I'M ASKING BECAUSE THEN IT SERVES AS THE CAP THAT THE ONLY, THE ONLY PART THAT'S NOT IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO DIG THAT OUT.
SO ANYTHING IN THE FIRST FEW FEET WOULD BE GONE.
WE KNOW WHERE THE BORING THAT IDENTIFIED THE ARSENIC, IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN, IN THAT AREA.
AND JUST AS A REMINDER, THE LANDOWNER DEVELOPER IS CLEANING UP THE WILDLAND AS PART OF THE BUILD OF PROJECT.
REMEMBER IT LOOKS LIKE HE WAS SAID HE WAS GETTING RID OF ALL OF THE GARBAGE AND JUNK AND THE ARMY CORE WALL DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT.
HAS ASKED US TO THAT HEAT AND HIS ADVISED SAID YES HE WOULD.
AND AGAIN, JUST SO, 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A NEW PLANE BOARD, REMEMBER THIS IS A FORMER JUNK YARD, SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S DEBRIS ALL OVER THE SITE AND PART OF THE PROCESS THAT'LL GET CLEANED UP AT SOME POINT.
THERE WAS CLOSE TO 50,000 SITE OR SOMETHING
UM, SO WE HAVE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS THAT WE RECEIVED? I DON'T THINK THEY'RE IN THE FOLDER.
I'M OKAY WITH DOING IT DOWN WAY.
UM, WHAT'S THE DATE OF YOUR ENGINEERING LETTER ON THAT? 'CAUSE THE EMAIL RESOLUTION JUST SAYS XS.
FRIDAY FIFTH OR FRIDAY THE 13TH.
OR JANUARY 13TH IF YOU JUST
ALRIGHT, SO I'M GONNA GO INTO THE SUBDIVISION.
INTO THE SUBDIVISION FIRST, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH.
ALRIGHT, SO MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL RESOLUTION.
UH, MATT JAWORSKI MINI STORAGE PROJECT 5 6 6 1 CAMP ROAD.
TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM MATT JAWORSKI THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH HIS PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEVEN MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS AND ONE INSULATED STORAGE BUILDING ON A 12 ACRE SITE AT 5 6 6 1 CAMP ROAD.
THAT INCLUDES THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE HAMBURG ZONING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK SEEKER LAW AND SEEKER REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN SIX N-Y-C-R-R PARK 6 1 7 HAD ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION AGAINST THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN AND INPUT RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND HAS HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING.
THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY ISSUES PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 2 3 0 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, THE PROJECT WILL ADDRESS THE COMMENTS IN THE TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMO DATED JANUARY 13TH, 2023.
TWO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS, SIDEWALKS SHALL BE WAIVED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST AT THAT LOCATION.
I'M GONNA MAKE THAT CHANGE IN THE RESOLUTION.
IS THERE, OR WHOEVER DRAFTED, CAN I REFERENCE THAT? THE NEW PLAN HAS NINE BUILDINGS.
THE ONE THAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME, THERE'S OH, I'LL TYPE WHAT I HEAR.
I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE IF WE'RE SAYING THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN THE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS THE SAME, JUST RIGHT.
SO EIGHT EIGHT MINI STORAGE AND ONE.
ONE CLIMATE CONTROL, UH, I'LL, I'LL FIX THAT FOR THE SITE PLAN.
THIS LOT WILL INCLUDE AN ACCESS RESTRICTION STATED ON THE PLAN THAT WILL NOT ALLOW ACCESS, UH, FROM THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT TO CAMP ROAD.
THE ENTRANCE WILL BE THROUGH THE PUBLIC MINI STORAGE DRIVEWAY.
FINALLY, THE HAMMERED PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT.
IF THE INSTRUMENT IS TO MEET THE ABOVE CONDITION CONCERNING AN ACCESS RESTRICTION IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN
[01:35:01]
IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLA.SO THAT IS A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY SECOND.
ALRIGHT, LET ME GET THE OTHER ONE HERE.
DO YOU WANT TO READ IT? I'M GONNA READ IT.
DOES I MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER? DO YOU WANNA READ IT? NO.
BUT DOES THIS MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER? NO.
UH, SITE PLAN AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION.
MATT JAWORSKI, MINI STORAGE SITE PLAN 5 6 6 1 CAMP ROAD.
THE PLANNING BOARD BASED ON THE ZBA A'S ISSUANCE OF A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
IN REVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XLIV SITE PLAN, APPROVAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XLIV 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, AND HAVING COMPLETED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING, HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE JAWAR SKI MINI STORAGE PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 5 6 6 1 CAMP ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JANUARY 13TH, 2023.
THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE SCREENINGS AS IDENTIFIED ON SHEET L 100.
THREE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
FOUR NEON FLASHING COLORED LIGHTING SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED IN THE BUILDING OR OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
NO OUTDOOR STORAGE WILL BE ALLOWED.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED AS THEY'RE ALREADY LOCATED ALONG THE ROAD.
SHARED ACCESS IS PROVIDED TO THE ADJOINING LOT BEING CREATED.
EIGHT WETLAND AREAS SHALL BE PRESERVED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
UH, NINE REMOVAL OF FILL WILL BE DONE UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS.
SO THERE IS A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY SECOND.
SECOND, UH, DENNIS, DID WE MISS ANYTHING? I THINK WE GOT EVERYTHING RIGHT.
DID YOU GET THE NINE BUILDINGS? WELL, IT DIDN'T ASK, IT DIDN'T SAY I THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS, YEAH.
UM, UH, MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY DENNIS.
CAN I SAY SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? YEAH.
YOU'RE GONNA GET A, AN EMAIL FROM TIM, BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO WRITE IT TODAY.
I KNOW THAT THESE GUYS KNOW IT.
BUT FROM NOW ON, WHENEVER YOU GUYS APPROVE ANYTHING, COULD YOU, NOT IN THE MOTION, BUT AFTER YOU MOTION, MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL IS ONLY HALF OF WHAT THEY NEED AND ENGINEERING APPROVAL IS THE OTHER HALF.
BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOMORROW AND SAY, I'M ALL APPROVED.
AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, IT, IT'S A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
THEY DON'T HEAR CONDITIONAL, THEY HEAR APPROVAL.
SO HE'S GONNA SEND YOU A MEMO BECAUSE THEY GET PRETTY, PEOPLE GET PRETTY IN HIS MEMO.
IS HE GONNA SUGGEST HOW WE TELL THEM THAT SO THEY'LL HEAR IT, UM, THE BASEBALL BAT OR TAKE YOUR GAVEL AND THROW THAT.
I CAN GET A GAVE ONE, BUT A, IT'LL MAKE HIS LIFE EASIER.
I USUALLY, YOU AND ME, I'M CHATTY.
I ALWAYS GO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE TOWN ENGINEER AND GET SIGNED OFF.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT EVERY TIME.
NOW WE NEED TO SAY, YOU NEED TO SATISFY ENGINEERING BEFORE YOU CAN GO TO, SO YOU WANT ME TO REMEMBER THIS? EVERY SINGLE YES.
WELL, MAYBE DO WE WANNA ADJUST THE STANDARD, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL AS CONTINGENT ON THE ENGINEERING LETTER TO SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC THAT SAYS APPROVAL IS CON YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT STILL REQUIRES ENGINEERING.
THE APPLICANTS DON'T HEAR THAT THOUGH.
HALF THE TIME THEY'RE NOT HERE.
THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE, THEY DON'T, ALL THEY HEAR IS APPROVAL AND THEN SAY, PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE.
YEAH, WE'LL THINK ABOUT IT JUST, I MEAN MEAN JUST LIKE SPEAK TO JUST, I'M JUST SAYING IN CONVERSATION, SAY TO THE APPLICANT, YOU UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO SATISFY HER BEFORE YOU CAN GO GET A PERMIT.
I THINK YOU'RE JUST RECITING PETITION.
YEAH, BUT WE HAVE, BUT THEN THEY GO AUDIT.
I READ THAT, BUT THEN THAT'S THEIR FAULT.
WELL, THEY'RE NOT HERE EITHER.
SO SAYING IT TO THESE TWO ISN'T GONNA SOLVE IT EITHER.
I DON'T THINK WE'LL FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
WE NORMALLY, SO WE NORMALLY TELL OUR CLIENTS THAT AND THEY'RE LIKE, WHAT? WE'RE NOT DONE.
YEAH, YOU'RE IT'S NOT YOUR, YOUR, UM, YEAH, IT'S NOT YOUR PROJECTS.
SIR, WHAT DO WE HAVE ON THE FEBRUARY 1ST AGENDA BEFORE TODAY, BEFORE THE STUFF WE ENDED TODAY? UM, A NEW PROJECT.
[01:40:01]
MR. MANCOS.UM, THE TWO PROJECTS FROM THE PRO THIS WORK SESSION, RIGHT.
THE MANCO SCOPING, UH, WHATEVER.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FRANK RUSSO JR.
REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 14 LOT SUBDIVISION AS AN EXTENSION OF NILES AVENUE.
CHRIS WOOD WITH KERING WOOD DESIGN.
WE'RE THE ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECT.
I'LL RUN THROUGH IT REAL QUICK JUST FOR THE BEN BENEFIT OF THE NEW PLANNING BOARD MEMBER.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE TONIGHT.
SO UNLESS YOU WANNA VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT, THEN I'LL BE, I'LL BE EXCITED.
I ALREADY SENT MY CLIENT ATED FOR BUILDING PERMIT TOMORROW.
UM, THEY DO NOT HAVE ENGINEERING PROOF.
UH, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A 14 LOT SUBDIVISION NILES AVENUE, CURRENTLY DEAD ENDS AT THAT POINT AT TIM TAM TRAIL.
UH, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS EXTEND IT WITH A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END FOR FIRE TRUCK AND SNOW PLOW TURNAROUND.
UM, WE HAVE 14 LOTS AT FRONT ON THE NEW ROAD AND A FEW OF 'EM FRONT ON THE EXISTING ROAD.
UM, AS A RESULT OF THE LAST MEETING I HATCHED IN THIS AREA HERE, THIS IS ALSO GONNA BE A DE RESTRICTED PERMIT OPEN SPACE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I THINK CAITLYN HAD ASKED FOR THAT.
UM, THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA WILL BE IN A, ON A ITS OWN LOT, WHICH IS OWNED BY THE HOA AND WE ARE PROVIDING AN EASEMENT TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TO ACCESS THE DITCH.
AND ALSO THIS SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, WHICH RUNS THROUGH THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE IMPACTING THAT CREEK THAT'S GONNA STAY AS IS.
AND UH, ALSO ON THE SITE, THERE'S TWO, ACTUALLY THREE FEDERAL BUT NON-JURISDICTIONAL WELL ENDS ONE IN THE AREA OF THE DETENTION BASIN.
ONE IN THE AREA OF LOTS, 12, 13 TO 14, AND A SMALL ONE IN THE AREA OF THE ROAD IN THAT SPOT.
AND, UH, I THINK THAT WAS A SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING WE'VE DISCUSSED TO DATE.
SO A FEW YEARS AGO WE APPROVED AN 11 LOT SUBDIVISION ON THIS SITE.
UM, THEY'RE COMING BACK ASKING FOR MORE LOTS.
AND IT'S THOSE 12 THROUGH 14 THAT ARE ON THAT WETLAND.
AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY A DECISION HASN'T BEEN MADE YET ON THE PROJECT.
AND JUST JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THEY'RE NON-JURISDICTIONAL.
SO NORMALLY WE COULD GO AND IMPACT 'EM AND THE BOARD DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A, HAVE AN INPUT ON IT.
HAMBURG HAS A PART THEIR ZONING CODE, WHICH YOU GUYS MAY WANNA EXPLAIN BECAUSE YOU TRY TO DO IT BETTER THAN I DO.
SO, SO WE WENT OVER, UH, PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE EF LAST TIME WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM.
AND WE COLLECTIVELY, WE, WE DECIDED THAT THERE WEREN'T SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR SEEKER.
BUT WHERE WE'RE KIND OF STUCK IS WITH A TOWN, TOWN LAW SAYS FOR TO DISTURBED WETLANDS, THE PROJECT HAS TO BE UNIQUE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE MAJORITY HAS DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT OF THE BOARD HAS DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THEY I DID UNIQUE.
I DID SUBMIT AN EMAIL WITH 1, 2, 3, 4 REASONS WHY I THINK IT'S UNIQUE.
DO YOU WANNA FOR SOMETHING TO REFERENCE? YOU WANT ME TO READ 'EM? NO, I WAS GONNA SAY IF I, I'D LIKE TO EMAIL THAT TO CINDY.
UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO READ IT NOW THEN I DON'T HAVE IT MEMORIZED.
UNLIKE YOU OTHER PEOPLE, SHE LIKES HARD COPIES OF THINGS RATHER THAN YOU OH, DOES SHE? OKAY.
AND I THINK, I MEAN, THE FOUR REASONS ON THERE I THINK ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS WHY OUR SITE IS UNIQUE AND HAS TO IMPACT THESE NON-JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.
SO AGAIN, I THINK BILL ARTICULATED WELL, IT IS VERY UNUSUAL.
WE BELIEVE WE'RE ABLE TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BECAUSE THEY, THEY'VE PROVEN TO US THAT THERE AREN'T ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
OUR NEXT LEVEL OF APPROVAL IS, AS WE DO, WHETHER IT'S A SUBDIVISION OR SITE LAND, IS WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
ONE OF THE LAWS THAT COMES UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
A LOT OF TIMES THE WETLANDS ARE JURISDICTIONAL.
AND, AND WE HAVE ISSUES IN OUR, WE HAVE A WETLAND LAW THAT GIVES GUIDANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF WETLAND AREAS.
IT'S NOT UNLIKE THE ARMY CORPS OF DC.
THERE ARE NO, IT'S DISCRETIONARY THAT YOU CAN DECIDE IS THERE SOME UNIQUE SITUATION THAT WE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO FILL IN NON-JURISDICTIONAL S WHICH WE THINK ARE STILL IMPORTANT TO THE TOWN.
THAT WAS WHAT THE TOWN BOARD PASSED IN THEIR LAW.
WE STILL THINK WHETHER THEY'RE JURISDICTIONAL OR NOT, WE THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO THE TOWN.
SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE MORE DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT
[01:45:01]
YOU MAKE.IT'S KIND OF, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, CUT AND DRY.
IT GIVES THE PLANNING BOARD SOME DISCRETION.
WHENEVER YOU PROVIDE DISCRETION MAKES YOUR JOB A LOT HARDER BECAUSE IT'S DISCRETIONARY.
IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER.
AND I EXPLAINED BEFORE IS THAT THE TOWN DID NOT WANNA REGULATE WETLANDS.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATES IT.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK REGULATES THIS.
WE WANTED TO THOUGH PROVIDE GUIDANCE THAT WE TRY TO PRESERVE THESE IMPORTANT AREAS.
JUST AS I FORGOT TO MENTION, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE TREE MANAGEMENT LAW.
THEY ARE REMOVING TREES AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, SHOULD YOU DO SOME ADDITIONAL MITIGATION FOR TREES AND REMOVAL TREES.
CHRIS, ARE THERE, AND I KNOW THE LAW SAYS ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT TREES OF 12 INCHES OR LARGER ON THE SITE? THE AERIAL, AND I KNOW A CONSERVATION BOARD HAS WALKED, BUT THESE ARE MOSTLY SCRUBBY TREES, SCRUBBY TREES, AND A LOT OF DEAD TREES.
AND THEN ONE, GOING BACK TO THE WETLAND THING, WE DID SUBMIT A LETTER FROM THE WETLAND CONSULTANT THAT GAVE AN EXPLANATION ON THE, THE VALUE OF THESE WETLANDS.
AND NEITHER, NONE OF THE WETLANDS ACTUALLY HOLD WATER.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE BASICALLY ON THE SIDE OF A SLOPE AND THEY'RE ALSO CONTAINING INVASIVE SPECIES, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE GROWN GROWN IN THOSE AREAS OVER, OVER TIME.
AND ALSO THE WETLAND LAW DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T IMPACT THE WETLANDS.
IT SAYS IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO IMPACT AN UNDER ADDITIONAL WILDLANDS, THERE'S ADDITIONAL THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO LIKE PROVIDE, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETENTION.
WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING TOO.
BECAUSE CAN I ASK THE QUESTION? YEAH.
SO WOULD YOU MIND EXPLAINING TO ME WHY, UM, THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS WHERE BEFORE IT WAS APPROVED AT 11 AND NOW TIME HAS PASSED AND RIGHT.
I, THE PREVIOUS GO AROUND, I WASN'T THE ENGINEER ENGINEER ON IT.
BUT I CAN, I CAN GUESS WHY, BECAUSE WHEN THEY DELINEATED THE WETLANDS BACK THEN, THEY NEVER SUBMITTED TO THE ARMY CORPS TO GET A JD.
THEY JUST ASSUMED THAT THEY WERE GONNA BE JURISDICTIONAL.
AS PART OF THE NEW PROJECT, WE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE, WE LAND DONATION TO THE ARMY CORPS AND GOT A JD INDICATING THAT THESE WETLANDS WERE NOT JURISDICTIONAL.
AND SO YOU FEEL THAT BY ADDING THE, UM, STORM WATER THAT HELPS OFFSET, WE WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE STORM WATER REGARDLESS.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO WITH, IN REFERENCING THE WETLAND LAWS, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.
AND ALSO YOU WEREN'T HERE AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE OVER THIS SITE ON MILE ON UH, EVAN ROAD CAME THAT THIS SITE SLOPES RIGHT TOWARDS THEIR SITE OR TOWARDS THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY, THEY HAVE AN ISSUE THAT THEIR BACKYARDS ARE WET.
UM, AS PART OF THIS, WE AGREED TO TAKE THE RUNOFF FROM SOME OF THESE LOTS TIED INTO THIS STORM DRAINAGE ON EXISTING NILES AVENUE AND SEND IT THIS WAY AS OPPOSED TO SEND IT INTO THE CREEK, WHICH WILL TAKE SOME WATER OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY.
THEN ALSO AS WE DEVELOP THE SUBDIVISION, EVERYTHING SLOPED THIS WAY, CURRENTLY IT'S NOT GONNA BE ALLOWED JUST TO SLOPE AND SHEET DRAIN OFF SITE UNCONTROLLED.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CATCH IT AND RUN IT THROUGH THE STORM ON A MANAGEMENT AREA SO THAT THAT'S ANOTHER BENEFIT ALSO.
THAT WAS MY ONE REMAINING QUESTION WAS THE EFFECTS ON FLOODING THAT WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH I THINK YOU'VE JUST ANSWERED.
'CAUSE THEY SAID OUR BACK, THEY WERE VERY CLEAR THAT THEIR BACKYARDS ARE PRETTY WET ALL THE TIME.
AND YOU HAD SAID, WELL THOSE ARE NOT ON THIS PROJECT, SO NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT WHAT YOU'VE JUST EXPLAINED ARE THE ANCILLARY BENEFITS THAT SHOULD RESULT IN LESS WET AREA, KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE.
THE, THE, THE, THE LAND THAT DIRECTLY DISCHARGES TO THEIR SITE RIGHT NOW, THAT THAT LAND AREA WILL BE REDUCED AND MOST OF IT'S GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AREA AND THE PART THAT UP HERE THAT TIES INTO THE STREET.
IN EXCHANGE FOR DOING THAT, WE WOULD'VE TO FURTHER RESTRICT WHAT COMES OUT OF HERE TO REDUCE FOR THE INCREASE IN THESE LOTS.
SAY THAT INCREASE AGAIN, SAY THAT SENTENCE AGAIN.
SO THESE LOTS ARE GONNA GO OFFSITE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE DETENTION.
SO WHATEVER RUNOFF, DISCHARGES, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA, THAT VALUE IS GONNA HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED OR SUBTRACTED FROM WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DISCHARGE FROM HERE.
KIND OF MAKE UP FOR THE, THE DIFFERENCE.
WE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE AS A WHOLE, WE CAN DISCHARGE THIS MUCH.
IF WE'RE SENDING THAT MUCH UNCONTROLLED, WE HAVE TO REDUCE IT.
WHICH COMES OUT HERE AND, AND CAM MAY NOT PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA REVIEW FINAL PLANS, BUT IN GENERAL, DOES THE APPROACH WORK? YES, IN GENERAL, WE HAD CHRIS KIND OF SUBMIT A LITTLE SUMMARY OF WHAT THEY'VE LOOKED AT SO FAR AND HOW THEY'RE HANDLING IT.
AND, AND YES, IT, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE STORM WATER LAWS AS WELL.
AND, AND UH, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THEM FULLY ENGINEERING THIS TO MEET WHAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
SO WE SHOULD NOT BE CAUSING ANY MORE FLOODING OR PONDING OR CORRECT.
AND THEY, I THINK WILL IMPROVE
[01:50:01]
IT BETWEEN THE MOVE CHANGES IN MOVEMENT OF THE WATER, MOVING SOME TO THE NORTH, CONTROLLING IT WITH THE STORM WATER, CONTROLLING WHAT IS ABLE TO ACTUALLY LEAVE THE SITE.WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT SAYING WE'RE GONNA DRY ANYONE'S BACKYARDS OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT UH, UH, WE'RE KEEPING THIS PROJECT FROM HAVING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THEM.
I THINK MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION THEN, UM, AND THIS IS BECAUSE I IT'S MY FIRST NIGHT, BUT IS THERE AN, UH, EMERGENCY ACCESS AT ALL FOR THIS CUL-DE-SAC? UH, STATE FIRE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE UNLESS YOU'RE 30 LOTS OVER 30 LOTS.
SO NO, THERE'S ONLY IT, IT IS GONNA CONTINUE TO BE A DEAD END, BUT THAT CUL-DE-SAC HAS TO BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE FIRE CODE FOR FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND.
SO THAT'S, IF, IF WE HAD MORE THAN 30 LOTS WE'D HAVE TO HAVE TWO.
UH, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 2 2 2 REMOTES HAVE TIM TAM TRAIL COMING IN THERE ON THE SIDE.
YEAH, WE HAVE TIM TAM TRAIL HERE.
UM, SO THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE DEAD END IS LIKE, ARE THESE ONES DOWN HERE? BUT UH, YEAH, IF WE HAD OVER 30 LOTS WE'D HAVE TWO MEANS OF RESS.
THE EXISTING GUY'S DRIVEWAY IS WHERE THIS ROAD IS GOING, RIGHT? YEAH.
THE, YEAH, THE DRIVEWAY GOES FROM HERE OVER TO A HOUSE THAT'S OVER HERE.
SOMEHOW HE'S JUST GONNA TIE INTO THE NEW ROAD.
WE'LL WE'LL TIE HIS DRIVEWAY INTO THE NEW ROAD.
RIGHT? SAVE HIM ON PLOWING HIS DRIVEWAY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT, SO LET'S UH, TABLE THIS TO FEBRUARY 1ST.
YOU WANT US TO LEAVE YOU WITH THE TWO RESOLUTIONS, A FOR AND AGAINST.
YOU ARE STILL ON THAT AND YOU GUYS DECIDE AT YOUR NEXT MEETING WE GET YEAH, I MEAN WE NEED TO CHANGE IT ONE TO APPROVE AND ONE TO DISCIP APPROVE.
THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO.
MM-HMM
WELL I THINK DREW IT IS IMPORTANT TO UM, TO SPECIFY YOU SAID THAT THERE AREN'T ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
UM, AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING THAT IT'S THAT THERE AREN'T ANY 'CAUSE IT'S SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS AND THAT IT'S NOT THAT THE IMPACTS AREN'T SIGNIFICANT 'CAUSE YOU'RE FILLING A WETLAND, IT'S THAT THEY'RE NOT ADVERSE 'CAUSE MAYBE NOT POTENTIALLY NOT ADVERSE.
'CAUSE THE WETLANDS AREN'T THAT AWESOME.
THEY'VE GOTTEN INVASIVE SPECIES YOU JUST TOLD US TODAY, WHICH I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU DID SAY THEY WERE SEA WETLANDS, BUT THEY ARE JUST KIND OF WE ISH AREAS.
THEY'RE NOT LIKE TRUE WETLANDS THINKS DRY OUT.
THEY WETLANDS BASED ON VEGETATION AND SOILS AS OPPOSED TO HYDROLOGY.
AND IF YOU'RE LEANING TOWARDS THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION, MAKE SURE YOU REMEMBER.
I ALWAYS SAY THE MOST IMPORTANT, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT APPROVAL.
NOT ONLY THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF OF UH, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERING APPROVAL.
I BELIEVE WERE REQUIRING SIDEWALKS, UH, TO BE INSTALLED.
UH, THE PONDS BEING OVERSIZED.
THOSE ARE GENERIC ONES AND I THINK, UH, UM, I THINK WE WANTED AN INSTRUMENT TO PRESERVE, PRESERVE THE OTHER WETLAND AREAS.
I MEAN THOSE CONDITIONS YOU PLACED IN THE PLENARY PLAQUE, REMEMBER IN HAMBURG IS VERY UNIQUE.
PRELIMINARY PLAT IS YOUR FINAL LOOK AT THIS.
THEY, WHEN THEY, AFTER THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEY GO TO FINAL PLAT AND GET ALL THEIR REGULATORY APPROVALS.
IF THE ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT THAT FINAL PLAT IS, IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE PROVED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, IT DOES NOT COME BACK TO YOU.
IT ONLY COMES BACK TO YOU IF THERE'S A MODIFICATION OF THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THAT'S HOW THE TOWN'S ALWAYS DONE IT FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS OR MORE.
UH, THAT IS THE PROCESS THEY USE.
IF SOME TOWNS YOU COME BACK TO FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, IT DOES NOT COME BACK.
YOU GUYS DO NOT SEE FINAL PLAT.
SO MAKE YOUR CONDITIONS ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT 'CAUSE YOU WILL NOT SEE THAT FINAL PLAT UNLESS IT CHANGES.
DID WE GET THE SECRET RESOLUTION ON THIS? BECAUSE I, I THINK I'VE GOT THE, I'VE GOT THE SUBDIVISION.
'CAUSE WE, JOSH AND I DISCUSSED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE WERE AUTHORIZED TO PUT IN A POSITIVE DECK TOGETHER.
IT WAS AN AUTHORIZATION TO DO A NEGATIVE DECK, JUST A NEGATIVE.
SO IF WE HAVEN'T SENT IT, WE'LL SEND IT AGAIN.
YOU ALSO AUTHORIZED, UM, JOSH TO MAKE A COUPLE CHANGES TO THE PART TWO.
I HAD ONE OF THEM CHECKED LARGE AND WE CHANGED IT TO SMALL IMPACT ON THERE.
SO BECAUSE MY EMAIL AND MAYBE I'M, IT'S GONNA, ON MY PHONE I GOT, I GOT FOUR ATTACHMENTS, TWO THAT WE ALREADY VOTED ON AND THEN THE, THE YES AND THE NO ON THIS.
SO I'M SORRY IF WE MISSED IT, BUT WE'LL SEND YOU THE N TECH RESOLUTION.
YEAH BECAUSE I WAS JUST GONNA CHECK ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE LANGUAGE THAT MARVO JUST BROUGHT UP.
SO I WILL MAKE UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO, I'M GOOD THANK YOU.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE FRANK RUSSO TO FEBRUARY 1ST DOCK.
IT'S A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY CINDY.
FINAL ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE TOWN BOARD REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ADVISORY REPORT ON A PROPOSED LOCAL LAWS NUMBER 12 AND PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NUMBER 13.
[01:55:03]
SO, UM, THESE ARE THE LAWS THAT UH, CHANGE OUR ZONING CODE TO REMOVE, UH, ASPHALT PLANTS AS A PERMISSIBLE USE IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND TO NOT PERMIT ASPHALT PLANTS IN THE TOWN.UH, I GUESS BEEN EXPLAINED MANY TIMES.
THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TOWN BOARD HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION BUT THE TOWN LAW REQUIRES THEM TO REFER SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO US FOR OUR OPINION ON IT.
TERMINATION AND REPORT AND THE REPORT COULD BE ONE SENTENCE, I MEAN RIGHT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A RANDY'S THING.
SO, UM, JUST SO THE RECORD'S CLEAR, I'VE ALSO SPOKEN WITH CINDY ABOUT IT SO SHE'S UP TO DATE ON THE HISTORY AND HOW WE'VE GONE HERE AND ALL OF THAT.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THESE CHANGES OF LOCAL LAWS? SHOULD I JUMP RIGHT IN? YES,
UM, I, I HAVE TO SAY THAT UH, THIS IS PRETTY UH, ONGOING.
I THINK DURING MY INTERVIEW THEY ASKED ME HOW LONG I PLAN ON SPENDING ON WORKING ON MY CASES AND I SAID AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
SO I THINK FOUR DAYS WAS A LONG TIME, BUT I ENJOYED, UM, THE HELP THAT I GOT BEING A NEW MEMBER.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT LAW.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, I GREW UP HERE BUT I'VE GONE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND UM, CAMP ROAD I SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF, 'CAUSE I WENT TO BERT COLLEGE SO I WAS CONSTANTLY GOING DOWN CAMP ROAD.
I THINK THAT UM, GIVEN THE RESEARCH AND GIVEN THIS NEW LAW, UM, TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND WE HAVE A REVITALIZATION GOING ON WITHIN, THROUGHOUT HAMPER.
I DON'T FEEL THAT AN ASPHALT PLANT BELONGS TO WHERE UM, THE REVITALIZATION IS GONNA GO.
UM, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME, UM, HAZARDS INVOLVED.
UH, UM, THE EMISSIONS THAT COME FROM A PLANT ARE UM, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NOW THERE'S MORE POPULATION IN THE AREA, UM, RESIDENTIAL POPULATION I SHOULD ADD.
UM, AND I FEEL THAT UM, THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO AND I AM UM, GONNA BE JUST JUMP OUT AND TELL YOU THAT I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS UM, WHOLEHEARTEDLY GIVEN ON THE FULL UM, SCOPE THAT I'VE TALKED WITH THE ATTORNEYS, I'VE DONE THE RESEARCH, I'VE READ THE PREVIOUS, UM, ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON.
I THINK THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR OUR OPINION, UH, AND MY OPINION IS THAT I SUPPORT THE TOWN MAKING THIS CHANGE.
UM, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFOREHAND? ANYTHING ELSE WE SHOULD PUT ON THE RECORD? ALRIGHT, JUST THAT MARGO IS RECUSING HERSELF.
I HAVE ABSTAINED THIS WHOLE CHAT.
SO, UM, I THINK WE COULD JUST DO IT SIMPLY, UH, I'LL MAKE A RESOLUTION UH, RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN BOARD FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAWS 12 AND 13.
YOU DO HAVE A DRAFT UM, ADVISORY REPORT? WE DO, YEAH.
JUST WE PROBABLY GOT THIS LIKE TOO MANY RIGHT? IF I'M WRONG, SOMEBODY WILL CORRECT ME.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU STILL HAVE AN ACTIVE APPLICATION BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE ASPHALT PLANT ON CAM ROAD.
ALL DOES NOT AND THIS IS IMPACT THIS AT THIS TIME.
DO YOU STILL HAVE AN ACTIVE APPLICATION BEFORE? THIS IS AN ADVISORY OPINION SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THAT BUT, OKAY.
AND, AND ESSENTIALLY THIS KIM MASON PHILLIPS, UM, ESSENTIALLY THAT DRAFT ADVISORY REPORT IS VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO WHEN THIS BOARD ASKED THE TOWN BOARD TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE.
AND UM, THE DRAFT CONCLUSION AT THE END IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
JIM CLARK, WELL CINDY WE GOT THIS A WHILE AGO.
SHE DOES HAVE, SHE ACTUALLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT.
ALRIGHT, SO I'LL JUST GO INTO IT.
AND THEN A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD REGARDING REVIEW OF PROPOSED LOCAL LAWS WHEREAS THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS APPLICATION FROM AL ASPHALT CORPORATION HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS APPLICANT DATED JUNE 4TH, 2019 FOR THE
[02:00:01]
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ASPHALT PLANT CALLED HMA PLANT IN THE APPLICATION AND RELATED ACCESSORY USES THAT'LL BE HERE AND AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE PROJECT AT 5 6 9 0 CAMP ROAD HEREINAFTER REFER TO AS SITE AND WHEREAS PURSUANT TO TOWN OF HAMBURG TOWN CODE AND THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED THERE UNDER THE SITE IS LOCATED IN AN AREA ZONED M TWO AND M THREE AND THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED IN AN AREA OF THAT SITE ZONED M THREE AND WHEREAS PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 2 8 0 DASH 1 3 3 SUB A SUB 10 AND ASPHALT PLANT PROCESSING AND TREATMENT OF FIT MUNI PRODUCTS IS PERMITTED IN AN M THREE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN SECTION 2 8 0 DASH 1 3 3 C.AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND INITIATED THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER PROCESS BY CLASSIFYING THE ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND COMMENCING A COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROJECT.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEKER DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ASPHALT PLANT AT THE SITE MAY INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR AT LEAST ONE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ISSUED A POSITIVE DECLARATION ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2019.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD ISSUED A FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT ON APRIL 29TH, 2020 AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED A PROPOSED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DEIS FROM THE APPLICANT ON AUGUST 5TH, 2022, INDICATING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOW DECIDED TO TRY AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT IN THE TOWN.
AND WHEREAS NEARLY TWO AND A HALF YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED AND SINCE THAT TIME IT WAS THE TOWN'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD PURSUED ITS PROJECT IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND ABANDONED THE APPLICATION IN THE TOWN.
AND WHEREAS SINCE 2019 THE TOWN HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EVALUATING POTENTIAL CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, INCLUDING ON THE SITE AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES AND EVALUATING OTHER LAND USES USE ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE TOWN.
AND WHEREAS THROUGH THE PROCESS OF UPDATING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE TOWN HAS IDENTIFIED AREAS THAT IT VIEWS AS IMPROPERLY ZONED IN LIGHT OF CHANGES IN THE TOWN AND THE REGION SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE IN 22, UH, 2008.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN'S DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DATED NOVEMBER, 2022 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD FOR PUBLIC REVIEW THAT'S GONNA BE VOTED IN NEXT MEETING, RIGHT DREW? YES, YES.
PLAN IS BEING ADOPTED MONDAY NIGHT AND WHEREAS THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTES THAT THE TOWN WILL NEED TO ADAPT TO CHANGES IN THE TOWN AND THE REGION AS A WHOLE TO ENSURE THAT THE VITAL ECONOMY OF THE TOWN SUPPORTS THE COMMUNITY'S GOALS THE CITIZENS' NEEDS AND THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHILE REMAINING CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S VISION FOR THE FUTURE.
AND WHEREAS THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS AMONG OTHER THINGS ELIMINATING USES IN THE CODE THAT NO LONGER FIT WITHIN THE TOWN.
FOR EXAMPLE, LUMBER YARDS, COAL YARDS, CEMENT MIXING PLANTS, STORAGE OR UH, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AS A PRIMARY USE AND THE PROCESSING OF BITUS PRODUCTS.
AND WHEREAS AT ITS MEETING ON OCTOBER 19TH, 2022, THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTED THAT THE TOWN BOARD REVIEW WHETHER THE USE OF AN ASPHALT PLANT AND THE PROCESSING OR TREATMENT OF BITUS PRODUCTS REMAINS AN APPROPRIATELY PERMITTED USE IN THE TOWN.
AND WHEREAS AT ITS MEETING ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2022, THE TOWN BOARD RECEIVED THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND DIRECTED THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO REVIEW THE TOWN BOARD'S OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST.
AND WHEREAS AT ITS MEETING ON NOVEMBER 21ST, 2022, THE TOWN BOARD INTRODUCED LOCAL LAW NUMBER 12 OF 2022 TO AMEND SECTION 2 8 0 DASH THREE THREE A OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TOWN CODE ENTITLED PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES BY REMOVING BIM PROCESSING FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN M THREE DISTRICTS AND LOCAL LAW NUMBER 13 OF 2022 TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW ARTICLE LVII IN CHAPTER TWO 80 OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TOWN CODE ENTITLED BIT MUNI PROCESSING FACILITIES
[02:05:02]
PROHIBITING ASPHALT PLANTS AND BIT MUNI PROCESSING FACILITIES IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.AND WHEREAS PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 8 0 DASH 3 4 0 B OF THE TOWN CODE, THE TOWN BOARD REFERRED LOCAL LAW NUMBER 12 AND LOCAL LAW NUMBER 13 TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ITS REVIEW AND FOR AN ADVISORY REPORT.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NUMBER 12 AND LOCAL LAW NUMBER 13 NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AS FOLLOWS, THOSE BASED ON THE FOREGOING IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGES IN THE TOWN AND THE REGION SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS NOTED ABOVE, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD ADOPT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 12 AND LOCAL LAW NUMBER 13.
SO THAT IS A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY YES.
I'LL SECOND THAT SECOND BY CINDY.
I MORE, I JUST, ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S THREE.
'CAUSE IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION ANYWAY.
JUST SAY THAT THREE MEMBERS WERE WERE IN FAVOR.
SO FOUR MEMBERS WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, THREE WERE IN FAVOR, RIGHT? YEAH, THE MAJORITY.
SO THE MAJORITY OF VOTE PRESENT MEETING, MAJORITY OF THE MEETING.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S, SO WE WILL EXTEND THE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, AND FOR THE TOWN BOARD'S BENEFIT, THE ABSTENTION IS BASED ON, UH, YOU SAID IT.
UH, I, I DON'T THINK MORALLY I SHOULD BE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO, WE'VE GOT A, WE'VE GOT A PROJECT BEFORE US AND WE'RE CHANGING THE RULES AND I JUST DON'T THINK MORALLY I CAN SAY THAT THAT'S OKAY.
IT'S IN FACT THAT WE HAVE A GOOD PROPOSAL BEFORE US AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW.
ARE WE DONE WITH THAT ITEM BILL? UM, YEAH, I THINK WE ARE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE DENNIS'S UH, REASONING WAS ON RECORD JUST BECAUSE IT BRINGS UP AN ISSUE AND I FORGET THIS, I USUALLY DON'T FORGET THIS, BUT JEN, UM, WE NOW HAVE A SIX MEMBER BOARD, UM, FOR WILL FUTURE RESOLUTIONS STILL REQUIRE FOUR VOTES TO BE A MAJORITY BECAUSE THE BOARD IS A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.
THERE'S ONLY SIX MEMBERS NOW UNTIL THEY POINT SOMEONE ELSE, BUT IT'S STILL FOUR VOTES OR NEEDED FOR AN OFFICIAL RESOLUTION.
WE'RE STILL GONNA NEED FOUR UNLESS THE COUNTY VOTES AGAINST 85.
YOU'LL HAVE A NEW MEMBER BY THE NEXT MEETING.
IT'S NEXT ON BOARD MEETING MONDAY.
AND WHILE WE'RE STILL ON THE RECORD, SHE'S GONNA BE MAD AT ME.
SHE'S GONNA BE REAL MAD AT ME, BUT SARAH'S BEEN SERVING THE TOWN FOR OVER 10 YEARS AS PLANNER.
THIS MAY BE HER LAST MEETING OF, OF HER CAREER WITH THE TOWN.
I WANTED A ROUND APPLAUSE FOR.
THAT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR, RIGHT? I DUNNO.
I WAS, I AM PLANNING TO LEAVE.
I JUST DON'T HAVE A REPLACEMENT YET, BUT I THINK THIS MAY BE IT, RIGHT? I'M NO REPLACEMENT.
I KNOW THEY'RE, I THEY'RE SCHEDULING INTERVIEWS SOON, SO SURE.
BUT I'M LEAVING IN 10 DAYS, SO
WE STAY LONGER SO THAT'S PLANS MINUTES AND THIS, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING IT IN OPEN MEETING ANYWAY.
VOTE ON MINUTES AND CLOSE THE MEETING.
HOW ABOUT WE DO THAT? UM, JUST THE ONLY ONES YOU CAN, UM, APPROVE ARE THE DECEMBER 7TH.
I CAN'T BOARD YOU HERE ON DECEMBER 7TH.
UH, SO I'LL MAKE A, ANY ISSUES WITH THE DECEMBER 7TH MINUTES? NO.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 7TH AS TYPE SECOND.
IT'S A MOTION BY BILL, SECOND BY JAB.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT MOTION CARRIED.
UM, WITHOUT DOUG HERE, WE'RE GONNA NEED A NEW VOLUNTEER.
I JUST WANT TO STAY HERE AND HANG OUT WITH YOU GUYS.
[02:10:01]
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION.