[00:06:31]
[00:06:32]
TODAY.THE FIRST ITEM IS PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER A SITE PLAN WAIVER FOR A NEW WHOLESALE BUSINESS AT 5 7 3 5 MELU DRIVE.
AND THEY CAME IN FRONT OF US AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND DENNIS, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND WE GOT SOME PICTURES.
DOES ANYBODY HERE ON THAT PROJECT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MORE QUESTIONS? UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THAT? I MEAN, IT SEEMS THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE OUTSIDE, RIGHT? NO.
YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS. NO.
THE INFORMATION, THEY SENT THE INFORMATION SINCE THE MEETING NOW ON MY, AND THE PICTURES WERE, UH, ALRIGHT.
HAD THE CONCERN WITH THE TRUCK.
WE, WE WILL HAVE ABOUT LITTLE OVER 20 FEET BEHIND IT.
TODAY AND I, AND YOU'RE GONNA BE ON AN AREA WHERE IT'S NOT RIGHT ON THE BED, YOU'RE ON THE BEND, BUT NOT ACTUALLY ON THE CURVE WHERE KIND OF ON STRAIGHTAWAY COMING OUT.
RIGHT? SO, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE YOU THE DOUG POINTED OUT TOO COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? WELL, BUT STILL IT'S ALREADY, THERE'S GOT SOME SHORTEST STRETCH OF ROAD.
WE'VE HAVE THE MOST PROJECTS ON TIME.
ALRIGHT, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO WAIVE SITE PLAN AND THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CODE ENFORCEMENTS.
SO WE MAKE A MOTION TO WAIVE SITE PLAN FOR 5 7 3 5 MELO DRIVE.
SECOND SAYS A MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY.
MOTION CARRIED JUST FOR THE APPLICANT.
THE BOARD, UH, SARAH HAS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN WAIVER FORM.
THEN BILL AND SARAH AND THE COURT ENFORCEMENT WILL SIGN IT.
THE AGENDA IS ESSEX HOMES OF WESTERN NEW YORK INCORPORATED REQUESTING SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION ON A PROPOSED 22 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON FOUR POINT 12 ACRES OF VACANT LAND NORTH SIDE OF PLEASANT AVENUE.
CHAIRMAN CLARK AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS, THE LAW FIRM HOPKINS, GEORGE AND MCCARTHY WE'RE HERE RECEIVING ON BEHALF ESSEX HOMES OF WEST NEW YORK.
ALSO WITH ME OF COURSE IS CHRIS WOOD, THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND CARINA WOOD MORRIS, AS WELL AS BOB JOHNSON.
THE WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT ZERO PLEASANT AVENUE.
CHRIS IS GIVING YOU THAT HANDOUT THAT HIGHLIGHTS IN YELLOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND THEN OF COURSE WE ALSO HAVE A FULL SIZE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN THAT ACCOMPANIED THE SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION ON FEBRUARY 14TH.
THE PROJECT SITE ITSELF CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 14.12 ACRES IN SIZE.
IT IS PROPERLY ZONED R ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR R ONE.
WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS 22 LOTS WILL BE SERVICED OFF OF A PUBLIC ROAD ONTO PLEASANT AVENUE, APPROXIMATE
[00:10:01]
LENGTH OF 800 FEET.IT COMPLIES WITH THE TOWN STANDARDS AS WELL AS APPENDIX D OF THE NEW YORK STATE FIRE CODE.
IT ALSO HAS BEEN DESIGNED SO IT COULD ACCOMMODATE SCHOOL BUSES.
UM, THE GOAL IS FOR ESSEX HOMES TO BE THE EXCLUSIVE BUILDER ON THIS SITE.
AND I THINK YOU ALL KNOW THERE HAVE A REPUTATION OF BUILDING UPSCALE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NUMEROUS COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT WESTERN NEW YORK, INCLUDING THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE BACK PORTION OF THE SITE, WHICH CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 2.7 ACRES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY, WHICH IS LOCATED HERE.
WE ARE WILLING TO PRESERVE THAT AREA IN ITS ENTIRETY ON A PERPETUAL BASIS.
IF THE TOWN WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, WE CERTAINLY RETAIN THAT.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT MOST OF THAT BACK PORTION OF THE SITE IS A JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND PER THE JD ISSUED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON JANUARY 4TH, 2022.
WE HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THAT WETLAND.
WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER ACRE IMPACT.
UH, SCOTT LIVINGSTON FROM EARTH DIMENSIONS HAS PROVIDED US WITH A PROPOSAL AND WE'LL BE SUBMITTING A PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
THE REMAINDER OF THE WETLAND, WHICH IS ON THE BACK, WILL BE PRESERVED.
AND AGAIN, PORTION OF THAT PERMIT FOR THE SPACE ORIGINALLY CON CONTEMPLATING A LITTLE BIT LARGER SUBDIVISION.
BUT RATHER THAN GO THROUGH AN ONEROUS PROCESS WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHO DECIDED IT WAS BETTER TO SCALE BACK THE IMPACTS PER ITS HIERARCHY OF AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION.
UM, THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS WE HAVE DESIGNED THESE LOTS, A GREAT DEAL OF TIME SPENT BEFORE WE CAME TO YOU SO THAT WE DON'T ENVISION THERE'LL BE A NEED FOR ANY VARIANCES.
THEY'LL COMPLY WITH THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT, SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS AND REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS.
WE THINK THIS PROJECT IS RATHER STRAIGHTFORWARD.
ALL WE WOULD SIMPLY ASK YOU TO DO THIS EVENING IS AUTHORIZE COMMENCEMENT OF A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT WOULD TRIGGER US SUBMITTING PART ONE OF THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AS WELL AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
THAT LETTER WOULD THEN GO OUT, OF COURSE, TO INVOLVE IN INTERESTED AGENCIES.
THEY WOULD'VE A 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD AND COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND THEN IN FUTURE REQUEST PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AS WELL AS A SECRET DETERMINATION.
UH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT LAYOUT, THE SUBDIVISION OR THE INFORMATION WE'VE SUBMITTED, WE WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE.
LAYOUT, NOT CLUSTER ICY CUL-DE-SAC.
BUT I'M LIKE LOOKING AT THIS AND I WAS LIKE, NO, THAT'S STILL AS OF RIGHT.
IT JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC.
AND THEN WHAT IS THE GRAY SHADING THAT'S LIKE, THAT'S A TEMPORARY WELLING AND BACK TO GET OUR PIPE BACK TO WHERE WE HAVE TO DISCHARGE THE STORMWATER.
THAT'S, THAT'S TWO TENTHS OF ONE ACRE.
AND I ALSO BROUGHT THIS, THIS VERSION IS THE EXISTING ON, YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING NEXT WAY BACK TO THAT POINT RIGHT THERE.
SO THERE'S A 24 INCH PIPE THAT BASICALLY TAKES, PICKS UP THE WHOLE SITE AND THAT'S WHERE WE DISCHARGE IT.
IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION, I MEAN, MOST OF THIS LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY MORE GRADING AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE ROAD ON SOME OF THOSE, SOME OF THOSE LOTS.
AND WE NEED TO GET FACTORED IN WITH THE VOLUME WITH BILL FOR, AND THAT'S THE BUILDERS ISSUE.
BUT THAT, THAT ONE LOT IS BASICALLY LARGELY A WETLAND 15.
IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO PERHAPS DROPPING THAT SPECIFIC LOT AND LEAVING THAT AS SOME SORT OF A, A GREEN SPACE OR OPEN AREA OR SOME SORT OF PRESERVATION THERE? OR EVEN FINDING A WAY TO JUST MAYBE PUT LIKE A MINIMAL PATH THROUGH IT AS A CONNECTION FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO THE PLAYGROUND? THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FOR THE PARK.
AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA ELIMINATE THAT LOT.
AGAIN, WE ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD'VE EXTENDED FURTHER, UH, BASED ON CONSULTATIONS WOULD NOT ONLY ESSEX HOMES, BUT ALSO EARTH DIMENSIONS.
WE HAVE REDUCED THE IMPACT, WE THINK THE IMPACT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT'S LITERALLY A QUARTER OF AN ACRE IS SOMETHING THAT'S FEASIBLE.
WE, WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM.
I MEAN, WE COULD, WE COULD PROVIDE SOMETHING DOWN HERE AND DOWN DOWN THE BACK TO GET TO THE PARK.
I MEAN IT'S JUST USUALLY THEY'RE LIKE MORE SPREADER OUT, THINNER ON THE PERIMETERS, HAVE ONE LOT THAT IS BEARING THE BULK OF YOUR, YOUR INAX AND RIGHT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, BUILDING UP A HOUSE WITH A BASEMENT AND OTHER ISSUES, IF THERE'S ALREADY DRAINAGE AND SHALLOW, SHALLOW DEPTH OF GROUNDWATER, THAT THAT MAY POSE A ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AWARE OF THOSE CHALLENGES.
WE BELIEVE WE CAN MEET THOSE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN OF COURSE, ULTIMATELY IT'LL BE THE DECISION TO BE MADE BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PER ITS HIERARCHY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WELL WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW THAT IMPACT.
BUT AGAIN, WE THINK WE REALLY HAVE MADE A, AN EFFORT ON AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION.
[00:15:01]
IS AT, IT MAY LOOK LIKE IT'S VERY LARGE AND IT'S ONLY, IT'S ONLY 22 LOTS.SO IF WE HAD A HUNDRED LOT SUBDIVISION AND HAD THAT LITTLE IMPACT, IT WOULD LOOK OBVIOUSLY MUCH SMALLER.
JUST IT JUST THE SCALE OF THE DRAWING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LOSS ARE SUPER HUGE.
HOW MANY ACRES OF TREE CLEARING ARE THERE ON THIS PARCEL? UH, WELL IT, IT'S, OTHER THAN THE FRONT, IT'S PRETTY WELL LIT IN THE BACK.
IT'S, IT'S, WE WALK IT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REAL DENSE, BUT, BUT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF WOODS.
WHAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT IS KEEPING THE BACKYARDS AND NOT CLEARING THOSE AS, AS PART OF THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, WE WOULD ONLY CLEAR WHAT WE NEED TO CLEAR FOR, FOR THE ROAD AND UTILITIES.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY BEFORE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ADVANCE THAT TOPIC FURTHER.
CHRIS WOULD NEED TO DO THAT YEAR PLANS.
SO WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT GRADING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING DO THAT.
SO YEAH, I WOULD BE CAREFUL MAKING A STATEMENT BY THE TIME YOU PUT IN REAR DRAIN.
WELL THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
THAT'S WHY I WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR.
SO THE BACK PORTION THAT YOU'RE GONNA PRESERVE IS ABOUT 2.75 ACRES.
WE'VE GOT THE LOTS, A LITTLE OVER 14, SO I'M JUST KIND OF ROUNDING.
IT'S 20% OF THE SITE BASICALLY.
SO THE, THE FORESTED PORTION, SO WE HAVE ABOUT 10 ACRES OF CLEARING THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO ON THE SITE TO BUILD THE ROAD TO, TO DEVELOP THE SITE FULLY MINUS WHATEVER YOU PRESERVE FOR BACKYARDS.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 10 ACRES.
WHAT GONNA DO WITH THE WETLAND AREA? I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT'S INCORPORATED INTO A LOT.
WHAT WHATCHA GONNA DO WITH THAT AREA IN THE BACK? UH, I DON'T KNOW.
I I ASSUME REMEMBER PER THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT THERE YET, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO FORM A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
OUR TOWN'S NOT GONNA TAKE OWNERSHIP.
WE'RE NOT EXPECTING A TOWN TO TAKE OWNERSHIP.
SO IF THAT'S WHAT WE DO, DREW, THAT WOULD BE CONVEYED TO THE ISSUE.
IT JUST SHOWS IT AS, SO SOMETIMES YOU GUYS PUT IT WITH ONE OF THE LOTS ALONE.
IT AND JUST HAVE TO BE SOME SORT OF RESTRICTION ON THE LOT.
I I THINK THE TOWN'S PREFERENCE AND CAMMY CAN CHIME IS, IS TO NOT PUT IT ON ONE INDIVIDUAL LOT.
SO, OR MAYBE YOU DON'T CARE EITHER WAY.
WELL IT, WE, WE'VE FOUND CHALLENGES WITH LOT OWNERSHIP OF SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONCERNED.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S BETTER.
THEY ENDED BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD ASKING FOR EXEMPTIONS AND CHANGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS, IS THAT YOU HAD A LOT OF DO I A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
SO, AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GO BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT TURNS INTO A LOT THAT DOESN'T PAY TAXES AND THEN ENDS UP ON THE TAX, ON THE TAX ROLL AND THE TOWN ENDS UP OWNING IT, WHICH WE DON'T WANT.
SO IT'S GOTTA BE SOME WAY, SOME FORM.
SO THE, I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR, THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE WOULD BE A SEPARATE LOT, OBVIOUSLY A LOT NOT TO BE DEVELOPED.
I THINK WHAT WE VISION IS THAT WOULD BE CONVEYED TO A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND OBVIOUSLY THAT REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
IS THERE, UH, ISSUE WITH CABINET CREATING A NEW LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ROAD ACCESS? NO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA BE DEVELOPED.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE A BUILDING LOT.
IT'LL BE CALLED EXCEPT EXCEPTIONAL LOTION.
SO THAT IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS GONNA HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT.
YEAH, WE'RE HAVE TO WORK CAMS, ALL THE STUFF ABOUT THE, THE PODS GONNA BE OWNED BY OWNED AND MAINTAIN BY THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION.
THE ACCESS PURPOSE IS THE TYPICAL.
SO IS THERE, WHERE'S THE ACCESS TO THE STORMWATER POND FROM THE ROAD? DO WE, DO WE NEED ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE? WHERE, WHERE IS IT? AND THIS JUST FOR REFERENCE, SARAH, THAT'S BETWEEN UH, LOTS.
WHERE'S THE BACK? WHERE'S IT ALMOST CONNECT TO THE WHERE, WHERE THE, THE PARK IS RIGHT HERE.
ON THE AREA YOU CAN SEE THE, CAN SEE HERE'S THE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO NOTIFY THE VILLAGE.
ONCE THEY MAKE APPLICATION, YOU'RE RIGHT.
PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY AND THE LOTS BEHIND YOU.
VILLAGE, OAK HILL OR WHATEVER.
OAK HILL GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS.
JUST TO POINT IT OUT, I TO PUT IN MY, YOU GUYS KNOW YOU'RE IN THE SOUTHERN HAM OVERLAY.
THERE ARE SOME, MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR NON, THESE ARE SEWER AND WATER, PUBLIC WATER.
BUT THERE IS SOME DIRECTION, THEREFORE I GUESS SOMEONE WOULD ASK IS MY, MY REQUEST WAS OBVIOUSLY TO COMMENCE A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
AS PART OF THAT REQUEST, WE WOULD ASK FOR THERE TO BE REQUIRED REFERRAL TO THE VILLAGE OF HAMBURG PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE GENERALIST BOSS SECTION 2 39 AND N.
SO WE USUALLY DON'T, WE'LL START THE SECRET WITH THIS DRAMATIC PLAN, BUT WE USUALLY DON'T DO THE COUNTY OR, UH, MUNICIPAL APPROVAL OF THE ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAN.
AND, AND THE TOWN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
[00:20:01]
FOR THE A PIECE OF THE WORK, CORRECT? YES.THE PUBLIC CALLED PUBLIC ROAD ACCOUNT SPECS.
WE HAVE THE FULL PART ONE, WE'LL SUBMIT PART ONE, THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM.
NO, TYPICALLY ONCE YOU HAVE THE RECORD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING? MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE COORDINATED REVIEW ON RECEIPT OF PART ONE OF THE EAF FOR ESSIC HOLMES OF WESTERN NEW YORK.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS MARK MOLE REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL FOR A TIER TWO SOLAR ARRAY TO BE LOCATED AT 2 9 4 5 SOUTH CREEK ROAD.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS WHEN HE WAS IN FRONT OF US BEFORE AND HAD HIM IN THE WRONG SPOT.
THE ZONING BOARD SAID NO TO THE VARIANCE AND NOW THEY'RE BACK, RIGHT? CORRECT.
I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS FOR THIS NEW PROPOSAL, WILL YOU NEED A VARIANCE? NO.
ALRIGHT, SO YEAH, WE'RE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR A 12.9 KILOWATTS, UH, RESIDENTIAL GROUND MOUNTED SYSTEM.
ALL THE ENERGY PRODUCED WILL BE CONSUMED ON SITE, UH, BY THE HOME.
UM, JUST GOING THROUGH NORMAL PHASE HERE.
SO THIS IS OUR FIRST MEETING BACK WITH THE PLANS THAT ARE ALL ALRIGHT.
ANY TREES GONNA BE REMOVED? NOPE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? REMEMBER THIS ONE? I WASN'T ON THAT, BUT IN THE PAPER, I THINK THAT TOO MIGHT DUE.
AND I THINK SO THERE'S NO NEIGHBORS WITHIN, I THINK IT WAS A HALF A MILE.
NO, THERE'RE WELL, THERE'S DEFINITELY NEIGHBORS BECAUSE NEIGHBORS LAST BECAUSE IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHY THEY WENT TO THE ZONING BOARD TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE.
THERE JUST, THERE IS A, UH, SMALL COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT OUR TEAM'S GOING THROUGH THAT IS SEPARATE.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES? WE'LL LOOK AT THE CBA MINUTES.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE NEIGHBOR EXCEPT FOR BEING TOO CLOSE TO HIM? LIKE, WAS HE WORRIED ABOUT DRAINAGE? WAS HE WORRIED ABOUT ANY OF THOSE THINGS OR WHATEVER? VISIBILITY, I BELIEVE.
WHAT WAS THAT? OH, VISIBILITY.
UM, IT WILL BE RIGHT BEHIND HIS LARGE BARN AND HIS MASSIVE BARN.
SO, AND CAN THESE ARE HIGH ENOUGH OFF THE GROUND THAT DRAINAGE IS NOT AN ISSUE.
ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING ELSE? ARE YOU PROPOSING ANY LANDSCAPING OR SCREENING BETWEEN THE PANELS AND YOUR NEIGHBOR PROPERTY? NO, IT'S KIND OF WIDE OPEN IN, IN THAT WHOLE BACKYARD.
IT, IT'S KIND OF WAS A, WAS A FARM.
SO THE WHOLE SPACE WAS KIND OF WIDE OPEN.
SO WE DIDN'T WANNA KIND OF START SCREWING WITH THAT LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW, PUTTING UP THE CARRIER AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
TRYING TO GET THE PASTURE, IF YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SATELLITE, SEE SOMETHING, YOU SEE ALL THESE PASTURES, ALL THOSE, UM, FENCES ARE SHOT.
AND THERE WAS ACTUALLY A THIRD ONE IN ANOTHER SPOT.
IS ALL FALLING DOWN BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING THIS BACK INTO SOME LEVEL OF AG USES, REMEMBER? YEAH.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WANT SOLAR PANELS IS TO HELP ME DO THAT.
AND I WILL FOR THE NEXT MEETING, REDO THE CHECKLIST.
REMEMBER THIS, THE TIER TWO PROJECT, WE CREATED A CHECKLIST FOR TIER TWO, TIER THREE, TIER FOUR PROJECT.
I'LL GET YOU A CHECKLIST FOR THE TIER TWO.
JUST MAKE SURE, WE LIKE TO JUST VERIFY THAT THEY MET ALL REQUIREMENTS.
DO WE WANT ANY SORT OF VISUALS, RENDERINGS TO DEMONSTRATE THE STEERING? WELL AGAIN, THE TIER TWO DOES REQUIRE, DOES REQUIRE WHEN IT, WHEN SCREENING IS REQUIRED TIER THREE AUTOMATICALLY TIER TWO, I'LL SHOW YOU.
SO IT'S GONNA BE YOUR DECISION.
THEIR THEIR CONTENTION IS THERE'S NO NEED FOR SCREENING.
THERE'S NOTHING TO SCREEN FROM.
SO THAT'LL BE A DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
[00:25:01]
FROM NOT JUST PUT UP IF THERE'S SOMETHING TO SCREEN HIM FROM.WELL IF YOU TALK TO THE, THE NEIGHBOR, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY KNOW ABOUT THIS, BUT THEY WILL WANT THE NEXT DONATOR.
I MEAN THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY THIS WAS DENIED AT THESE NDAI OFFERED IT.
AND HE SAID HE DIDN'T CARE FOR
YEAH, I KNOW, BUT HE WILL NOW, NOW THAT I'M SURE.
I MEAN NOW THAT YOU'RE YEAH, CO.
BUT YES, WE'LL GET YOU WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND WHAT YOU MAY NEED FROM THEM TO DETERMINE IF SCREENING IS GONNA BE REQUIRED.
WE MAY HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBOR AND ASK HOW THE NEIGHBOR REDUCE THE VISIBLE, VISIBLE EVIDENCE.
JUST, I DON'T THINK I NEED ANY ACTION TONIGHT.
DID WE DO, UH, YOU NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU NEED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, THIS, THEY SUBMITTED A SHORT FORM OR THEY ASSIST.
THAT'S ALL I DID INITIALLY SUBMIT A SHORT FORM.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A COORDINATOR.
THERE'S NO OTHER APPROVAL AGENCY.
SO I MEAN, YOU COULD DO A COORDINATED REVIEW IF YOU WANT ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD, WHO WE WOULD SEND IT TO OR WHO WE WOULD NO, I'LL JUST, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 16TH.
RIGHT NEXT TO, IS ALLEN THE ONE THAT COMPLAINED? NO.
ALLEN DIDN'T CARE THE WAY, NOW THAT IT'S CLOSER, THE, SO I HEARD THE ROGER.
YEAH, WE KNOW THIS IS REPLACING ROGER YET.
WHEN'S ROGER'S LAST DAY? LAST WEEK? TOO CLOSE TO THE SPOT.
NO THEY HAVEN'T TIM, TIM IS IN CHARGE UNTIL THEY GET ANOTHER OKAY.
I KNOW I WAS PROBABLY ON VACATION.
YOU WERE NOT FOR DIDN'T HAVE A, DIDN'T HAVE A PARTY.
THEY THOUGHT I WAS ON VACATION.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE A PARTY WANT ANYTHING FOR LIKE, OTHER BUSINESSES? WE, UM, NOTHING FLORIDA.
MY, UH, PARENTS, WE HAD TO WEAR MASKS ON THE BUS.
IT WASN'T IT STILL? I THINK SO.
I THINK WE, I THINK WE MADE IT YOU MADE IT GET NO DISNEY.
SHE, I CRIED ON, WELL I MEAN MY YOUNGEST IS 13.
SHE WENT ON, TOOK A LOT OF CONVINCING TO GET HER ON.
I EVEN IF YOU DID CRY, I WAS IN TOP BEFORE YOU GUYS GOT ALL YOUR NOTICES ABOUT TRAINING AVAILABILITY, RIGHT? THERE IS TRAINING AVAILABLE? YEAH, I'M DOING THE ONE AND NEXT WEEK.
WHAT'S THAT? I'M DOING THE ONE THIS WEEK AND THE ONE NEXT WEEK.
AND I'M DOING A PRESENTATION ON SOLAR FOR THE STATE OF THE REGION.
SHOULD THAT AROUND, THAT'S GONNA BE FOR REAL SOLAR PROJECT FOUR C PROJECTS.
[00:30:01]
REPRESENTATIVE EZ WILL BE THERE.TWO REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHER PEOPLE.
SIR, YOU KNOW, YOU SENT US ONE, UH, UH, YOU FORWARDED US THE THING FROM THE COUNTY THURSDAY.
YOU THURSDAYS AND I SIGNED UP FOR THE ONE TOMORROW, BUT I HAVEN'T GOT ANY NOTIFICATION YOU DIDN'T GET.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, I JUST FORWARD THE EMAILS.
YEAH, NO, I, I REGISTERED AND EVERYTHING FOR THE FIRST TWO.
LET, I HAVEN'T HAD A, IT CAME FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
THE OTHER ONE CAME FROM NICOLE KEVI ON THE ZONING BOARD.
SHE WORKS THE OTHER, THEY'RE SOMETHING.
IT'S THE CLEAN ENERGY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE EMAIL CAME FROM DIANA ROSE AT ERIE COUNTY.
YOU GUYS, MY FAMILY USED THE SPRAY STUFF.
I USED THE LOTION AND I GOT A BETTER HERE I BUT THE REST OF THEM TOO.
SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE'S THREE BEDERSON PROJECTS ALL CAME IN ON THE SAME DAY.
ARE THEY ALL IN THE WORK SESSION? YEP.
YEAH, IT'S BE, IT'S GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT CONVERSATION.
I'M, YOU WON'T HAVE AS MUCH ON YOUR REGULAR MEETING THOUGH.
CAITLIN, WHO DID YOU GET THE CONFIRMATION FROM? UH, DIANA ROSE.
AND WHEN DID YOU GET THAT? I GOT A REMINDER TODAY.
I GOT A REMINDER TODAY AT 3 0 1.
GOTTA GET A CONFIRMATION, OTHERWISE THEY WON'T.
SO BUT'S GOT HER EMAIL ADDRESS IN IT.
SO DO YOU EMAIL HER? THEY WOULDN'T LET 'EM IN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A CONFIRMATION.
YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE BOMBING THERE.
WELL, HOW'S THE CONFIRMATION? STOP THAT QUESTION.
WELL, WELL AT LEAST THEY KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
HAVE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
I WHO YOU WANT THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE? ALRIGHT, I'M GOOD.
WELCOME TO THE MARCH 2ND MEETING, THE TOWN OF PLANNING BOARD.
I PLEDGE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT SPANS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
ALRIGHT, FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBMITTED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 6 5 0 5 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
UH, YOU OR WANNA SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE START OR THE APPLICANT OR, UM, I HAVE TALKED TO THE, THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY KNOW THIS.
OKAY, WELL I WAS GONNA DO THAT PART IF YOU WANT.
OH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WANTED.
NO, I JUST WAS, IF ANYTHING ADD NO.
SO WE DID A POSITIVE DECLARATION ON THIS PROJECT AS MANY OF YOU'RE AWARE, AND NOW WE'RE IN THE FORMALIZED SEEKER PROCESS.
SO THAT MEANS DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS ONLY ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, THE ONLY COMMENTS
[00:35:01]
THAT WILL BE ACCEPTED WILL HAVE TO BE COMMENTS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, NOT GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT.SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, BILL, JUST LET PEOPLE KNOW THE STEP AF AFTER WE GET ALL THESE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND EVERYBODY, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS TO DECIDE WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS AND HOW THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE FDIS.
'CAUSE YOU CONTROL THE FDIS THE APPLICANT CONTROLS THE DEI SO UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE SUBSTANTIVE AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA BE ADDRESSED.
AND THEN THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL HAVE TO STAY OPEN 10 DAYS FROM TODAY FOR PEOPLE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS BY EMAILS OR LETTERS OR PHONE CALLS.
SO I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT I THINK WE'LL GET COMMENTS FROM A NEIGHBOR, UM, BRIAN, UM, COUNCILMAN LEY.
OH, MARKLEY WAS GONNA BE HERE, BUT HE'S ILL AND I THINK WE'LL GET SOMETHING FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY AS WELL IN THAT 10 DAY PERIOD.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THAT 10 10 DAY PERIOD IS IN THE STATUTE.
I GUESS THE OTHER THING I WOULD JUST ADD IS THAT IF ANYBODY IS READING FROM PREPARED REMARKS, WE WILL BUBBA COPY IF YOU HAVE THEM ALREADY WRITTEN DOWN SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THEM CORRECTLY IN THE MINUTES.
SARAH, DID YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE STARTED? NO, I'M JUST HERE TO KIND OF TAKE NOTES AND MONITOR, UM, AT THE CLOSE OF THE TIME DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME THAT WE HAD NO PROBLEM TAKING A FIRST CRACK AT ADDRESSING THE FDIS FOR SUBMISSION ULTIMATELY BY THE TOWN.
UM, JUST HOW IT'S GONNA BE COMMUNICATED TO US AS TO WHAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIVE FOR RESPONSE.
WE WON'T HAVE THE FULL NATURE OF THAT UNTIL 10 DAYS AFTER TONIGHT, BUT JUST AS LONG AS THAT GETS TO US AND HOW WE'RE GONNA, I'LL GET IT.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THE TOWN OF PLANNING BOARD, WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE BROADWAY GROUP IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A DOLLAR GENERAL STORE AT 6 5 0 5 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 2ND, 2022 AT 7:00 PM ROOM SEVEN B AT AMBER TOWN HALL.
AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAD A SIGN IN SHEET, SO, UH, WE'LL START WITH THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED IN TO MAKE A COMMENT.
FIRST PERSON ON THIS LIST IS KIM JABLONSKI.
I LIVE AT 6 5 5 0 HEALTH ROAD.
THIS IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO, UM, THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOLLAR GENERAL.
UM, THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE DEIS REPORT REGARDING SECTION 1.6, STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE.
UM, HOW DOES THE PROPERTY THAT WILL INCLUDE LARGE PA SURFACES CAPTURE RAIN WATER BETTER THAN EXISTING GRAIN SPACE? THEY EXPECT TO REDIRECT RAINWATER THROUGH A CATCHMENT SYSTEM INTO A RETENTION POND IN DITCHES.
THE PLAN SHOWS ELEVATION CHANGES TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING TO SURROUNDING DITCHES THAT DO NOT EXIST.
THE CATCHMENT SYSTEM DEALS WITH RAINWATER.
THE MAJORITY OF THE WATER ISSUES WITH THIS PROPERTY COME FROM GROUNDWATER IN THE FINDINGS BY THE GEOTECH COMPANY WHO CONDUCTED TESTING.
MANY TESTS WERE DEEMED INCONCLUSIVE BECAUSE THE BORINGS WERE FILLED WITH WATER.
THIS INCLUDES THE PERCOLATION TESTING FOR THE PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT WAS UNABLE TO BE PERFORMED DUE TO GROUNDWATER FILLING THE TEST FALL DURING CONSTRUCTION.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS A QUOTE FROM, FROM THEIR, UH, REPORT.
DEWATERING MAY BE REQUIRED FOR BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION BASED ON THE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED FOR THE TIME OF DRILLING.
I'M WONDERING WHERE THIS WATER WILL GO IF THEY'RE GOING TO DEWATER.
IF THE WATER IS UNABLE TO COME TO THE SURFACE DUE TO THE, THE PORTION COVERED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, IT WILL SEEK LOWER GROUND AREA, WHICH WILL BE OUR PROPERTY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADD FOUR FEET TO FILL THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
OUR LOT WILL BE CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN WHAT IT ALREADY IS PRODUCING STANDING WATER.
THIS PROPERTY MAY NOT MEET LEGAL DEFINITION FOR WETLANDS, BUT THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT REGARDING COMMUNITY CHARACTER, NOT MEANING TO BE CRITICAL OF DOLLAR GENERAL STORES, BUT THE NOTION AS ADDRESSED IN COMMUNITY CHARACTER THAT THE BUILDING OF A DOLLAR GENERAL STORE WOULD COMPLIMENT THE SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD HEALTH ROAD CORRIDOR IS NOT TRUE.
WHILE THIS LOT IS NO LONGER PRETTY WITH MANY TREES AFFECTED BY THE ASH TREE DISEASE, IT IS STILL A GREEN SPACE.
[00:40:01]
CONTRARY TO WHAT THIS SECTION STATES, NOT ALL HOUSES ARE A DEEP SETBACK.WITH OUR HOUSE BEING LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM THE ROAD, THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES WILL BE AFFECTED AND MAY ACTUALLY CAUSE US TO HAVE DIFFICULTY SELLING OUR HOMES IN THE FUTURE.
NO ONE WILL BE RUSHING TO BUY A HOUSE NEXT TO DOLLAR GENERAL REGARDING NOISE AND LIGHT.
WHILE MY HOUSE IS 108 FEET FROM THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, HOW IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO PUT AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT FIVE FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE? WILL THIS REQ, WILL THIS REQUIRE THE PRIVACY FENCE TO BE ON MY PROPERTY? IF I REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO BUILD SOMETHING ON MY PROPERTY THAT CAME WITHIN FIVE FEET OF MY NEIGHBOR'S LINE, WOULD YOU APPROVE IT NO LESS SOMETHING THAT WILL PRODUCE NOISE.
WHILE THIS PART OF MY PROPERTY IS AN EMPTY LOT, WHICH THEY, THEY MENTIONED I WILL CHOOSE IF, IF I CHOSE TO DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE AND THIS CLOSE TO ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE, WOULD BE AN ISSUE ON MY PROPERTY.
MUCH OF LAKEVIEW HAS BEEN PRESERVED AS A HAMLET THAT MOST LONGTIME LAKEVIEW RESIDENTS PREFER IN THE 2010 MASTER PLAN THAT INCLUDED IN THE PLAN TO INTENTIONALLY NOT EXTEND SERVICES TO DISCOURAGED DEVELOPMENT.
WHILE I REALIZED THAT THE 2010 MASTER PLAN IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVISED AND UPDATED, DO DOLLAR GENERAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND DOES NOT COMPLIMENT AN AREA THAT WELL ZONE COMMERCIAL IS ADJACENT TO LONG ESTABLISHED HOMES.
TRAFFIC NUMBERS PRESENTED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TAKEN DURING THE PANDEMIC ARE INACCURATE AND DO NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE MANY MUNICIPAL VEHICLES THAT USE OUR STREET.
THIS INCLUDES TOWN, STATE, AND COUNTY VEHICLES THAT USE HEALTH ROAD.
THESE INCLUDE DUMP TRUCKS FULLY LOADED THAT WHEN THEY ARE WORKING ON A PROJECT MAY PASS THE HOUSE EVERY 10 TO 15 MINUTES THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
IN ADDITION, MORE AND MORE TRACTOR TRAILERS ARE USING OUR STREET AND THAT NUMBER WILL INCREASE WITH THE DOLLAR GENERAL DELIVERIES IN SECTION 4.3 STATING THAT THIS PROJECT IS HARMONIOUS WITH AND IMPLEMENTS THE TOWN'S DESIRE AND THE MASTER PLAN TO RECRUIT NEW EMPLOYEES IN SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE $8 GENERAL STORES OR DOLLAR STORES WITHIN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
DOLLAR STORES ARE NOT A NEW SHOPPING OPPORTUNITY AND THE LOW NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT THIS WILL PRODUCE WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS.
AS A NEIGHBOR, NEIGHBOR TO THIS PROJECT, I BELIEVE IT WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR LIVES AND OUR, OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT.
THE NEXT TIME, NEXT PERSON ON THE LIST IS, UH, RANDY GII.
HI, I'M RANDY GIRA, MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE AT 6 5 4 7 AL ROAD OF THREE BUILDINGS DOWN FROM WHAT WOULD BE THE DOLLAR GENERAL PROPERTY.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, UH, TO THE SECTION REGARDING TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE DEIS REPORT.
UH, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE ISSUE WITH DOLLAR GENERAL FIRST, UH, RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY WEREN'T COUNTING ON THE PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING TRAFFIC.
WE CONTINUED TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AND RECEIVED THEIR FINAL RESPONSE, WHICH WAS THEY WERE, THEY BELIEVED THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WOULD TRAVEL WEST ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD USING THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY, WHICH HAS A LEGAL SPEED LIMIT OF 55 MILES PER HOUR AND TRAVEL UP TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND LAKEVIEW ROAD.
THE INTERSECTION WAS NEVER DESIGNED FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
THERE ARE NO CROSSWALKS, BUT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
ALSO, THE PROGRAMMING OF THE LIGHT OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHT CAPACITY FLOW ISN'T THE STANDARD FOUR CORNER CONFIGURATION.
I BELIEVE THE SUGGESTION THAT PEOPLE WOULD EVEN WALK TO THE LIGHT IS FARFETCHED.
THE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED PROPERTY.
THE ENTRANCE TO THE VERY LARGE CUL-DE-SAC ON WHITE OAK WAY IS ALMOST LESS THAN HALF THAT DISTANCE.
IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT PEOPLE WOULD TRAVEL FURTHER AWAY ONLY TO BACKTRACK TO DOLLAR GENERAL.
IT'S BEEN STATED THAT DOLLAR GENERAL'S MISSION IS TO BRING EASY ACCESS FOR PEOPLE LOOKING TO DO QUICK STOP AND SHOP.
AND FOR THOSE UNABLE TO EASILY GET TO LARGER STORES, I BELIEVE IN THAT STATEMENT ALONE, THEY'RE TARGETING PEDESTRIAN SHOPPERS IN THIS AREA.
WE DEAL WITH UP TO FIVE MONTHS OF SNOW.
THIS ALONE CREATES A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION.
THEN YOU FACTOR IN THE 55 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT.
I BELIEVE THE SITUATION IS PRIME FOR FATALITIES.
THE CUL-DE-SAC IS MADE UP OF HUNDREDS OF HOMES WHICH CONTAIN MANY CHILDREN AND TEENS.
I BELIEVE THAT BUILDING A DOG GENERAL ON THE CORNER OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND S ROAD WOULD ENTICE BOTH ADULTS AND KIDS TO CROSS SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD TO SHOP.
[00:45:01]
SOME RESEARCH IN HOW MANY DOLLAR GENERAL STORES, BOTH LOCAL AND THE SURROUNDING AREA WERE ON 55 MILE PER HOUR HIGHWAYS.UM, WITH THESE, WITH THE CON THE SAME CONCERNS THAT I HAVE ABOUT THIS, I FOUND THAT, UH, THE STORY OF EDEN DERBY HAMBURG, THE OTHER ONE, HAMBURG, BOSTON STATE ROAD, LAC OUT, ANGOLA, NORTH COLLINS, ORCHARD PARK, GOLDEN AND EAST AURORA.
ALL OF THESE ARE UNDER 50 MILES PER HOUR, I THINK.
UM, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THESE STORES HAS, HAS HAD, UM, A PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
NEXT PERSON ON THE LIST IS FRANK BESO.
UM, WE, WE GOT A, AN EMAIL FROM YOU TODAY.
IS THAT, UH, THAT YOUR COMMENTS DIFFERENT OR THE SAME AS THIS? THEY'RE THE SAME AS THAT.
DO YOU WANT TO, I WOULD READ ALL YOU WANNA READ 'EM, YOU JUST GIVE US HIGHLIGHTS.
WHATEVER YOU WANT WE NEED AGAIN.
AFTER REVIEWING THE DES IMAGE BY THE BROAD BROADWAY GROUP, WE FEEL THEY STILL NOT SATISFIED SOME OF THE FIRM CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED IN REGARDS TO THE PROJECTS AND BEING SAID, WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE BROADWAY GROUP'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO SECURE THE PROJECT FOR THEIR CLIENT DOLLAR GENERAL.
A CLIENT THAT HAS BOTH THE $26 BILLION IN ASSETS AND REVENUE TOTALING 88.5 BILLION.
SO IT'S NO SURPRISE THAT ALL THE CONCERNS CITED BY THE PLANNING BOARD BOARD HAD NO OR MINIMAL IMPACT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR OUR OWN INDEPENDENT STUDIES TO DISPUTE THEIR FINDINGS, BUT WE'RE GONNA TRY IT UNLESS WE STILL CONTEND THAT JUST DOESN'T FIT THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER OR THE ENHANCEMENT TO THE TOWN OF HAMMER, EVEN IF IT WAS ZONE PROPERLY, WHICH IS C2 UNDER NOISE AND LIGHT.
THE HEADLIGHTS SWEEP ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF HEADLIGHTS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 65 19 HEALTH ROAD.
THEY TOOK SOME ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ANALYSIS REGARDS TO PROPERLY ALIGNED HEADLIGHTS.
HEADLIGHTS ARE ALIGNED IN THE DISTANCE OF 25 FEET, BUT THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT, UH, SLIGHTLY ANGLED DOWN TO PREVENT FROM BLINDING ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW HOW THAT WORKS WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY, YOU GET BLINDED A LOT.
THE PASSENGER SIDE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS NOT ADJUSTED.
IT IS ADJUSTED FOR GREATER ILLUMINATION.
SO YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE ROAD SIGNS.
WE CONDUCTED A SIMPLE TEST USING MY PICKUP TRUCK TO SHOW THE ILLUMINATION OF THE HOUSE FROM THE ROAD AT APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED FEET.
WHEN I TOOK SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, PASS THESE AROUND THE CENTER OF MY HEADLIGHTS, I 42 INCHES FROM THE GROUND AND I POSITIONED MY TRUCK ON THE ROAD FACING THE HOME FROM THE CELERY PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOWS ARE 56 INCHES ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AND THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR IS 42 INCHES.
AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE PHOTOS, THE ILLUMINATION EXTENDS ABOVE THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOWS AND IS WELL ABOVE THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR.
WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO COUNTER ALL THE DATA THAT THEY USE TO COME UP TO COME, TO, COME TO THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPACT IS MINIMAL.
BUT WE BELIEVE IT IS SIGNIFICANT.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE STORE AND EACH OF THEM HAD THEIR DRAWBACKS.
NOT ONE OF THEM MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE, THE MAILBOX RELOCATION FOR OUR HOME, WHERE THEY PROPOSING TO PLACE THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS TO ASSESS ANY RELATED SAFETY ISSUES UNDER TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
WE STILL THAT THE UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY SEVERELY UNDERSTATE THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GENERATED ON ELK ROAD.
WE CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC STUDY BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURGER POLICE ON BOTH THE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC.
THIS WAS CONDUCTED FROM 8 26 2000 TO NINE 14 2000 DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC.
BOTH OF THESE REPORTS WERE PRE PREVIOUSLY FENCE TO THE BOARD AND IT SHOWED A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.
A TOTAL OF 275 VEHICLES WERE RECORDED AND THE SOUTHBOUND STUDY RECORDED 300 VEHICLES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.
THIS HIGHER TRAFFIC VOLUME OCCURRED DURING HOURS OF 7:00 AM TO 8:00 PM AS WE HAVE STATED IN THE PAST, THE INDUSTRY STANDARD ON PEAK TIMES DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TRAFFIC PATTERN ON THIS ROAD.
THESE NUMBERS WILL INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY ONCE THE AC ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES STARTED THE NIKE ROAD SITE.
AS THIS IS A MAJOR CUT THROUGH
[00:50:01]
TO LAKE CREEK ROAD AS FAR AS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IS CONCERNED, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PEDESTRIANS OR ISTS USE THE ROAD SHOULDERS TO COM TO, UH, IS COMPLETELY ABSURD.KIDS ARE GOING TO CROSS THAT HIGHWAY AT THE INTERSECTION BEFORE THEY BIKE OR WALK DOWN TO THE LIKE LIGHT AT LAKEVIEW ROAD.
THIS POSES A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE.
THE TYPE OF TRAFFIC VARIES ON THIS PORTION OF HEALTH ROAD FROM PASSENGER VEHICLE TO MUCH HEAVY VEHICLES WHICH USE THIS ROAD AS A CUT THROUGH TO ACCESS ROUTE 20.
ALL THIS ADDS UP TO THE FACT IT IS A VERY BUSY ROAD AND ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IS A SAFETY ISSUE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE BUS STOP GOES, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR CONTENTION REALLY IS, UM, ON THAT.
I I THINK THEY REFERRED TO IT AS A UN-DESIGNATED STOP.
UM, WHAT THAT MEANS, I DON'T KNOW, BUT MY GRANDSON NEEDS TO CROSS THAT ROAD EVERY DAY TWICE A DAY.
AND THAT'S STILL A CONCERN FOR US AND I DON'T THINK THEY'VE, THEY'VE PROBABLY ADDRESSED IT.
AND ONE LAST POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT UNDER THE NOBLE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS STATED THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.
WELL, IT'S NOT ENTIRELY TRUE, UM, IF THE TOWN WERE TO EVENTUALLY CHANGE THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN THAT LAW ON THAT AREA, BUT WE'VE BECOME MORE DESIRABLE FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOMES BUILT.
BUT AN ALTERNATIVE I DON'T THINK IS, IS UM, IS PROPER.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO SIGN IN FOR COMMENTS.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UM, RIGHT, FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE DEIS FOR DOLLAR GENERAL? ALL RIGHT, SO FOR THE THIRD AND FILE TIME, ANY COMMENTS? SEE NONE.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BILL, I THINK SARAH HAS A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, DO YOU WANT THIS PLACED ON THE NEXT MEETING? IF IT WAS TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT MEETING, ALL WE WOULD DO IS TALK ABOUT THE COMMENTS RECEIVED, START TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ARE AND BEGIN TO GIVE DIRECTION.
I DON'T THINK WE COULD FINISH THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE DO AT THE NEXT MEETING.
WHERE YOU LOOK, WHEN IS OUR DEADLINE FOR THAT? FOR THE, TO SUBMIT THE FINAL COMMENTS.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE HAVE RIGHT AFTER THAT FOR THE F BS, I GUESS WE PROBABLY SHOULD, I THINK THE 16TH WOULD BE THE ONLY TIME WE'D HAVE, BECAUSE IF WE WAITED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, YOU CAN IS THERE A TIMEFRAME? THERE'S AN FBIS AFTER THE PUBLIC.
WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THE, WE DON'T WANT TO GO CRAZY ON IT, BUT WE GOTTA DO IT CORRECTLY.
OO OBVIOUSLY IF WE WANT TO GIVE GOOD DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT WHO'S OFFERED TO DO THE FIRST DRAFT, AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK ON REVIEWING THE FIRST DRAFT AND MAKING ANY CHANGES TO IT.
SO WE NEED TO KEEP IT MOVING ALONG.
I'M SUGGESTING MAYBE WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA EVEN.
I THINK IF WE CAN HAVE, JUST TO SHOW, SHARE WHAT ALL THE COMMENTS ARE.
AND REMEMBER YOU GUYS HAVE TO GENERATE COMMENTS, RIGHT? IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS.
SO WE NEED TO PUT THOSE ALL TOGETHER SO THE APPLICANT KNOWS THESE ARE ALL THE, THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED.
WE THEN START AND CATEGORIZE THEM AND BEGIN TO PUT 'EM.
I, THAT'S WHAT SARAH AND I CAN DO IS LEAST START TO CATEGORIZE THEM AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THESE? WHAT ARE SUBSTANTIVE? HOW ARE YOU GONNA ADDRESS THEM? SO BY THE 16TH YOU'LL HAVE THE MINUTES OBVIOUSLY, WHICH WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS TODAY.
ANYTHING THAT WE GET BETWEEN NOW AND THE 12TH, YOU'LL ALSO HAVE BY THE 16TH.
SO YOU COULD AT LEAST START TO DISCUSS WHICH COMMENTS YOU SUBSTITUTE.
YEAH, WE'LL, I MEAN WE'LL HAVE TO BE BACK ON THE 16TH ON IT.
CAN YOU REMIND ME IF WE HAVE OF THE, THE TEXT OF THE DEIS, DO WE HAVE THE WORD DOCUMENT OF THE TEXT ONLY? I I MEAN THE, THE ASSUMING THE APPENDICES ARE ALL DIFFERENT FILES, BUT DO WE HAVE A WORD DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN MARK UP? I DON'T KNOW.
OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD GET? YES, I'M SURE.
I MEAN THE PDF PDF IF YOU WANNA WORK OFF IT.
WELL IF YOU GO ON THE WEBSITE ON OUR PLANNING PAGE, THEY HAD TO DIVIDE IT INTO THREE SECTION.
IT'S A PDF D YOU SAYING SOMETHING? I JUST WANTED THE WORD VERSION OF THE, THE TEXT PORTION.
MOST OF IT'S APPENDICES, BUT IF WE CAN GET A WORD VERSION OF THE, I DON'T SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE.
AND THEN I CAN JUST SEND IT TO SARAH AND YOU CAN JUST SUBMIT.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE EASIER IF WE HAVE COMMENTS ON AND MAY HELP THE PLANNING BOARD DEVELOP YOUR COMMENTS IS WE'RE JUST SAYING OR JUST COMMENT RIGHT IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENT.
IF, IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT TO SARAH.
I AND SARAH AND JUST SO WE, I'M CLEAR, THE 16TH YOU GUYS WILL DISCUSS THE SUBSTATIVE COMMENT PORTION, BUT
[00:55:01]
THE PUBLIC HEARING AT A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL CLOSE ON THE 12TH.
ALRIGHT, SO THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE LAKEVIEW DOLLAR GENERAL TO MARCH 16TH.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DAVID MANKO REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF PHASE FOUR OF THE MISSION HILLS DEVELOPMENT TO LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CAMPER ROAD.
SO GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, DAVID MANKO.
WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING IN CONNECTION WITH FURTHER REVIEW OF WHAT WE CALL PHASE FOUR OF THE OVERALL MISSION HELD PROJECT.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE REVIEW THAT ENDED IN THE ISSUANCE OF A FINDING STATEMENT BY A PREDECESSOR BOARD IN 2010.
THE SITE ITSELF CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 90 92 0.28 ACRES IN SIZE.
WE DID PRESENT THIS TO SOME OF YOU DURING YOUR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 16TH AND WE RECEIVED SOME INPUT AND WE REALLY MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO ADDRESS IN CONNECTION WITH AN UPDATED SUBMISSION THAT WAS MADE ON FEBRUARY 22ND.
SO I'M GONNA HIGHLIGHT QUICKLY WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE MADE AND AS WE PROCEED, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
PHASE FOUR, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, IS SHOWN HERE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT RIGHT NOW THE ONLY OTHER PHASE THAT'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS PHASE THREE THAT WAS ENVISIONED TO BE 91 PATIO HOMES.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT AS 91 PATIO HOMES IN THE FINDING STATEMENT THAT WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEEKER ON JANUARY 10TH, 2010.
THAT'S THE DATE OF THE DOCUMENT.
IT TURNS OUT THE DENSITY OF THAT SUBDIVISION, THE PATIO HOMES, HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 10.
AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IN A MOMENT.
SO, SO THAT GOES DOWN FROM 91 UNITS TO 81 UNITS UPON COMPLETION.
THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE, THE PLAN THAT WE PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY, THE BOTTOM PLAN BEING THE PLAN WE PRESENTED THREE WEEKS AGO, AND THIS BEING THE CURRENT PLAN THAT ACCOMPANIED THE A SUBMISSION ARE AS FOLLOWS.
AS YOU RECALL, WE PREVIOUSLY SHOWED A FOUR UNIT BUILDING HERE.
MR. MANKO ACTUALLY PRESENTED THIS TO EXISTING RESIDENTS, SOME OF WHOM SAID ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL.
WE PREFER IF YOU DO NOT BLOCK OUR VIEW SHED HERE.
AS YOU KNOW, WE PRESENTED THIS ON THE 16TH.
WE AGREED WE WOULD REMOVE THAT BUILDING.
SO WE'RE DOWN A FOUR UNIT BUILDING, WHICH WAS LOCATED PREVIOUSLY HERE AS WE COMMITTED TO WHERE ALSO THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS BEING LOCATED.
SO THEY WERE CONTIGUOUS WITH THE PAVE PORTION OF THE ROADWAY AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SOME SAFETY CONCERNS.
SO WE HAVE RELOCATED THE SIDEWALK.
SO IT'S NOW FIVE FEET BACK FROM THE PRIVATE DRIVE IN ORDER TO AVOID ADDITIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS.
WE'RE SHOWING NOW THE SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE, BUT THERE WILL BE CONNECTIVITY.
UM, I DID GET A COPY OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S MEMO RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING BEGAN.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS LET'S ADD SOME STRIKE CROSSINGS AND SOME APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE.
WE'D ABSOLUTELY WOULD DO THAT AND THAT WOULD BE FINE.
WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT GETS INCLUDED ON THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS.
UM, WE HAVE CHANGED THE BUILDING SETBACK.
SO IN THOSE INSTANCES IT'S 25 FEET FROM THE BACK EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK, THEREBY MAKING SURE THAT IF A VEHICLE'S PARKING IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE UNITS, EACH OF WHICH HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE, THERE'LL BE ADEQUATE PARK ADEQUATE SPACE WITHOUT BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK.
WE DON'T WANNA BLOCK THE SIDEWALK.
ONE OF THE SIDEWALKS, SIDEWALKS ARE THREE FEET, FIVE FEET.
SO FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE ROAD.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A DA STANDARD.
NOW THEY HAVE TO BE, THEY HAVE TO BE 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK.
SO I'M SAYING FROM THE OUTER, THE INTERNET, FIVE FEET.
WE'VE ALSO HAD SOME ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS WHICH ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE PLAN, SHOWING HOW CLOSE THESE UNITS ARE TO THE WETLANDS.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, I DID PROVIDE SARAH WITH A LETTER YESTERDAY WITH COPIES OF THE WETLAND PERMIT DOCUMENTATION.
UM, THAT INCLUDES THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON AUGUST 12TH, 2009.
THAT DID AUTHORIZE 0.45 ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS.
WE'VE ALSO COMPLETED THE REQUIRED 1.04 ACRES OF
[01:00:01]
ONSITE WETLAND MITIGATION.SO THESE AREAS, THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT ARE HATCHED HERE THAT APPEAR TO BE WETLAND IMPACTS.
THOSE ARE WETLAND IMPACTS AND THEY'VE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AS PART OF THE PROJECT.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN, IN ITS ENTIRETY, OUT OF THIS 92.2 ACRE SITE, 38 ACRES OF IT IS PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
SO A LARGE PORTION OF IT IS PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
SO WHERE WE'RE AT TONIGHT IS FOLLOWING UP ON THE DISCUSSION ON FEBRUARY 16TH, IS PROCEEDING OBVIOUSLY TO PREPARATION OF FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS IN THE BEST MANNER OF HANDLING SEEKER.
KEEPING IN MIND THAT THIS PROJECT WAS SUBJECT TO A FINDING STATEMENT ISSUED PURSUANT TO A PREDECESSOR BOARD IN 2010.
SO AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED, OOPS, FOR PHASE FOUR WAS 40 UNITS.
SO WE'RE UP 14 THROUGH PHASE FOUR COMPARING IT TO THE FINDING STATEMENT IN 2010.
BUT WE'RE ALSO DOWN 91 LOTS WHERE PATIO HOSTS 81 DOWN 10 91 TO 81.
SO THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IN THIS PROJECT IS FOUR UNITS.
UM, INCREASING FROM 338 AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED TO 442.
SO WHILE THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, GIVEN THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE AND GIVEN THE EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, I HAVE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE FINDING STATEMENT.
THE DEIS, THE FEIS, UM, I THINK THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT VERY MINOR CHANGE ARE PRETTY INCREMENTAL.
WHAT WE WOULD ASK FOR IS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THE SUBMISSION OF FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS.
AND I DO WANT TO SAY AGAIN, I THINK DAVE GETS SOME CREDIT BECAUSE BEFORE COMING HERE, HE HAS PRESENTED THIS TO HIS EXISTING COMMUNITY ON NUMEROUS TIMES AND SOLICITED THEIR ROOM.
SO THE ORIGINAL PLAN, HOW MANY BUILDINGS IN PHASE FOUR? 10? RIGHT? ACTUALLY, WELL THESE BUILDINGS, WHEN WE DESIGNED THIS 10 YEARS AGO, WHEN WE DESIGNED THESE, THE FOOTPRINTS OF THESE BUILDINGS WERE APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 160 TO 65 FEET LONG BOXES THAT WE PUT ON HERE.
WHEN WE FINALLY GOT TO WORKING ON THIS LAST YEAR, WE REALIZED THAT THIS FOUR UNIT BUILDING REALLY COULD BE A FIVE OR A SIX UNIT BUILDING WITH, BUT I THINK WHAT THE, THE QUESTION IS THIS, THE QUESTION IS WHAT WAS SHOWN THERE PURSUANT TO THE ORIGINAL SEE, RIGHT? HOW MANY BUILDINGS, HOW MANY BUILDINGS THEN HOW MANY BUILDINGS? THE ORIGINAL SEEKER REVIEW SHOWED FOUR 10 UNIT BUILDINGS ON THIS PORTION SITE.
SO THAT'S CORRECT, RIGHT? YES.
AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR HOW MANY BUILDINGS? WELL NOW WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 54 UNITS AND BROKEN DOWN INTO 1, 2, 3, 11 BUILDINGS.
SO, SO YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT DENSITY.
I WANNA KNOW WHAT MY QUESTION WAS.
WHAT YOU WERE GONNA SAY IS WHAT WAS THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS THAT WAS PROPOSED UNDER THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT IN THIS AREA AND WHAT IS THE TOTAL AREA OF BUILDING? SO LET ME JUST TWO, YOUR TWO THINGS HERE HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS ABOUT THREE UNITS TO THE ACRE.
THIS IS ABOUT 19, ALMOST 19 ACRES AND YOU GOT 54 UNITS.
IT'S LIKE, YEAH, BUT I DON'T, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE MS. MCCORMICK THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, I'M NOT SURE PRECISE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS AND DIMENSIONS WERE SHOWN FOR THOSE 14 YEAR BUILDINGS.
WELL SHE JUST, THAT THEY WERE, HE HAD ASSUMED FOR SECRET PURPOSES THEY'D ASSUMED LIKE 165 FOOT LONG BOX.
SO WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THESE BUILDINGS RELATIVE TO THOSE BUILDINGS? THESE UNITS ARE ROUGHLY, UH, 35 ON THE END UNITS, 31 AND THE METALS.
SO THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE WOULD'VE BEEN 1 42, 1 40, YEP.
WE'RE WE'RE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? OKAY.
CAN YOU PROVIDE IN A WRITTEN RESPONSE WHAT THE DI ROUGH DIMENSIONS ARE? THE SQUARE, THE FOOTPRINT OF EACH OF THOSE BUILDINGS IS THAT'S PROPOSED.
AND I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN ADD 'EM OUT.
WE CAN ADD, HAVE THEM ADDED, I CAN ADD THAT ADDED TO YOU AFTER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
AND THEN CAN I INTERJECT? BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WAS ABOUT, BEFORE I FIRST CAME HERE, I WAS GONNA SUBMIT ANOTHER PLAN 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA GO TO A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
I WAS GONNA USE THE SAME FOOTPRINT THAT WE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, BUT I WAS GONNA GO TO A TWO STORY BUILDING WHICH WAS GONNA INCREASE THIS TO 110 UNITS.
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY? YEAH.
SO I WAS GONNA TRY TO PUT 110 UNITS AND I COULD PUT, INSTEAD OF PUTTING A SIX UNIT BUILDING HERE, I COULD HAVE PUT A 12 UNIT BUILDING HERE AND FIT IT INTO THE SAME SPOT.
WHAT KIND OF UH, CHANGED MY MIND WAS, WAS MY OVERALL IDEA THAT I STARTED OUT WITH 10 YEARS AGO.
AND I'M SEEING THIS MARKET CHANGE IN THE MARKET, YOU KNOW? SO, UM, I THOUGHT
[01:05:01]
IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT TOO BUSY.I DIDN'T THINK I WOULD SEE SENIOR CITIZENS SINCE THIS IS THE SENIOR PROPERTY FIGHTING TO GO UP ON SECOND STORY UNITS, YOU KNOW, SO WE WENT BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF STICKING WITH THE RANCH.
SO YEAH, THESE ARE JUST RANCH UNITS.
AND WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE IS WHEN WE COMPARE TO THE ORIGINAL SEEKER AND THE FINDING STATEMENTS THAT ARE AREAS OF FLAT, YOU KNOW, TWO DIMENSIONAL DISTURBANCE ON THE GROUND IN THE IMPACT AREA, I WANNA BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE AS YOUR GROUND DISTURBANCE.
OBVIOUSLY TWO, TWO STORIES WOULD BE VISUAL.
THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO LOOK AT.
BUT TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING NOW, HOW THOSE DIMENSIONS IN THAT AREA OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COMPARES TO WHAT WE HAD IN THE FINDING STATEMENT.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S A NET DECREASE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T BUILD CERTAIN LOTS YES.
YOU COULD TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS LEFT UNDISTURBED OR PRESERVED AS GREEN SPACE OR HOW THAT WAS PRESERVED.
AND YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT TO US IN TERMS OF DIMENSIONS.
DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN BUILDINGS.
YOU GOT A NUMBER OF UNITS, REMEMBER WHEN THEY DID A DIS, THEY JUST SHOWED 'EM AS DIDN'T KNOW SQUARES ON THEM AND WHATEVER WE DIDN'T KNOW.
AND WE'LL LOOK, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT WOULD IN I ENGINEERING WISE, I THINK THERE WAS A SECTION QUANTIFY CREDIT.
I MEAN MY CONCERN IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN TAKE A CREDIT FOR NOT BUILDING THOSE 10 OTHER UNITS OTHER THAN JUST WHAT THE REASON I, THE REASON I WAS DOING THAT.
I WAS COMPARING IT TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WERE PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL.
YEAH, I CERTAINLY WASN'T SAYING IT'S A CREDIT PER SE.
I LOOKED AT IT, WE'RE ONLY UP FOUR TOTAL UNITS.
BUT DAVE CAN, LET ME FOLLOW UP ON ONE QUESTION THAT MR. MCCORMICK HAD.
SO WE'RE SAYING THE NUMBER OF PATIO HOMES IS DOWN FROM 91 TO 81 TO 81.
WHY? AND HOW, WHAT DID THAT DO IN TERMS OF LAYOUT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE THE QUESTIONS.
WELL BACK IN THIS AREA AND UH, BACK HERE, THE KIDS GOT IN HERE AND THEY BUILT THE FORT AND THE FORT, THEY PUT BUILT THE DAM AND THEY FLOODED THE AREAS, WHICH ENDED UP SUBSEQUENTLY WE ENDED UP INCREASING OUR WETLANDS.
SO YOUR WETLANDS PERMITTED WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED HERE, WAS ONLY GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS, CORRECT? YEAH.
THEN I HAD TO GO BACK AND REDESIGN IT, RE RE DELINEATE IT ALL AND WE INCREASED, OUR WETLANDS GOT INCREASED BECAUSE OF THIS KID'S FORD THEY BUILT BACK HERE IN THE WOODS.
AND SO WHERE ARE THE LOTS THAT WERE ELIMINATED APPROXIMATELY? WE, I A BACK THERE.
I DIDN'T SEE A, UM, WE LOST, UH, THIS, THIS LOT, THIS LOT.
UM, THIS IS ALL CONSERVATION AREA NOW.
AND DID THAT PARK COME IN FRONT OF US WHERE WE AMENDED THE PLAN TO REMOVE THE LOTS AND REPLACE IT WITH CONSERVATION AREA? OR IS THAT JUST, IT WAS JUST DONE BY THE ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS.
SO WE'RE, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T WE HAVE TO SWITCH THAT? WE DIDN'T INCREASE IT, WE JUST DECREASED IT.
CAN YOU PROVIDE US A MAP THAT SHOWS WHAT THOSE LOTS ARE AND WHERE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE? YOU'VE ALREADY HAVE IT, BUT I CAN BRING ONE FOR YOU.
I THINK WHAT THE CURRENT PLANNING BOARD IS ASKING FOR, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS THE COPY OF THIS RIGHT ON FILE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT I WANT IT WITH YOUR EXES ON THAT SHOWS ME WHERE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS.
SHE'S ASKING DO WE HAVE A UPDATED SUBDIVISION MAP THAT SHOWS THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE LOTS IN THIS? YES.
YOU HAVE A IT'S ALREADY ON FILE.
WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED IT TO THE TOP.
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHEN WE'VE GOT THE PERMIT TO BUILD THE SUBDIVISION.
BUT CAN WE PUT THAT IN THIS FILE SO THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR SECRET ANALYSIS SURE.
WE'LL JUST BRING IT YOU WANT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A COPY OF IT, RIGHT? WELL, I THINK WE SUBMIT A COPY FOR EACH OF THE LOCAL YEAH, YEAH, EXACTLY.
WELL, WELL, AND I, I'M GONNA GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
IF, IF WE'RE GONNA SAY THE INCREASE OF UNITS HERE IS 14 PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE DECREASE IN THE UNITS IN THE OTHER PLACE, THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO AMEND THAT PHASE TO SHOW THOSE LOTS AS NOT APPROVED AS IT CHANGES TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
AS FAR AS WHAT WE APPROVED, I THINK THEY'RE ALREADY SHOWN ON PLANS IS WHAT DAVE, THEY'RE ALREADY SHOWN ON PLANS AND THEIR CONSERVATION AREAS AREA.
I THINK WHAT CALIN AND BILL THOUGH, THEY WANT TO DOCUMENT THAT IN THE SECRET FINDING.
WE ACTUALLY, HERE'S BACK SHOWING.
SO IF THAT DRIES OUT HOW MUCH LESS HAS BEEN BUILT.
THOSE LOTS DON'T JUST SWITCH BACK.
OH NO, THEY CAN'T EVER BE BUILT BECAUSE THE, WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN THEY GOT DONE DOING IT, WE HAD A REDESIGN, WE REDESIGNED IT.
THEY GO AROUND ALL THESE AREAS NOW AND BUT POINT SEWERS IN THE ROADS, IN EVERYTHING'S IN THERE.
YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T PUT, YOU CAN'T ADD LOTS.
SO WE COULD, SO WE COULD SAY, YEAH, I KNOW WHY IT WAS TO RIGHT.
I KNOW MEANT JUST FOR MATTER OF RECORD, I KNOW IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
UNDERSTAND THIS IS A SUPPLEMENT.
THE, WHAT HE DID IN 2010 WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
THE ORIGINAL PROJECT HERE OVER 30 YEARS AGO WAS A MOBILE HOME PARK OF A THOUSAND UNITS.
AND THEN RIGHT WHEN I JOINED THE TOWN, UH, THEY FINALIZED THAT.
[01:10:01]
MR. MANKO BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, HE CONVERTED IT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.SO WE DID A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON TOP OF THAT ORIGINAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
SO JUST FOR A MATTER OF RECORD, IT IS A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THAT WAS DONE FOR THIS PROJECT.
THERE ACTUALLY, WAS IT A MOBILE HOLE PARK APPROVED HERE 30 YEARS AGO.
AND YOU SEE THAT REFERENCED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THE DIS YEAH.
WHAT'S THAT? WAS MR. PIETRO? YES.
IT IS NOT OFTEN A PROJECT, MISS HISTORY, THAT GOES BEFORE DREW WAS ON.
NO, IT, IT, THAT ONE WAS JUST APPROVED WHEN I ENTERED THE TOWN AND NEVER GOT BUILT.
HE DIED RIGHT AT THE END OF THE APPROVAL.
THE STORY WAS, IT WENT THROUGH THREE OWNERS AND EVERY OWNER THAT TOOK IT OVER.
SO I THINK MR. MAGNER DECIDED HE WASN'T GONNA BUILD IT.
SO WITH REGARD TO THE WETLANDS, YOUR WETLAND PERMIT IS EXPIRED AND THEN WOULD BE BASED ON YOUR REVISED SITE PLAN.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO THE PROCESS, DID YOU HAVE TO DO AN UPDATED, IS THIS A NEW DELINEATION OR IS THIS STILL THIS IS THE CURRENT DELINEATION.
SO THIS WAS FROM, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YEAR THE MOST CURRENT DELINEATION WAS DONE, DAVE? I, I, I'D HAVE TO CALL MY WHAT GUY? I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
IT WAS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS PROBABLY.
NO, I MEAN, I WOULD JUST CONFIRM.
I THINK THEY'RE FOR LIKE THREE OR FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, THEY'RE ONLY GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS.
JDS GOOD FOR FIVE, MR. BUT THE IMPACT, BUT DAVE, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN MADE, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO YOU'VE ALREADY GRADED AND CLEARED EVERYTHING.
MR. LAST LAST MEETING YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE ENTRANCE WHERE WE COMMITT, WIDENED AND PUTTING SIDEWALK.
IS THAT, IS THAT ON A NEW PLAN? THIS? WAIT, LET'S GO TO THE CURB.
WHAT? THAT'S THIS ONE RIGHT THERE.
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WHAT'S THE QUESTION? LAST MEETING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WIDENING THAT AND PUTTING SIDEWALKS ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
DID YOU WIDEN THIS? IT'S ON, I THINK WHAT YOU MEAN IS THIS, DID THEY HAVE THE KIND OF THE THE GRASS.
SO THIS LOOKS LIKE THE SIDEWALKS ARE FOUR FEET, RIGHT? ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE FOUR FEET OR FIVE FEET? FIVE.
WELL THAT'S FOUR FEET ON THE GROUND.
JUST NO, I DID
I DIDN'T SEE AN ACTUAL ORIGINAL.
I ACTUALLY SEE ONE LITTLE, THERE IS ONE IN FRONT OF BUILDING SIX, 10 FOOT FOUR.
YEAH, THAT'S THE, NO, THERE'S NO ZONING VARIANCES NEEDED FOR ANY OF THIS.
THE UM, EVEN IN THE PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENT BACK HERE, WE PUT SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET ALL THE WAY AROUND.
WE HAVE A LOT OF WALKERS THAT WALK THIS.
SENIORS WOULD WALK THE SITE EVERY DAY.
SO FROM A PROCESS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS THAT BEFORE THEY COMMIT TO DO FULL ENGINEERING PLAN AND FOR YOU TO APPROVE THAT PROJECT, THEY WANT TO SEE IF YOU WILL, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GONNA SAY THIS PROJECT IS THAT PERFORMANCE WOULD BE WITH THE FINDINGS, WE'RE GONNA SAY IT'S NONCONFORMANCE, BUT THEN WHAT THEY WANNA DO IS PRESENT ENOUGH INFORMATION LIKE THE QUESTIONS THAT CAITLIN IS ASKING, THAT IT'S A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THAT THE CHANGE TO THE PROJECT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
IT DOES NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
THEY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO THAT BEFORE COMMITTING TO DOING FULL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, OBVIOUSLY.
AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS, WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO PROCEED UNDER SEEKER AND MAKE THAT DECISION? YOU'VE ASKED FOR ONE THING, YOU WANT SOME CALCULATIONS AND WHATEVER OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
OBVIOUSLY YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE EIS AND SEE WHAT WOULD THE ISSUES OF CONCERN, LIKE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS NOT MUCH GREATER, IS PROBABLY NOT A BIG TRAFFIC CONCERN.
CAN'T MAKE A COMMENT ON THE FACT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA, I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE IMPACTING SEWER AND WATER BECAUSE OF AN ADDITIONAL X AMOUNT OF YEARS.
BUT ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES, GREEN SPACE ISSUES, OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE PROJECT? BECAUSE THEY'RE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE CAN DECIDE IF IT'S A NEGATIVE DECK.
UH, YOU DO NOT NEED A PUBLIC HEARING TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
UH, YOU HAVE TO AFFORD PUBLIC COMMENT.
OBVIOUSLY THE NEXT MEETING WE WANNA ADVERTISE THAT WE CAN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR SEEKER UNLESS YOU DO AN IMPACT STATEMENT.
UM, SEEKER SAYS YOU ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO, UM, IT'D BE NICE IF YOU MAYBE LET YOUR, WHO'S GONNA BE IMPACTED MOSTLY AS SOME OF YOUR RESIDENTS KNOW AND SAY, HEY, COME TO THE MEETING.
YOU KNOW, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED MOSTLY.
UM, THERE IS THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC AND I KNOW THAT TRAFFIC'S
[01:15:01]
CHANGED IN THAT AREA.THERE IS, JUST LET YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THIS PROJECT AND OTHER PROJECT THAT HAVE APPROVED OVER LAST 10 YEARS, WHEN IT REACHES THE WARRANT, THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A LIGHT POWERED AND CAMP THERE, WHICH WILL, AS THIS GETS BILLED OUT AND THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE AREA, THEY ACTUALLY PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN UNDERGROUND.
AND SUPPOSEDLY WHEN IT'S WARRANTED, THAT LIGHT WILL GO IN.
INFRASTRUCTURE'S NOW LIKE PROBABLY 20 OR 30 YEARS OLD SINCE THEY DID IT TOO.
NO, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT, IT WAS AFTER HIS PROJECT GOT APPROVED, THE OTHER PROJECTS THEY PUT, THEY PUT, IT'S LESS THAN 10 YEARS.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.
I JUST FEEL LIKE YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR A LONG TIME.
DON'T WORRY THAT PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE ASK ALL THE TIME ABOUT.
AND UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF 'EM DO MAKE RIGHT HAND TURNS AND GO DOWN TO ST.
FRANNY'S AND TURN AROUND AND COME BACK UP IF, IF THE TRAFFIC'S REALLY BAD.
BUT, UM, KNOCK ON WOOD, WE HAD ONLY HAD TWO OR THREE ACCIDENTS AND, AND 10 YEAR PERIOD THERE.
SO DO YOU WANNA DO A, LIKE A PUB PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION LIKE YOU DID? WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL IT A PUBLIC HEARING.
NO, WE HAVE NOTHING TO CALL IT A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO YOU WILL DO A PUBLIC HEARING ONCE IT REACHES THE, THIS IS SITE PLAN APPROVAL, RIGHT.
WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
WE'LL CALL IT A PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION.
THEN CAN YOU GET THE WORD OUT TO YOUR YEAH, ON TUESDAY.
EVERY TUESDAY I DO COFFEE AND DONUTS FOR ALL OUR RESIDENTS THERE AND I CAN LET 'EM KNOW IF THEY WANT TO COME SPEAK IN A POSITIVE TERM.
THEY CAN COME UP OR IF THEY GOT SOMETHING ELSE THEY WANNA SEE DIFFERENT, THEY CAN COME UP, THEY CAN EMAIL COMMENTS AS WELL OR YEAH.
I GUESS THEN THE QUESTION WOULD ALSO BE IN TERMS OF DO WE NEED TO SUBMIT ANY AF AND IF SO, WHAT FORM IS THAT? IS IT LIMITED TO PHASE FOUR? I WOULD DO, AGAIN, A SHORT FORM AF 'CAUSE ALL THE OTHER THINGS ARE IN THERE JUST TO INITIATE THE PROCESS SO WE KNOW THAT IT TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, UM, WE, WE NEED SOMETHING IN FILE.
THE BETTER THING IS THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU MAY WANT TO DO A COVER LETTER LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO, SEAN, AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES.
SO I I'M IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE, DENNIS, SO I KNOW, I KNOW THE COMMENT.
ALL THE OTHER UNITS ARE RENTALS, RIGHT.
SO NO, I MEAN, SO RENTALS, REYS, PUBLIC INFORMATION HEARING IS GONNA BE YOUR TENANT.
THEY'RE GONNA COME HERE, ARE THEY? IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, ARE THEY GONNA TELL YOU THAT? I, I DUNNO.
I HAVE A LOT OF THEM, TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU.
A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING HERE THAT WANT A BIGGER UNIT.
AND WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA CANNIBALIZE OURSELVES AND FILL 'EM FROM UNITS THAT ARE ALREADY PEOPLE WHO FILL THE RENTALS WHEN THEY MOVE.
AND, AND REMEMBER THE OTHER THING IS BECAUSE DAVE MET WITH 'EM, THAT'S WHY LAST TIME WE ALREADY AGREED TO ELIMINATE THAT BUILDING.
THE NEIGHBORS WERE LIKE, YEAH, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT THIS GROUP OF BUILDINGS, LIKE THIS WOODS AREA OVER HERE.
AND THEY ASKED US IF WE DID AND I SAID, WE'LL TAKE IT OFF.
AND JUST FOR INFORMATION FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THE RENTAL MARKET IS SO STRONG.
IT'S, WE HAVE 150 TO 160 PEOPLE WAITING LIST.
AS SOON AS SOMEONE PASSES AWAY OR GOES TO A NURSING HOME, UNITS ARE GONE IN MINUTES.
THAT'S, THAT'S HOW STRONG THE MARKETPLACE IS FOR APARTMENTS RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT.
AND THE PRICES AT APARTMENT PROJECTS ARE SELLING FOR IS LIKE ASTRONOMICAL.
LUCKILY WE BUILT THIS WHEN WE DID BACK HERE, WHEN WE STARTED RENTS WERE $850 DOLLARS JUST BUCKETING.
YOU HAVE TO FALL INTO THE TOWN.
YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT ALL THE OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT AND I KNOW THEY, THEY FALL TO IT, BUT WHO'S COMPLIANT TO IT THOUGH? WELL, THAT'S NOT A I GOT IT, RIGHT? IT'S TALK TO HU YEAH, I AM A, I'M A AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, DEVELOPER UP IN CHIEF OF WATER.
I GOT 104 UNITS UP THERE, SO I'M WELL AWARE OF HOW IT WORKS.
SO I, SO YOU CAN IN YOUR COVER LETTER, ALL THE QUESTIONS WE ASK HERE TODAY YEAH.
YOU CAN WHEN I SEE THE NOTICE.
I GOT SO RIGHT AS WAS TO MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION FROM MARCH 16TH, SECOND MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BUFFALO SOLAR REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL HOLD TIER THREE SOLAR RATES.
WE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTHWEST SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, WEST OF 6 2 8 9 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
SO WE, WE THINK THAT THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE REMAINS THE NUMBER OF TREES TO BE PLANTED ON THIS SITE
[01:20:02]
TO, AND MARK ORKE SUBMITTED A LETTER THAT HE ASKED TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD.SO THAT SAYS TO BE READ INTO PUBLIC MINUTES AND PLANNING BOARD, THE HAMBURG CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD HAS GOTTEN INPUT FROM MARTY DEKE, FROM REC, THE REC DEPARTMENT, AND PAT RYAN FROM BUILDING GROUNDS AND GETTING A PLAN TOGETHER IN REGARDS TO FUTURE PLANTING OF TREES FROM DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE TO DO TREE MITIGATION WITHIN THE HAMBURG TOWN.
AND THE PLANNING BOARD COMES UP WITH THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE IN THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR BOTH SOLAR PROJECTS ON SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD.
WE WILL ADVISE WITH THE TREE TYPE AND AREA FOR FLINT OF THESE TREES.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS SOME, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROJECT WAS ON, WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT PRIOR TO THAT, MARK HAD ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION REGARDING THE REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TREES.
WE WEREN'T AT THAT MEETING, YOU GUYS WERE AT THAT MEETING.
THERE'S WAS A DISCONNECT AND THEY HAD INDICATED THAT THEY, THE NUMBER THAT THEY HAD REPRESENTED DID NOT ALIGN WITH THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF LISTENING TO THE MINUTES AND WERE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TREE PLANNING.
WE JUST, ALRIGHT, SO YOU WANNA KIND OF CATCH US UP TO WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY? SURE.
UM, YEAH, SO LAST TIME WE MET, UM, YOU GUYS REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL 10 TREES, UM, FOR A TOTAL OF 15 NEW TREES TO BE PLANTED ON SITE.
UM, WE AGREED TO THE PLANTING THE 50 TREES ON SITE AND, UM, AT THIS POINT WE'RE JUST KIND OF HOPING TO PUT TO A VOTE AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS THING APPROVED.
WELL WHAT, I'LL THROW ONE CLEAR, ONE CLARIFYING POINT.
I THINK THAT THERE WERE, UH, UH, SOME DIFFERING OPINIONS ON QUANTITIES, RIGHT? AND, AND I THINK WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS WE, WE DID GO BACK.
WE LOOKED AT PROJECT, LOOK AT THE BUDGET, AND WE'VE KIND OF COME FROM WHERE WE STARTED WITH 20 AND WE WORKED OUR WAY UP TO 50.
AND I THINK IN THE LETTER THAT WE'VE PUT IN AND SUBMITTED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, UM, IT OUR, THAT IS OUR, KIND OF OUR TARGET, OUR GOAL.
WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK WITHIN THE PROJECT.
AND THAT'S KIND OF ABOUT WHAT OUR NUMBER IS.
AND SO I THINK WE WERE AT 40 PRIOR LAST MEETING AND THEN THERE WAS, UM, SOME GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT 50 PROBABLY GOT US THERE.
BUT THAT WAS THE GOAL OF TODAY'S CONVERSATION WAS TO SAY, CAN WE DO 50? DO WE HAVE THE SUPPORT? AND THEN IF SO, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET MOVING ON THE PROJECT TO DO SOME GOOD THINGS.
SO I, WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT I I WAS STILL AT 150 WHEN WE LEFT THAT MEETING.
AND I THOUGHT, AND I KNOW DOUG WAS THINKING THEY HAD TO BE RIGHT THERE AND YOU WERE GONNA COME BACK THIS, THIS MEETING WITH, UH, DEKE AND RYAN OR ELSE TALK TO THEM AND COME BACK WITH A REPORT ON WHERE THEY COULD PLACE TREES.
I MEAN, SO, SO ON THAT SUBJECT THAT THEY, THEY, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A FEW TIMES AT DIFFERENT MEETINGS.
THE APPLICANTS REACHED OUT TO RYAN A FEW TIMES AND HASN'T REALLY GOTTEN A A LIST.
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, AND I'VE TALKED TO TO SOME PEOPLE ABOUT IT, BUT WE GOTTA TALK TO THE TOWN BOARD AND MARTY AND RYAN AND GET A LIST, JUST A GENERAL LIST.
SO WHEN WE HAVE SOMETHING WHERE WE WANT OFFSITE TREES PLANTED, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THE FLY, WE ARE, WE ALREADY HAVE A LIST.
I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY HELP US WHEN WE FACE SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS BECAUSE NOT HAVING A LIST, NOBODY EVER TOLD THEM WHERE THAT COULD BE.
AND IT'S BEEN BEEN QUITE SOME TIME SINCE THEY STARTED THAT PROCESS.
BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT MARK'S EMAIL IS SAYING IS THAT THEY HAVE A SPOT.
AND IF WE IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF TREES, I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD BE, MARK SAYS HE IS GOT A SPOT, BUT MARK THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
WELL I'M HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO PARKS MYSELF.
BUT I THINK THAT WHAT WE COULD CONDITION AND UH, AN APPROVAL SHOULD WE DO THAT WITH IS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF 50 TREES TO BE PLANTED ON SITE 50 OR A HUNDRED.
YOU KNOW, I ALSO WAS AT 150, A HUNDRED ADDITIONAL TREES TO BE PLACED ON TOWN PROPERTY IN COORDINATION WITH, AND IF IT, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES, I'M HAPPY TO LEAVE THE CHARGE AND TO CALL PARKS AND TO COORDINATE.
I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S BEEN A CHALLENGE DATE.
BUT IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH ANY OF THIS, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE NUMBER ON SITE IS PROBABLY 50.
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PUT ANYTHING ELSE THERE, BUT WE NEED AS A BOARD TO COME UP WITH
[01:25:01]
WHAT THE NUMBER IS AS A BOARD IF IN ORDER TO, I THOUGHT THAT WE, WE CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SO SOME PEOPLE HAD SAID 50, SOME PEOPLE SAID, I THINK IT WAS 1 43 0.5 AND THEN THERE WAS, THERE PEOPLE SAID 150.UM, IT IS JUST, IT IS JUST NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO, TO DO THAT MANY TREES.
UH, DID, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU FIRST PUT THIS IDEA TOGETHER, DID YOU KNOW WHAT THE TREE REPLACEMENT RATIO WAS THERE? THERE IS NO TREE REPLACEMENT.
IT WAS IN MY MEMO LAST MEETING.
WE HAVE NEVER DONE ONE FOR ONE MITIGATION.
THE LAW SAYS CONSIDER YOU MAY CONSIDER REPLACEMENT OR REPLANTING OF TREES.
THERE IS NO ONE FOR ONE MITIGATION.
IF THEY WENT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND GOT A A TREE CLEARING PERMIT, THEY WOULDN'T MAKE 'EM PUT ANY TREES IN.
I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW, I PUT THAT IN THE MEMO, I RESEARCHED, WE'VE NEVER DONE ONE FOR ONE MITIGATION.
I WANNA BE FAIR TO EVERY APPLICANT THAT COMES TO THE TOWN, WE DO NOT DO ONE FOR ONE.
LET'S, LET'S GET, GET EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO, TO WEIGH IN.
SO, SO DOUG DENNIS SAYS 50 TREES ON SITE AND TREES OFFSITE.
LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE TALKED ONLY ABOUT ONSITE TREES.
WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON ADDITIONAL TREES? NO ADDITIONAL TREES.
50 ON SITE AND UH, BOB, YOU CAN'T SEE THEM AT THE EXPENSE OF, UH, AN EXTRA A HUNDRED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
UM, OR IF WE TALKED ABOUT IT, YOU, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
WHAT YOU SAID, WE WERE TALKING, THERE WERE BOARD MEMBERS KIND OF WERE FOUR OUT NUMBERS.
I REMEMBER YOU MENTIONING 40 TREES, WHITE FUR SCREWS, YOU SAID 10 AMERICAN, UM, EVER WHITE.
AND WE WERE TALKING AND WE WERE IN BETWEEN ON SITE AT THAT, THAT CONVERSATION AND WHAT WE COULD LIVE WITH.
IT WAS, IT WAS AN AFTER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD DO BECAUSE I I THINK I PERSONALLY ASKED YOU, DID YOU TALK TO UH, PAT RYAN OR WELL YOU'RE LOOKING TO TALK TO HIM, YOU'RE GONNA SEE WHEN YOU SEE HIM GIVING A CALL ON HIM AND HE HASN'T RETURN, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO I MEAN, I'M GOOD WITH, WITH THE PART WHERE WE KIND OF COME TO A NUMBER I THOUGHT WAS AGREEABLE TO 50 TREES.
AND YOU MENTIONED THE TYPES, SO THE ON ONSITE ONES, THE AFTER DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT SHOULD WE REPLACE ALL THE TREES THAT ARE NEEDED ELSEWHERE? THAT WAS AN AFTER DISCUSSION, RIGHT? PARDON? PARDON? HOW MUCH? HOLD ON.
SO BOB, WERE YOU SAYING THAT IT WOULD, THAT THAT THOSE ADDITIONAL TREES WOULD BE A CONDITION OR IS IT JUST A AFTER DISCUSSION THOUGHT? I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THE WAY I RECEIVED IT WAS AN AFTER DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE WERE CONCENTRATING ON HOW MANY TREATS ON SITE AND WE CAME TO THAT NUMBER OF 50.
SO, SO THAT'S WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ON THE SITE DEPARTMENT.
AFTERWARDS IT LU AND THEN WE HAD AN AFTER DISCUSSION AND THAT'S WHEN YOU CAME IN.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE ALL THESE, SOME WERE DEAD.
UM, I, BECAUSE I'M GETTING CONFUSED.
SO BASED ON THAT, AFTER DISCUSSION, ARE YOU SAYING YOU'D WANT AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION ON, 'CAUSE WE, BECAUSE ON THE SECOND WE HAD A PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FEBRUARY 2ND.
NOW THAT ONE AS CONDITIONS NUMBER ONE, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER TWO, THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL APPROVE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE, AND WE'VE GOT A BLANK THERE AND, AND IT WOULD WOULD BE, UH, A NUMBER OF TREES, WHICH WAS FOR THAT BLANK, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED.
PROJECT MEETS WILL MEET ALL THE CRITERIA, REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS OF THE SUP GRANTED FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU, YOU EXPECTED ANOTHER ONE ABOUT OFFSITE PLANNING IN THAT RESOLUTION OR NO, NO.
I, I WAS WAITING TO HEAR, NO, I DIDN'T.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU, YOU AGREE WITH DOUG, RIGHT? CORRECT.
ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION JUSTIN DECIDE, I DID MENTION LAST MEETING IT KIND OF DIRECTLY THEY DO, I KNOW THEY, THEY QUESTION IT UNDER THE TOWN'S LAW.
THEY HAVE TO PAY A HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT FEE.
IF WE GET A FEE OF $1,500, WHATEVER THE NUMBER'S GONNA BE A YEAR, YOU CAN DEDICATE THAT FOR TREE REPLACEMENT.
WE CAN, OR THE TOWN CAN, WELL THE TOWN, YOU COULD RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO DEDICATE THAT FOR TREE REPLACEMENT.
I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER COSTS I'VE POINTED OUT TO UNDER 47, THE TAX HALL, THE TOWN CAN ASK FOR A PILOT OR A FEE OR ANOTHER FORM OF FEE.
WHEN I'M TELLING YOU THE NUMBER, IT'S A VERY SMALL PROJECT.
IT'S TYPICALLY ABOUT FOUR TO $5,000 A MEGAWATT.
THEY'RE PUTTING IN ONE THIRD, THE FEE'S GONNA BE IN THE RANGE OF A THOUSAND TO 1500.
NOT A HUGE NUMBER, BUT THE TOWN COULD DEDICATE THAT FOR TREE PLANNING.
[01:30:01]
YEAH, SOSO, UH, I, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WANT, UM, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUES THAT YOU RAISED IN YOUR LETTER RELATING TO THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF IT.
UM, AND MY CONCERN IS THAT, UM, IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REALLY DEALING WITH NUMBERS, UH, THAT ANYONE CAN REALLY TRUST AT THIS POINT.
SO THEY'RE SORT OF BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATIONS GIVEN THE TIME OF YEAR AND SORT OF A, A SORT OF, AS BEST AS WE CAN FIGURE, IT'S 30% OF 150 THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, ARE NOT DEAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, AND SO, SO THAT WAS REALLY WHAT, UM, WHAT CAUSED ME DURING THE LAST MEETING TO SORT OF GENERATE THIS, THIS NUMBER.
UM, AND, AND, AND, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I END UP, I END UP IN A PLACE OF, I AM, YOU KNOW, I'M PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH A NUMBER AROUND 50, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE INFORMATION, THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO US.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DON'T, I I'M NOT, I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF I CAN RELY UPON THOSE.
UM, AND SO I, I GUESS, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHEN COULD YOU GO OUT AND GET KNOW HOW MANY, YOU KNOW, LIVING TREES ARE GONNA BE TAKEN OFF OF THIS PROPERTY? YOU KNOW, I THINK THE LAST TWO TRIPS WE'VE GONE OUT GAVE A, A PRETTY ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF TREES.
BUT, UM, IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING TOO.
LIKE IN, IN YOUR CODE, THERE ARE A FEW STIPULATIONS THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT, HOW MANY TREES YOU SHOULD HAVE TO, TO PLANT.
AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE FOR EVERY 30 FOOT OF FRONTAGE AND FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX TREES.
UM, SO IF WE, EVEN IF WE DISREGARDED THE MAXIMUM OF SIX TREES AND WE WENT THE ENTIRE FRONT, THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE EXTRA TENANT.
WELL WE, WE WOULD ONLY HAVE TO DO 23 TREES TOTAL IF WE JUST DID THE FRONT.
AND AGAIN, JUST EXPLAIN ON THE RECORD.
AND THAT'S IN THE SITE PLAN REGULATIONS.
THAT'S FOR ANYBODY WHO BILLS, WHETHER THEY REMOVE TREES OR NOT.
YOU HAVE TO PUT SO MANY TREES FOR LINEAR FARMING.
SO THAT'S JUST THE REQUIREMENT OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THAT YOU'RE CLEARING TREES BY DEFINITION.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE FALLING UNDER THE TREE, UH, THAT YOU HAVE TO ISSUE A PERMIT IN THAT PERMIT.
AS I PUT IN THERE, YOU CAN ASK FOR MITIGATION.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING WELL, AND THE LAW DOES SAY YOU NEED TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE.
THEY ARE PRESERVING A LARGE AMOUNT OF TREES BECAUSE THE AREA FOR THIS PROJECT INCLUDES ANOTHER TWO ACRES OF TREES OR MORE THAT WILL BE PERMANENTLY PROTECTED BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING UP THE, THE, THE USABLE AREA OF THAT, OF THAT, OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO THEY ARE DOING THAT ONE COMPONENT.
THE SECOND COMPONENT IS THE PLANNING BOARD MAY, AS IT SAYS, ASK FOR ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS, NOT THE SIX TREES.
THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS FOR REMOVAL OF TREES AND THE, AND IT'S SUPPORTED.
I'M SUPPORTING YOU GUYS THAT BASICALLY THE SOLAR LOSS SAYS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MINIMIZE TREE LOSS.
SO BETWEEN THE MINIMIZING TREE LOSS OF THE SIX INCHES, WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT TO, WE'RE SAYING WE'RE WE WANT SOME MITIGATION.
THE NUMBER'S 50 SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD NUMBER, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON THE SITE.
I THINK THE PRESERVATION OF TWO ACRES, THE INTRODUCTION OF 50 MORE TREES.
AND I THINK WE CAN CONVINCE THE TOWN BOARD TO DEDICATE THE STREAM OF MONEY FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS TO THE PURPOSES OF PLANTING OF TREES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND PICKING SPOTS TO DO THAT.
SO I THINK, I, I THINK THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD DO WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH IT.
I THEY'RE, THEY'RE ELECTED TO DO THE BUDGET, NOT US.
SO I DON'T REALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE TELLING 'EM HOW TO SPEND MONEY.
AND RIGHT, AND IT GOES FOR YOU FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE TOWN BOARD POST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT, MONEY IS A DEDICATED MONEY.
IT CAN'T BE PUT INTO THE BUDGET OF THE TOWN.
IT HAS TO BE FOR PURPOSES OF SOMETHING.
SO YOU'RE COMMENDING TO THEM THAT THE PURPOSES WOULD BE TREE REPLACEMENT.
YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY COULD DO SOMETHING ELSE.
IT HAS TO BE FOR A DEDICATED PURPOSE.
IT CAN'T JUST GO INTO THE BUDGET AND WHATEVER IT HAS TO BE FOR DEDICATED PURPOSE WOULD, IT HAS TO BE FOR A, TYPICALLY A PROJECT OR, OR FIXED EXPENSE OR FIXED WHATEVER.
IT'S NOT USUALLY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR, YOU KNOW, THE BIG PROJECTS, PEOPLE SAY, WELL CUT MY TAXES, BUT THERE'S CHALLENGES WITH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
THEY DISCUSS WITH INFRASTRUCTURE OR WHEREVER THEY'RE GONNA SEPARATE SOME OF THAT MONEY WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS.
I AGREE, RIGHT? IT'S DELEGATED MONEY THAT IT HAS TO GO TO CERTAIN AREAS, BUT, AND WE CAN RECOMMEND IT BILL'S CORRECT TOWN MORGAN, BUT IT CAN'T BE, IT HAS TO BE DEDICATED TO SOMETHING AND IT SHOULD BE RELATED TO SOMETHING THAT'S ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE LARGER SOLAR PROJECT.
SOMETIMES IT IS, YOU KNOW, A NEW PIECE OF EQUIPMENT OR SOMETHING OR OTHER OR WHATEVER.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK TREES ARE A BIG ISSUE, RIGHT? SO WE TWO 50, WE, WOULD IT BE
[01:35:01]
POSSIBLE TO, UH, SORRY, SARAH.NO, I WAS GONNA SAY, SO WHERE ARE YOU TWO? I MEAN, WOULD IT BE, OH, CAN I, CAN I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY TO COME AND MAYBE YOU'RE GOING THERE, HOW DO WE BALANCE ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH A ELEGANT SOLUTION THAT
LIKE WE CAN AFFORD 50, WE CAN DO 50.
WE'VE TALKED, UH, SO A FEW DIFFERENT, AND, AND, AND I, AND, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M JUST BEING AS CLEAR AS ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE.
WE'VE, WE'VE COME AND WE'VE VISITED AND WE'VE TALKED A LOT OF TIMES ABOUT THE, THE TREE COUNT COMPONENT.
I THINK, UM, WE'VE ABSOLUTELY ASKED AND INVITED PEOPLE TO CHECK IT OUT.
BUFFALO SOLAR WENT OUT AND DID COUNT.
WE WENT OUT AND DID COUNT SEPARATELY AND WE TRIED TO DO AS BEST AS WE COULD TO SAY ANYTHING THAT'S SIX INCHES ABOVE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S STILL LIVING.
WHAT DOES THAT, AND THE CHALLENGE IS, IT'S NOT THE GROWING SEASON.
AND THAT'S, AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GOING OUT THERE AT THIS TIME OF YEAR AND WHICH IS THE PERIOD SINCE WE'VE BEEN SEEING IN FRONT OF US TO KIND OF DO THAT COUNT MYSELF.
SO IT'S, IT'S, AND WE WANNA ALSO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME.
SO FUNNY WAY, AND I THINK THE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE IS WE CAN'T CONSIDER YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION AS PART OF OUR DECISION.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING A SECRET DECISION AND A SITE PLAN DECISION AND THAT'S, AND, AND THE FINANCING AND THAT IT, IT CAN'T BE PART OF OUR, THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WE DON'T LOOK AT PROFITABILITY OF BUSINESSES EVALUATION OR ANY OF THAT.
SO WE, WE CAN'T, THAT CAN'T BE PART OF WHAT WE CONSIDER AS PART OF THE RECORD FOR A DECISION.
JENNIFER, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE JUST GOTTA COME UP WITH A NUMBER NOW SOMEHOW.
SO, UM, IS IT, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO GET, UM, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLY GET 10 MORE TREES FROM YOU GUYS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? YOU KNOW, COULD, COULD YOU GUYS WE EVER SURE.
CAN YOU HEAR ALRIGHT, SO, SO I, I I GOT IT.
SO STARTED AT 20 UP TO 40, GOT US UP TO 50
I'LL SAY YES, BUT IF IT GETS US THERE,
I'M GONNA GET A PROJECT DONE SOON AND THEN WE CAN GET THE OTHER ONES IN.
THAT'S, I GUESS I, I HAVE A, I HAVE A REAL, I DON'T WANNA EXTEND SOMETHING OVER TIME PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE PART OF THE PROBLEM IS MITIGATION IS BEST DONE AT THE TIME THAT THE PROJECT IS BUILT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TEETH TO COME BACK OR TO SEND CODE ENFORCEMENT AFTER TO GET PEOPLE TO DO STUFF AFTER THE FACT.
OR IF YOU GET PARTWAY THROUGH AND YOU CONSTRUCTIVE PADDING, YOU DON'T PUT YOUR PANELS IN BECAUSE MARKETS CHANGE.
THERE'S ALL THE ISSUES WITH EVEN GETTING SOLAR PANELS INTO THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.
SOMETHING HAPPENS AND YOU DON'T BUILD, THERE'S, I MEAN I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT NOT DOING THINGS TEMPORARILY AT THE SAME TIME I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE IN A FINANCIAL SITUATION.
WHAT SIZE TREES ARE YOU CURRENTLY PROPOSING TO PLANT? WHAT, WHAT HEIGHT AND WHAT DIAMETER ARE THE TREES THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING? 50 TREES.
THREE TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE PLANTED ON SITE TO ACCOMMODATE.
THAT SOUNDED LIKE THE MAJORITY OF PINE DURING THE LAST DAY.
THIS WAS IN OUR LETTER THAT I SENT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE TREES OVER TIME ABOUT I THINK THE COMPROMISE IS A COMPROMISE AND I, AND I KIND OF KIND OF SENSE TO AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S, WELL I HAVE A COUNTER COMPROMISE.
WELL, WELL, BUT I DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW IN THE FUTURE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO GET POLITICAL, DO CLIMATE CHANGE KIND OF THINGS AND EVERYTHING.
BUT THE COMPROMISE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S, IT'S MOVING THE, THE PROJECT CLOSER AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AS A PLAN.
AND I THINK THE COMPROMISE WAS, WAS WELL, UH, SUGGESTED.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE ABOUT PUTTING IT OUT FOR 10 MORE YEARS.
NATURE, I'M SORRY, BUT NATURE'S NATURE, 10 YEARS FROM NOW THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT TREES PROBABLY DYING.
THAT'S, THAT'S NATURE THAT THEY DIE.
I MEAN YOU CAN WISH ALL YOU WANT AND PLANT A HUNDRED TREES, 90 OF 'EM MIGHT EVEN EVEN DIE, YOU KNOW? AND I DON'T CARE WHO GUARANTEES THEM.
BUT ARE YOU SAYING YOU STILL STUCK? I GOT A LOT OF PROPERTY TOO AND I GOT A LOT OF TREES AND SOME JUST PLAIN DIE FOR SOME REASON.
I MEAN THAT'S, AND I CAN'T SEE, SAID OKAY, WITHIN 10 YEARS, WELL YOU SAY 10 NOW FOR FIVE YEAR PLANT.
WELL THERE MIGHT BE, THERE MIGHT BE TWO DIE BETWEEN THAT TIME OR MAYBE A HUNDRED DIE.
SO YOU'RE STILL ON THE 50 THEN? HMM? YOU'RE STILL ON THE 50? YEAH, I JUST SAY 50.
IS IT THAT I'M JUST MADE MY POINT.
A LOT OF TREES, YOU'RE GONNA DIE NO MATTER HOW MANY WE PLANT, THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO DIE.
SO I THINK WE NEED, WE NEED TO PLANT MORE THAN 50 TREES.
I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OVER
YOU SAY YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE COMPROMISE.
SO THE PRICE OF TREES VARIES HEAVILY
[01:40:01]
BASED ON THE HEIGHT AND SIZE OF THE TREES AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.OBVIOUSLY THE PRIMARY ROW OF LANDSCAPING THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE ROAD IS AT A SIZE.
IS THERE A WAY AT WHICH WE CAN USE A, SOME OF THE TREES PERHAPS IN A TWO TO THREE FOOT SIZE, THERE ARE SMALLER SIZE TREE AT THE TIME OF PLANTING THAT WE COULD INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES.
AND BECAUSE YOU ARE PROPOSING, YOU GUYS HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED ON THE RECORD THAT THIS IS A PROJECT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT BEING HERE FOR 20 TO 30 YEARS AND HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, AT THE END OF THE TENURE OF THIS PROJECT POTENTIALLY REAPPLY TO CONTINUE TO USE THE SITE.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT IN A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT.
MY COUNTER SUGGESTION IS, IS IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR A LONGER DURATION OF TIME, IF WE PLANT SOME SLIGHTLY SMALLER TREES, PERHAPS WE CAN EVEN INTERSPERSE THEM IN SOME OF THE, THE AREAS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY DEAD ASH TREES IN THE REST OF THE PROPERTY.
I'M SAYING THAT WE RETAIN A HIGHER SIDE AND PERHAPS THAT WE TAKE A SUBSET OF THOSE AND MAYBE WITH A SMALLER TREE, BECAUSE THERE'S A HUGE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL IN THE SIZE OF TREES AND I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, OURS MEANS OR WHATEVER TO ENGINEER THESE COSTS OUT.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET UP TO 80 OR MORE TREES IF WE USE A SMALLER SIZED TREE? WOULD THAT BE A VIABLE OPTION? SO SO I THINK IT WOULD BE, SO IF WE TOOK 50 TREES, KEEP, KEEP THE 10 ON THE ROAD THE WAY THEY ARE.
SO 50 TREES, FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT THAT ARE THE RIGHT ONES.
TAKE THE, TAKE THE 10 ON THE ROAD, MULTIPLY IT BY WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, TAKE THE REST OF THE BUDGET AND WE CAN DIVIDE IT HOWEVER WE WANNA DIVIDE IT AND WE CAN GET AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN.
AND I, AND THEY HAVE TO BE OVER MINIMUM SIZE.
I DON'T WANT THE FREE, THE FREE ARBOR FOUNDATION.
IT'S PROBABLY, IT'S PROBABLY NOT.
BUT IS THERE, IS THERE ANOTHER SIZE THAT I SAID STICKS? THE LITTLE STICKS YOU GET FREE FROM
I I'M JUST, I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT MANY TREES, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPACE THEM OUT SO FAR APART AND JUST THE, THE MAINTENANCE ON THEM AND TO TRY AND GET THEM TO, TO TAKE IS GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT.
BUT WHAT YOU GUYS WERE DISCUSSING, THE PROBLEM IS EVEN TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO PLANT 50 TREES ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS GONNA BE DIFFICULT.
WELL THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I PRO OFFERED THE SUGGESTION IF, IF ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IS THAT 30% OF THE TREES ARE NOT SURVIVING, IS THERE A WAY, IS THERE ANOTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE NOT CLEARING WHERE YOU COULD PLACE SOME OF THESE TREES? RIGHT? AND MAYBE THAT'S AS A CONDITION THAT YOU'RE GONNA COME BACK TO US WITH THE PLANTING PLAN IN THE SUMMER AFTER YOU EVALUATE IT.
IS THAT A WAY TO GET TO, I I'M TRYING TO BE ACCOMMODATING AND COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION.
SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE LAST ONE, WE WERE GONNA TRY AND FIND SOME REQUESTS, THE BUDGET'S, THE BUDGET AND I'M VERY, VERY, VERY HAPPY AND OPEN TO SAYING WE CAN USE THE BUDGET.
HOW ARE YOU GUYS GOING USE BUDGET.
AND SO IF WE, IF WE SAY THAT THERE ARE FOREFOOT TREES AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT 50 WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WE'RE GONNA CAR COUNT OUT TO MAKE SURE THE LANDSCAPING IS APPROPRIATE, THE REST OF THE BUDGET GOES ON THAT SITE OR IT GOES SOMEWHERE DIFFERENT.
AND IT'S GOOD FOR, IF IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY, THEN IT IS GREAT FOR US AS WELL.
AND SO WE ARE OPEN TO DOING THAT TYPE OF THING IF IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED.
AND THE QUESTION IS, SO, SO HOW DO YOU EVER DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SMALLER TREES WOULD COST? I I THINK THE WAY THAT I LOOK AT, THE WAY THAT I KIND OF INTERPRET THIS IS, AND THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT'S WHY LET'S JUST TAKE, LET'S JUST TAKE, WE'LL PROVIDE THE QUOTE FOR THE, FOR THE FULL AMOUNT FOR THE 50 AT FOUR FOOT.
AND THEN ANYTHING ELSE WE'LL MAXIMIZE WHAT WE CAN PUT IT ON THE THREE LIST AND IF WE CAN GRAB SOME ONE FOOT AND SOME TWO FOOT AND SOME THREE FOOT, SUPER HAPPY TO KNOW, RIGHT? YEAH.
I DUNNO HOW WE CAN WRITE THAT.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT IS HOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE YOUR ENGINEER APP OF COST ESTIMATING CANDY THAT YOU CAN SAY HOW MUCH ROUGHLY THIS TRANSLATES TO IF THERE'S A, EVERYBODY THAT I'VE TALKED TO HAS SAID THAT TREES ARE GONNA BE A HOT COMMODITY.
THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT TO COME BY.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WE WERE PROPOSING THE SMALLER TREES BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE AMOUNT OF TREES.
THAT'S, THAT'S UH, YOU KNOW, AS BILL SAID, HARD TO WORD, MAYBE YOU WORD IT AS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO.
REMEMBER YOU HAVE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO REVIEW.
YOU CAN ALSO SAY CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT THEY PLANT 50 TREES OR MORE DEPENDING UPON SIZE ONCE THEY PRESENT THEIR PLAN AND HAVE SOMEONE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE PLANNING BOARD AUTHOR TO REVIEW THAT.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR FINAL APPROVALS THROUGH ENGINEERING AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
AND YOU WANT THAT IN PLACE BEFORE THEY'RE GIVING A BUILDING PROGRAM.
WHAT IS WHOEVER ON THE PLANNING BOARD, WHAT ARE THEY GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT WHEN THESE GUYS, WELL THEY'RE GONNA PRESENT, THEY'RE GONNA PRESENT A COST ESTIMATE FOR 54 FOOT TREES THAT SAY THE NUMBER'S $30,000 OR WHATEVER.
THEN THEY CAN SAY, HEY, CAN WE DO 30 OF THOSE AND 40 OF TWO FOOT TREES? FIND OUT WHAT THE COST IS.
[01:45:01]
A LOT OF THE COST FOR INSTALLING TREES DEPENDING ON THE SIZE IS THE INSTALLATION THEMSELVES.SO IT'S PUTTING THEM IN THE GROUND
SO YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYBODY, RIGHT? SO YOU WON'T GET THAT SOMEWHAT OF SAVINGS, BUT YOU'LL GET SOME SAVINGS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE TREE.
WELL THE WHOLE SMALLER, SMALLER TREE
BUT I MEAN YOU WANNA, WE, I MEAN IT'S, IT IS AN AWKWARD WORDING.
WE HAVE A VERY LONG AS YOU SEE THE APPROVAL REFERENCES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH 21 CONDITIONS OR WHATEVER.
AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF WORK IN SOLAR PROJECTS AS CAPELIN KNOWS.
THERE'S, THERE'S RECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS, CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS, AND POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE BONDING REQUIREMENTS, THEY HAVE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF.
SO THEY HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED CLOSELY AND THEY HAVE TO BE ASSIGNED.
WHO'S GONNA FOLLOW OR YOU KNOW, CAMMY'S GONNA BE STUCK WITH FOLLOWING ALL THE ENGINEERING STUFF FROM THERE THROUGH CONSTRUCTION.
THE, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT'S GOT TO MAKE SURE THE BOND IS BROKE POSTED.
IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY THE CONDITION IS SOMEONE ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S GONNA BE ASSIGNED TO FIND OUT THAT THAT FINAL TREE PLANTING, I'LL TAKE CARE OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
BUT SOMEONE'S GOTTA AGREE TO THE TREE PLANTING PLAN OF HOW MANY AND HOW THEY'RE PLANTING THEM AT THE SITE.
AND THAT COULD BE THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
THAT PERSON DOESN'T LIKE WHAT THESE GUYS ARE PROPOSING AND THESE GUYS DON'T, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE TO COME DOWN TO IS LONG ASSIGNING, I DON'T THINK ASSIGNING SOMEBODY IN A PLAYING BOARD TO MAKE TRUST.
YEAH, I I JUST DON'T THINK PUTTING SOMEBODY IN A POSITION ENGINEERING OR CONSULTING DEPARTMENT, EITHER WAY YOU WANNA DO THAT.
I MEAN I THINK THE, THE OTHER CAVEAT THAT I HAVE IS YOU'RE LEASING THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? AND YOU'RE PURCHASING THE, AND YOU'RE PURCHASING THE ENTIRE PARCEL.
ARE YOU PUTTING THE REST OF IT UNDER ANY TYPE OF AN EASEMENT? NO.
WELL THAT'S ONE OF YOUR CONDITIONS.
THERE'S NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT SITE.
THE SOLAR USES UP THE DEVELOPABLE VALUE OF THE SITE.
YEAH, WE'RE, SO WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT IT, AND IF THAT ENDED UP AS CONDITION, THAT'S FINE.
I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT WRITTEN YET, BUT WE'VE SAID DURING THE, AT LEAST THE UM, THE C MEETING THAT WE ARE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THE SITE.
WE'RE VERY, VERY HAPPY TO SAY THAT IT'S A GREEN SPACE FOR THE REST OF ITS ETERNITY.
ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT IT UNDER A CONSERVATION EASEMENT? THE AREA OUTSIDE? I DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW WHAT THAT IS, SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO LIKE SAY MAYBE
BUT IS THAT GONNA CHANGE THE EXPENSES OF THE DEED? THAT'S THAT'S I GUESS, YEAH, THERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF COST.
SO AGAIN, WHEN YOU APPROVE THIS ANYWAY, ESPECIALLY THIS PERMIT IS VERY STRONG, IT CAN BE ENFORCED.
IT'S BASICALLY THAT THEY HAVE NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, THERE NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.
AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE COULD BE NO MORE.
WELL, SO THAT'S WHY THEY OWN IT.
I GUESS I'M POSITING THAT WELL, BUT WE, WE CAN DO SO WELL IF IT'S AN EASEMENT, IT RUNS WITH THE LAND.
IF IT'S JUST A CONDITION, IT JUST WELL RUNS WITH THE, THE PROJECT ESPECIALLY USED PERMIT PROJECT.
SO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY, I DON'T KNOW THE BENEFITS CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OFTEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRADING THE DEVELOPABLE RIDES FOR SOME SORT OF LEVEL OF TAX INCENTIVE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DO IT.
RIGHT? AT A MINIMUM WE CAN PUT, WE CAN PUT A RESTRICTION.
AND AGAIN, I'LL GIVE YOU THE OTHER SIDE OF IT RESTRICTION IS YOU DO TOO MUCH OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY 30 YEARS FROM NOW, THE SOLAR PROJECT GOES AWAY.
ALL YOU HAVE IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED AND GUESS WHO'S GONNA END UP OWNING IT DOWN? THE HAMMER'S GONNA END UP OWNING IT IF NO ONE'S GONNA PAY TAXES ON IT, ON SOMETHING THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH.
SO JUST BE CAREFUL WITH TOO PUTTING TOO MANY HAVE A NICE DRIVEWAY AND A SO I, IF, IF I CAN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ONE POINT, UM, IS UH, KIND OF CLEAR AND ALL THAT.
SO I THINK THOSE ARE A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS AND I THINK THAT AS LONG AS, IF WE CAN SAY THAT AS A HIGH LEVEL GUIDANCE STATEMENT, WE'RE GONNA GET A QUOTE, 50 TREES, FOUR FOOT, THREE OR FOUR FEET OF THE SUGGESTED UH, TYPE TYPE THAT WE PUT IN THE PLANT SET.
THAT QUOTE IS GONNA BE OUR HIGH LINE, OUR PIPELINE NUMBER.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE 10 OUT, WE'RE GONNA PUT THEM IN THE FRONT.
EVERYTHING ELSE WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO DO.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS, IF THAT'S UP TO US, I THINK WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT COMES ACROSS REALLY CLEAR AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S COMING ACROSS VERY, VERY CLEAR.
SO I WANNA SAY IT RIGHT, INTEGRITY IS IMPORTANT TO US, RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE NOT UP HERE SAYING THINGS BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THEM TO BE TRUE.
WE'RE GOING TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE SAY WE ARE GOING TO DO AND WE'RE GONNA DO A VERY GOOD JOB.
WE'RE GONNA BE VERY GOOD PARTNER.
AND THAT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR US.
AND IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME 'CAUSE THE GUY THAT OWNS THE BUSINESS AND IT'S THE GUY THAT'S GROWING THE BUSINESS, RIGHT? SO IF WE SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN, BUT WE WILL DO A GOOD JOB.
WE WILL BE, UM, AS UH, WE'LL COLLABORATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OUTSIDE OF THE TIME THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT UP FRONT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE AND WHOEVER THAT DESIGNATED PERSON IS, IF IT'S THE CAT, GREAT SOMEONE ELSE, THAT'S GREAT.
[01:50:01]
IT'S HELPS TO US TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAXIMIZE WHAT WE CAN PUT UNDER THE BUDGET, THAT'S GREAT TOO.HAPPY TO DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
SO, BUT WE WILL DO A GOOD JOB.
WE'LL DO WHAT WE SAY WE'RE GONNA DO AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S AS POSSIBLE.
ALRIGHT? SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
WE'VE, I DUNNO HOW WE WORD THIS AS A WELL, WELL, WELL I GUESS FIRST OF ALL WE GOTTA FIGURE OUT IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO THAT TO BE A CONDITION AT ALL, WHICH IS WHERE I WAS GONNA GO.
I MEAN, SO WE'VE GOT JED PROPOSED 10 ADDITIONAL TREES OVER A FEW YEARS.
WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT MORE TREES, BUT A DIFFERENT SIZE.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT ANY OF THAT? WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE, I, I THINK CAITLIN'S SOLUTION IS MORE ELEGANT THAN MINE.
AND I'LL, I'LL MY SUPPORT STAY WITH 50.
I'LL GO A I'LL GO ON WITH
ARE, I MEAN THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ASK, THE OTHER BIG COMMENT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IS THE GENTLEMAN THAT ABUTS YOUR PROPERTY TO THE RIVER MM-HMM
HE RAISED, HE'S BUILDING HIS OWN CONSERVATION AREAS, PRIVATELY HELD AREA.
IS THERE A WAY TO PUT SOME SORT OF DEED RESTRICTION ALONG THE, OF SOME GIVEN DEPTH ALONG THE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS IS AND AND MAYBE IT LASTS A DURATION OF TIME OR WHATEVER.
IS THERE SOME WAY THAT WE CAN SO THE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS IS, IS THE, THE TWO ACRE PORTION OF THE LAND WE'RE NOT TOUCHING, GONNA, GONNA DO A DE WE'RE GONNA, I I I WROTE DEED RESTRICTION.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE GONNA PUT A DE RESTRICTION, I DEED RESTRICTION IN THE KID CYCL.
AND THEN BECAUSE THAT, THAT WAS A, A MAJOR AND SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT CAME BACK AND IF WE CAN ADD THE DEED RESTRICTION YEAH.
WE TALKED WITH HIM A COUPLE TIMES AND, AND MET HIM, TALKED TO THEM AND ON THE PHONE TOO.
ANYTHING WE DO MAKE IT
I WENT BACK THROUGH MY EMAILS.
I'VE GOT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION THAT WAS DRAFTED FOR FEBRUARY 2ND, BUT WHAT I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE HANDY IS THE SEEKER RESOLUTION AND THE SPECIAL YOUTH PERMIT RESOLUTION.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS A COPY OF THAT.
I HAVE THE WHOLE PACKET THAT I HANDED OUT BACK UP TO.
I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF COPIES OF IT.
SAYS SEEKER RESOLUTION, IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ATTACHED TO IT.
AND THEN THE FINAL ONE IS A SITE PLAN RESOLUTION.
WE INCLUDED THAT AGAIN ON HIS EMAIL LAST FRIDAY.
I EMAILED IT TO YOU GUYS BUT YES, I HAVE HARD COPIES PLANNING MEMO EMAIL.
IT'S JUST HE GOT LIKE 12 ATTACHMENTS.
OH MAYBE ALL THOSE ATTACHMENTS WERE CRAZY.
MY PHONE ONLY SHOWS TWO ATTACHMENTS PER YOU HAVE A COPY.
ANYBODY ELSE NEED A COPY? SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IT JUST SAY IT'S ATTACHED AND THEN YOU GOTTA ADD THOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THOUGH TO THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT WE GOT.
IS THERE ANYTHING WE SHOULD BE INCLUDING AS A STANDARD CONDITION RELATED TO, BECAUSE THERE'S ASH TREES ON THE SITE AND OBVIOUSLY THE ASH BO IS A PROBLEM.
IS THERE ANYTHING WE SHOULD BE REQUIRING IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION MONITORING WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE WOOD DEBRIS OR ANY SORT OF REQUIREMENT ON THE REMOVAL OF DEAD WOOD FROM TREES THAT ARE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE EMERALD DASHBOARD FROM THE SITE? I THINK IT'S COVERED AND IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS COVERED BY DEC REGULATION NOW, BUT YOU CAN'T REMOVE TREES THAT ARE, THAT ARE INFECTED FROM A I HAVE TO REMOVE THEM BUT I DON'T KNOW AMI DO YOU KNOW I WHAT'S THAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE.
I DON'T YOU DON'T KNOW THAT ONE EITHER.
WELL IT WOULDN'T BE A CONDITION THAT WE COULD DO IT WOULD'VE TO BE THE DEC OR CAN WE JUST SAY THAT IT WILL BE, THE PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS FROM DEC ON THE SPREAD OF INVASIVE.
YEAH, I, THEY'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE BUT NOT, WE DON'T WANNA HAVE TO TRY TO ENFORCE THAT.
I THINK OUR DEPARTMENT GO CRAZY IF THEY'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE WHERE THEY'RE TAKING DEAD TREES.
SO I THINK THERE'S REGULATIONS RELATED TO REMOVING TREES ESPECIALLY THAT ARE INFECTED WITH THE EMERAL DASH FOUR AND AND IT'S HELPFUL THAT GROUP THAT WILL HELP US DO THAT DOES THIS EVERY DAY, ALL DAY'S THEIR JOB PEOPLE REMOVE TREES.
SO I THINK I AS A CONDITION MAKE SURE THAT YOU PUT THAT AS A CONDITION AND WHATEVER YOUR CONTRACTS RIGHT, OKAY.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FROM A, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
[01:55:01]
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD MEGAWATT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ON APPROXIMATELY 3.86 ACRE AREA OF LAND NEAR 6 2 7 1 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD S NUMBER 1 94 0 3 18.AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND THE PROJECT AT SEVERAL MEETINGS HELD THE REQUISITE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION AND RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON SCENE AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEES, ERIE COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES AND THE TOWN CONSULTANTS.
AND WHEREAS THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER REQUIRES THE PLANNING BOARD TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEEKER PRIOR TO MAKING THE FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE APPLICATION.
AND WHEREAS PURSUANT TO SEEKER, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS AN UNLISTED ACTION BUT DECIDED TO ESTABLISH ITSELF AS SECRET LEAD AGENCY AND COMPLETE A COORDINATOR REVIEW.
AND WHEREAS NONE OF THE POTENTIALLY INVOLVED AGENCIES CONTESTED LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD FOR POTENTIALLY INVOLVED AGENCIES TO OBJECT HAS EXPIRED.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE FEAF AND COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE FEAF AND HAS DONE A THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEKER AND BASED ON ITS KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAND AND AREAS SURROUNDING THE SITE, HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED IN ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF ONE THIRD MEGAWATT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AT THIS LOCATION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HEREBY ONE ESTABLISH ITSELF AS SECRET LEAD AGENCY AND TWO, DETERMINES THROUGH THE COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS THAT THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A ONE-THIRD MEGAWATT SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
AND THREE ISSUES, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT AND FOUR AUTHORIZES THE HAM PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE EAF, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
THAT IS THE SEEKER RESOLUTION BY MR. CLARK.
NEXT IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BILL.
IF YOU DON'T, I WANNA READ ALL THOSE FIRST FOUR ONE, JUST SAY THERE'S SIMILAR TO THE FIRST, TO THE, TO THE FIRST RESOLUTION OF BASICALLY STATING THE SAME THING THAT WE HAD.
EVERYBODY HAS A COPY SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THEM ALL.
ALRIGHT, SO, SO THE FOUR FIVE ACTUALLY WHEREAS PARAGRAPHS OF THE SAME AS THE LAST SOLUTION, RIGHT RESOLUTION.
SO NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ONE, THE APPLICATION HAS FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN'S SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM LAW FOR A TIER THREE PROJECT.
AND TWO, THE APPLICATION MATERIALS INCLUDE ALL THE INFORMATION THIS BOARD REQUIRES TO TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
AND THREE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD SET OUT IN THE TOWN ZONING CODE WHICH REGULATES SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TIER THREE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, ONE THIRD MEGAWATT BY BUFFALO SOLAR BE AND HEREBY IS AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED.
AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
AND THE FOLLOWING, ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL UNDERTAKE THE USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS MAPPED AND APPLICATION SUBMITTED.
AND TWO, THE TOWN EXCEPT AS HEREAFTER, MODIFIED AND AGREES TO THE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE APPLICATION AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE ATTACHED SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
TWO, IF THE OWNER OF THE SOLAR PROJECT OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CHANGES THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT PROVIDED THAT THE SUCCESSOR OWNER OR OPERATOR ASSUMES IN WRITING ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN, APPROVAL, DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, FREE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, BIND AND OBLIGATE THE APPLICANT.
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS THIS
[02:00:01]
PERMIT SHALL NOT BE ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE TOWN AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE TRANSFER.ANY FAILURE OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO CARRY OUT ANY CONDITION OR REQUIREMENT HEREIN OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OR REQUIREMENTS OF ANY STATUTE, LOCAL LAW, ORDINANCE OR REGULATION MAY BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ZONING LAW.
AND UNLESS CORRECTED IN NOT MORE THAN 10 DAYS FOLLOWING THE SERVICE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH A VIOLATION UPON THE APPLICANT MAY SUBJECT THEM TO PENALTIES THEREIN.
CONTINUED VIOLATIONS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE MAY RESULT IN REVOCATION OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE APPLICANT APPROVES EACH AND EVERY PROVISION HEREOF AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ALL THE TERMS HERE IN CONTAINED IN CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING OF, OF THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO WE HAVE THE ATTACHED SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH 22 CONDITIONS.
UH, IT'S A MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY, DO YOU WANNA ADD THOSE OTHER CONDITIONS? YOU WANNA ADD THE OTHER CONDITIONS? OH, TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
YEAH, YOU CAN ADD AS NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN OR WHATEVER.
THE OTHER ONES WRITTEN ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
SO, SO, SO FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE APPLICANT APPROVES EACH AND EVERY PROVISION HEREOF AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ALL THE TERMS HERE IN CONTAINED IN CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THE APPLICANT SHALL PLANT 50 OR MORE TREES DEPENDING ON SIZE SEVEN.
THE APPLICANT SHALL PLACE A DEED RESTRICTION INDICATING NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE UNDEVELOPED ACRES.
EIGHT CONSTRUCTION WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELATING TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
SO MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN.
MOTION CARRIED THE THAT'S THE LAST RESOLUTION.
AND I WAS GONNA PUT THIS, I'LL PUT THE SAME CONDITIONS ON THAT TOO BECAUSE UNTIL TOMORROW, DENNIS.
THE PLANNING BOARD
THE PLANNING BOARD BASED ON THEIR ISSUANCE OF A SECRET NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THIS PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XL IV SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE TIER THREE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IN ARTICLE LIV 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 BUFFALO SOLAR PROJECT TO BE LOCATED ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25TH, FEBRUARY 25TH, 2022.
THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST 50 ADDITIONAL TREES DEPENDING UPON SIZE AND INCLUDING 10 TREES ALONG THE ROAD, INCLUDING 10 TREES ALONG THE ROAD.
THREE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED.
THE PROJECT WILL MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED FOR THIS PROJECT, FIVE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELATING TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
AND SIX, THE APPLICANT WILL PLACE A DEED RESTRICTION INDICATING NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON THIS PART.
WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, RIGHT.
THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON THIS PART.
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EXISTING SIDEWALKS.
SOMETIMES WE DO PUT THAT IN THERE.
SO THERE'S MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DOLLAR GENERAL REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 10,640 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STORE TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND, THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKESHORE ROAD AND BIGTREE ROAD.
[02:05:05]
LEMME GET MY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANNA PRESENT THIS EVENING OR NO, I THINK WE'RE ALL SET JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANY COMMENTS.I WAS JUST TRYING TO STALL FOR TIME AS I LOOKED THROUGH MY EMAILS TO GET THE RESOLUTION, SO THANKS FOR HELPING ME.
UM, AND I HAVE EXTRA COPIES OF PEOPLE.
DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE PART TWO? HERE WE GO.
OF THE, I HAVE PART TWO OF THE A F CAN I LOOK? YEP.
WE'LL, SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT LANGUAGE YOU WANT.
PART THREE ALSO, OR JUST PART TWO ALSO.
WELL, I GUESS PART THREE AS WELL, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS RELATED TO ONE OF THE IMPACTS TO THIS PROJECT WAS RELATED TO THE CONCERNS THAT HAD COME UP WAS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE WITHIN A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND THERE'LL BE RAISING THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING OUT OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE, BUT THE EFFECTS THE FLOODWAY.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S CAVEATED COULD BE SMALL IMPACT OR MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY HOW WE, THIS WHAT ARE YOU ASKING, I GUESS, DREW, WHAT WE HAVE IN PART THREE, YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THE, THE SITE IS WITHIN A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND A FLOODWAY, THEY'RE NOT BUILDING WITHIN THE FLOODWAY ACTUALLY WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE BUILT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY.
UM, AND I'LL POINT IT CAN BE, BUT WE, WE DECIDED THAT THE SMALL PORTION OF THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WAS GONNA BE DEVELOPED WOULD NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM BECAUSE OF ITS CLOSE LOCATION TO THE, I DON'T THINK YOU READ THE MEETING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT YOU CAN COMMENT ON IT IS CLOSE LOCATION TO THE LAKE ERIE.
SO OTHER WORDS, IN OTHER WORDS, A MINOR FILLING WOULD CAUSE A MINOR INCREASE IN FLOOD WATER, BUT IT'S GONNA GET INTO THE LAKE VERY QUICKLY.
THERE'S NOT DOUBT CHANGE, BUT I, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REVIEW ALL THE DRAINAGE FINES AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE.
SO YES, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CAN THE INPUT ON THAT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? CORRECT.
SO, AND THEN THAT, SO CAMMY, YOUR ANALYSIS THERE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, I THINK THERE'S A CULVERT THAT GOES OVER THE ROAD THERE THAT IT DRAINS THROUGH THE STREAM THROUGH THE CULVERT AND YOU WOULD FACTOR THAT INTO ANYTHING THAT YOU DID FLOWS TO YOUR I DON'T DON'T DO ANY ANALYSIS OF THAT.
WE CAN ASK THEM TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF IT, BUT, UM, ALRIGHT.
THE CONCLUSION IS BASED AS DREW SAID, JUST ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE NEAR LAKE ERIE, IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO CAPACITY OF THE CULVERT UNDER THE ROAD OR ANYTHING, OR HOW LONG THE FLOOD STORAGE CAN CHANGE.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF IN THE EVENT IF THERE WAS A MAJOR STORM EVENT, I LIVED IN THE GOLF COURSE, THE ROAD FLOODS, IT'S AN ISSUE.
THERE'S DRAINAGE ISSUES, THERE'S PROBLEMS THERE.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IF WE ALTER THIS AND THEN THERE'S STILL POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, IS THAT THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT AT LAST MEETING WHERE THEY AGREED NOT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THEY COULD COME BEFORE US, BUT WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM.
SO THEY REMOVED THAT FROM THE, FROM THE PROJECT WHERE THEY WERE SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, BACK TO CAM'S POINT, AS YOU KNOW, C'S KIND OF AWKWARD.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT IN HAND, BUT THE WORST CASE, THE SCENARIO FOR THEM IS YOU ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECK BASED UPON OUR FEELING THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
OBVIOUSLY IF THEY CAN'T GET A FLOOD DEVELOP FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THE PROJECT DOESN'T GO FORWARD.
IF THEY'RE NOT SATISFIED CAMMY AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S NOT SATISFIED, THEN THE PROJECT DOES NOT GO FORWARD.
SO THERE'S SOME ASSUMPTION THAT WE'RE ASSUMING BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND THE SIZE OF THE IMPACT TO THE FLOODPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE INSIGNIFICANT.
BUT THE PROJECT DOESN'T GO FORWARD UNLESS THEY GET A FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
SO WE'RE PROTECTING, I'M SUPPOSED TO CONDITION IT UPON THAT, BUT I KNOW THE FACT THAT WE ARE PROTECTED FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
IF THERE'S A LOCAL PROBLEM THAT'S GONNA BE CAUSED, THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE COVERED UNDER THAT DRAINAGE PLAN AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
BUT WITH THE SIZE OF IMPACT, IT'S FAIRLY INSIGNIFICANT, BUT IT STILL WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WE DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE ALL THE TIME.
AND OTHER PROJECTS IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE.
BEING CLOSE TO LAKE ERIE HELPS US THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT BEING INSIGNIFICANT AND THE PROCESS, THEY STILL HAVE TO GET A, A PERMIT AND MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PERMIT.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE DETERMINE IT WAS INSIGNIFICANT.
NOT THAT IT'S NOT GONNA BE AN IMPACT, IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT I SHOULD SAY.
AND JUST TO MENTION THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CORN COIN, THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND STORM WATER DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALSO FLOODING CREATED BY
[02:10:01]
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ADDED.AND THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE LESS THAN THE 10 YEAR OR A HUNDRED YEAR AND A HUNDRED YEAR, UM, FLOODING SITUATION OR STORM SITUATION.
SO THEY, THEIR STORM WATER PLAN WILL MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO THEY DECREASE HOW MUCH THEY, UM, THEY RELEASE FROM THE SITE ONCE THEY DEVELOP IT BY CONTAINING IT IN THEIR PONDS AND SO ON.
SO FLOODING IS CONSIDERED UNDER STORMWATER ANALYSIS AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S NOT BUILDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, THAT'S THE SITE ITSELF.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO PROCEDURALLY WE HAVE THE WATERFRONT PROGRAM, UH, THE WATERFRONT FORM THAT THEY SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE TO ISSUE A, UH, CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AS WELL AS THE OTHER RESOLUTIONS THAT WE HAVE, RIGHT? WITH THE LOCAL RESOLUTION.
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCLUDES YOU FIRST MAKING A WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY AND THEN ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
YOU ALWAYS WANNA DO IT IN THAT ORDER.
WE HAVE TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT FIRST.
I THINK IT'S PART OF ONE RESOLUTION.
UH, AND THEN YOU MOVE ON TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WE HAVE ON FILE THE WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM FILLED OUT BY THE APPLICANT.
IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEE.
THEY HAD NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ON IT.
SO YOU WOULD AS ASSUME THAT THAT WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM IS WHAT'S GONNA GO IN THE FILE.
AND WE ALWAYS HAVE THAT IN THE FILE BECAUSE THE TOWN DOES GET AUDITED NOW EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.
AND THEY WANNA SEE THAT, I'M SORRY, BUT THEY WANT TO SEE THAT THAT IS ON THE FILE.
AND I'VE GOTTEN CALLS FROM THE DEPARTMENT STATE SAYING YOU HAVE AN LWRP GUYS, WE WANNA SEE THOSE ALL ON FILE.
WE ALSO HAVE THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEES REVIEWED IT AND SIGNED OFF ON IT.
AND AGAIN, THEY'RE RECOMMENDING TO YOU TO ISSUE A THAT IS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WATERFRONT LWR PAGE, RIGHT? SO NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COASTAL CONSISTENCY FOR DOLLAR GENERAL ON LAKE SHORE ROAD AT BIGTREE.
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 LAKESHORE ROAD AND BIG TREE ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED ACTION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER.
AND WHEREAS THE PROJECT THAT'S LOCATED IN THE WATERFRONT AREA, LWRA OF THE TOWN'S LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM AND WHEREAS THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN'S ADVISORY BOARDS AND TOWN STAFF AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 2 7 0 WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG CODE, THE PLANNING BOARD, THE APPROVAL AGENCY HAS REFERRED THE PROJECT TO THE TOWN'S WATERFRONT COMMITTEE.
AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS CONDUCTED A COORDINATED REVIEW REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE FDAF, COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE FEAF AND REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER.
AND WHEREAS HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE INPUT RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN'S WATERFRONT COMMITTEE AND REVIEWED THE WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP POLICY STANDARDS AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ESTABLISHES ITSELF A SECRET LEAD AGENCY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT AS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH THE CONDITIONS PLACED ON THE APPROVAL WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
AND IS CONSISTENT AND IS CONSISTENT WITH 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 RESOLVE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM EAF, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DEC NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO THAT'S A MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
SO OUR NEXT ONE IS SITE PLAN RESOLUTION.
UM, CAN WE, IS IT TALK ABOUT CONDITIONS? YES.
UM, SO WE'VE GOT, UM, ARCHEOLOGICAL, EVERYBODY'S GOT A COPY OF THIS RIGHT? SCREW
[02:15:01]
SAID IT.SO WE'VE GOT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER.
WE'VE GOT AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
WE'VE GOT JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WHICH WILL HAVE TO DO WITH THE, THE WETLANDS, UH, SIGNAGE SHALL BE PLACED ON THE SITE TO INSTRUCT TRUCK TRAFFIC TO TURN RIGHT OUT OF THE SITE.
LANDSCAPING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
DO WE HAVE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT OR CONSIDER? IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS OFF THE TABLE.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE A RESTRICTION THAT NO FURTHER IMPACTS TO THE WETLANDS OR THE FLOOD PLAIN ON THE SITE, YOU KNOW, ARE PERMITTED? I MEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO TO FURTHER LIMIT THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT'S GOING? I MEAN, THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT'LL BE CONCERNED.
THE, THE THINGS THAT WERE RAISED BEFORE IS THAT IF, IF THE, THE OWNER OF THE SITE DECIDES THAT THEY WANNA PURSUE ANY OTHER FUTURE ITEMS ON THE PROPERTY, THE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD WANNA SEE IS THAT THERE'S NO FURTHER IMPACTS TO THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND THAT THEY, THAT THEY'RE NOT AFFECTING ANY OF THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY.
YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON THAT OR NO? WELL, I GUESS MY POSITION WOULD BE THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OR ANY FURTHER PROJECT ON THAT SITE WOULD'VE TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR THAT VERY SAME DETERMINATION.
UH, HOW WE CAN STRAP OUR HANDS NOW WHEN YOU GUYS ARE STILL GONNA BE ULTIMATE REVIEW AND AUTHORITY BOARD TO MAKE THOSE SAME ASSESSMENTS IN THE, IN THE TIME IN WHICH THEY'RE ACTUALLY PRESENTED.
UM, RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA, IF WE WERE TO MAKE A DECISION NOW THAT CAST IN STONE, THE WHOLE FUTURE BILL, YOU KNOW, ON THE SITE WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION AS TO SPECIFICS OR YOUR INDEPENDENT REVIEW AT THE TIME DOESN'T REALLY SEEM PRUDENT IN MY EYES.
I RECOGNIZE WHAT WHAT HE'S SAYING.
BUT BASED ON OUR, OUR GOALS TO, WE'RE IN A TOUGH SPOT BECAUSE THERE WAS A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST IN PURSUING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED WERE THE REASON THAT WE WERE WAIVING SIDEWALKS ON THIS, AND WE MIGHT WANNA ARTICULATE THAT, IS THAT WE WAIVED SIDEWALKS BECAUSE THERE WOULD'VE BEEN UNDUE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE BENEFIT THAT WE SAW FROM THERE.
SIMILARLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAD HAD TALKS ABOUT PUTTING IN, UM, POTENTIAL FOR CROSS ACCESS.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE WAVING SIDEWALK.
WE'RE NOT WA SIDEWALK, WE'RE NOT WAVING SIDEWALKS.
SO THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE SIDEWALKS ON THIS? YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT ON THEIR FRONT.
WE DON'T WAVE ON THE, I THOUGHT WE REMOVED THE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE THEY WERE GONNA FILL THE WETLANDS.
WELL THAT WAS IF THEY WERE, IF THEY HAD REMOVE THEM ON THE SECOND LOT.
OKAY, WELL, RIGHT, BUT IT'S NOT A SECOND LOT.
SO WE'RE NOT HAVING TO PUT 'EM ON THE WHOLE FRONTAGE.
BUT WE NEED TO SOMEHOW INDICATE THAT THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, 'CAUSE THEY HAVE YEAH, THEIR PLANS SHOW, UM, ONLY ON A PORTION.
BUT WE SPECIFICALLY HAD TALKED ABOUT NOT PUTTING SIDEWALKS ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT OF WHAT IS NOW REMAINING ON PARCEL ON THAT, ON TRAFFIC CIRCLE ROAD, WHATEVER THAT'S CALLED BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS.
AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, YEAH, I DON'T, THEY'RE NOT PLANNING TO, THEY'RE CORRECT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ARTICULATE WHY THERE ARE ONLY SIDEWALKS ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT IT IS A SITE PLAN THAT YOU'RE APPROVING.
I MEAN, I, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I KNOW, BUT I WANNA BE CLEAR, SIDEWALKS KEEP COMING UP.
I MEAN MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE PUT SOME SORT OF OTHER PROTECTIONS OR CONDITIONS ON THE SITE THAT I RECOGNIZE WHY.
SO THE APPLICANT IS BEING REPRESENTED AS SUCH.
BUT I MEAN WE, WE COULD PUT A CONDITION SAYING NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND AS THE APPLICANT WOULD KNOW, THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THAT WOULD BE TENUOUS.
BUT THAT WOULD SIGNAL TO FUTURE PLANNING BOARDS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING ADDITIONAL ON HERE IF THEY COME BACK.
I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THEM PUTTING SOMETHING ELSE ON THE PROPERTY.
I JUST DON'T WANT IT IN THE WETLAND OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND I THINK WHAT THE ANALYSIS THAT TARA HAD DONE BEFORE HAD SHOWED IS THAT THERE IS A DEVELOPABLE AREA ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS EXCLUDED FROM THOSE AREAS AND THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD AND THAT WAS PROVIDED AS A GRAPHIC.
SO I DON'T, I I DON'T WANNA SAY NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.
I SAID ADDRESS IT THEN IT MIGHT BE UP TO ANOTHER BOARD.
THAT'S WHY THE CONDITION NOW, HOW CAN WE MAKE A DECISION NOW ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THERE? YOU'RE ALREADY SAYING WE DON'T WANT IT THERE.
I AM WORRIED IT'S A LITTLE ARBITRARY BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING RIGHT THERE.
SO FOR US TO RESTRICT IT NOW SEEMS LIKE IT MAY BE GOING TOWARDS AN ARBITRARY DIRECTION.
YOU JUST RESTRICTED THE LAST APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL DEC DECLINE.
WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU DO ANYTHING THERE.
IF SOMETHING HAPPENS THERE, THEY GOTTA COME.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT CAME IN WITH, WE DID
[02:20:01]
IT ON BUFFALO OF SOLAR BECAUSE TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW, THEY HAD TO HAVE THOSE LANDS.SO THAT'S WHY WE DID IT THAT WAY.
OTHERWISE THEY, FOR THE SCREENING PURPOSES AND WHATEVER, THIS ONE WE WERE ADAMANT AND WE WE ABOUT REMOVING THE SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THAT WAS INDICATING THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY APPROVE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT ADJOINING SITE.
RIGHT NOW, CLEARLY IN THE RECORDS WE'RE SAYING IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WANNA TOTALLY AGREE TO A DEED RESTRICTION AT THIS POINT.
BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT, CALIN, ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT? RIGHT? WE, WE HAVE FULL CONTROL NOW.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWING ANY SUBDIVISION THAT WE CAN BUY THE PROPERTY COMPANY AND SAY, HEY, YOU APPROVED THE SUBDIVISION.
WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING ME TO DEVELOP THAT? WE KNOW THAT IT WILL BE A PROBLEMATIC PIECE OF PROPERTY TO DEVELOP.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'D BE CROSS ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT ANYWAY, CAITLIN RAISES A POINT, SHE'S ASKING THE REST OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
THAT IS A, THAT IS A CONDITION WE PLACED ON OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE TOWN.
I THINK IF OUR ATTORNEYS CAUTIONING US THAT IT COULD BE ARBITRARY.
I MEAN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S, I MEAN THIS IS A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE IF IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN A RESTRICTION WE'VE PUT ON OTHER APPLICANTS, BUT HAVE WE EVER DONE THAT WHERE THERE WAS NOT AN APPLICATION TO BE BUILT IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME? AND THAT'S, I MEAN, ANY, ANY PROJECT COULD GET POTENTIALLY SUBDIVIDED OR NOT.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE EVEN KNOW IT'S A THING IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD PLACED IT IN FRONT OF US AND WITHDREW IT.
SO WE CAN'T I AGREE WITH THAT.
WE, WE CAN'T UNKNOW IT THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST THERE.
AND IN TERMS OF LIKE CUMULATIVE REPRESENTATION, I DON'T HAVE, I, TO BE CLEAR, DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THEM USING THEIR PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT, THAT THEY WANT TO.
BUT WE WENT THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF ASKING THEM TO SHOW US THAT THERE WAS STILL ACTUALLY VIABLE LAND THAT COULD BE BUILT UPON.
AND IF THERE'S A WAY TO CAPTURE THAT, LIKE, I'M WONDERING IF WE PHRASE IT MORE IN A WAY OF ADVISING A FUTURE PLANNING BOARD TO CAUTION THIS ASPECT OF THINGS INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY RESTRICTING IT.
WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE POINTING IT OUT NOW AS A FUTURE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE CONCERN IS THAT IT JUST BECOMES AN INCREMENTAL AND THAT WHAT, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH WHEN YOU TEND TO SUBDIVIDE STUFF, EVERYTHING GETS PIECE, UH, IT GETS SUBDIVIDED SO THAT THE IMPACTS ARE LOCATED ON ONE SMALLER AND SMALLER, SMALLER.
SO YOU'RE JUST JUST SHAVING OFF LOTS OF DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND TO FIND A WAY TO HOLISTICALLY LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THAT PROPERTY.
IN TERMS OF THE AREA, IN TERMS OF THE FACT THAT WE, WE HAVE ALLOWED AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT CURRENTLY THE THRESHOLD FOR IMPACTS OF THE FLOODWAY AND SOME OF THOSE WETLANDS ARE HITTING THAT THRESHOLD.
BUT WE'RE, I FEEL SORT OF STUCK BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE INTENTS TO BUILD AND IF WE COME BACK AT THIS, YOU KNOW, OH, ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAUSE NOW IT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE, IT'S STILL BELOW THOSE THRESHOLDS.
THERE'S LIKE A CUMULATIVE LIKE ACTIVITY THAT HAS COME BY THE ENTITY THAT IS PURCHASING AND DEVELOPING THE PROCESS.
AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT SEGMENTING THEIR IMPACTS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS ARE BELOW THRESHOLD.
WHERE COMBINED THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN NO AND NO, WE WOULDN'T DO THAT.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT SEGMENT, THAT'S WHY WE ASK THEM TO REMOVE THE SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE MAKE THEM DO THE EVALUATION OF THAT LAND BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF IT.
IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE NOT ASKING APPROVAL LIKE ANY OTHER LANDOWNER.
AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT BY WAY A FLOOD PLAIN COULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.
IT COULD GET WORSE, COULD GET BETTER, IT COULD GET A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS HAPPEN.
SO I THINK YOU'RE FAIRLY WELL SAFE ON THIS.
I THINK I APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR REMOVING THE SUBDIVISION.
'CAUSE THEN WE WERE REALLY UNDER THE GUISE OF, HEY, THERE'S GONNA BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE AT THIS POINT.
IT'S JUST PART OF THAT PROPERTY.
IF THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE IN THE FUTURE AND MAYBE THEY JUST WANNA USE PART OF IT FOR A SMALL EXPANSION FOR DOLLAR GENERAL OR SOMETHING.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, FOR THE BUFFALO SOLAR ONE WAS VERY DIFFERENT.
THEY NEEDED THAT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW.
THAT'S WHY YOU PLACE A DEED RESTRICTION.
OTHERWISE THEY WERE POTENTIALLY REMOVING OTHER TREES.
THAT WAS THE MITIGATION FOR, FOR THE TREE CLEARING PERMIT THAT THEY LEAVE THAT PLUS THERE'S BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAW.
THAT'S HOW THEY WERE MEETING THAT.
SO THEY COMMITTED THAT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.
I DON'T THINK, AND AGAIN, THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE CAN FIND THAT FOR THEM TO MEET THE LAW, THEY NEEDED TO PRESERVE MORE OF THAT LAND.
I THINK THIS BOARD OR FUTURE BOARD WOULD UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY IN DEVELOPING THAT PIECE OF THE REMAINING PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND WE WOULD DO A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ON THAT AT THAT TIME.
WE'D KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
THERE WON'T BE THROUGH ANY THRESHOLD.
DO WE EVER PUT AS AWARE AS CLAUSE, UM, SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED DURING THE PROCESS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT? WE CAN, WE COULD LIKE, WHEREAS WE COULD INCLUDE ANYTHING IN THERE.
[02:25:01]
WE TRY TO, UH, UTILIZE THAT FOR FUTURE.LIKE SOMETIMES WE TELL SARAH, TRY TO FIND THE MEETING MINUTES, TRY TO FIND THE APPROVALS, WHAT WERE THE ISSUES BACK THEN? IT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC 10 YEARS FROM NOW, 15 YEARS FROM NOW.
BUT WE TRY TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT IT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, SO A DEED RESTRICTION WOULD IMPOSE THIS, UM, RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
BUT WHEREAS CROSS WOULD PERHAPS MEMORIALIZE THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT AND UM, AND UH, SO THE EZ WOULD BE, WHEREAS THE APPLICANT REMOVED THE SUBDIVISION, I BECAUSE THE, THE PLANNING ORDER IDENTIFIED EXTREME PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH DEVELOPING THE REMAINING PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY DID.
THEY SPECIFICALLY DID BECAUSE WE IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE REALLY PROBLEMATIC AND WOULD CAUSE A MUCH GREATER SEEKER PROBLEM FOR THEM TO BE FUTURE DEVELOPING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
IT'S SOME OF THE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS KIND TO CROSS ACCESS.
ALL OF THAT WOULD BE A, YOU GOT IT.
THE OTHER CONDITIONS IN HERE ARE ABOUT A PHASE ONE, UH, ARCHEOLOGICAL OR BASED ON THE FACT THE INFORMATION THEY, THAT IT'S NOT GONNA BE A PROBLEM, BUT THEY HAVE TO COMPLETE IT.
THEY'VE DONE THEIR ANALYSIS TO SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING AN IMPACT ON WETLANDS.
BUT AGAIN, WE NEED TO, CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL THOSE THINGS ARE IN PLACE BEFORE A SITE PLAN IS, IS SIGNED AND SEALED.
SO CAN WE ADD THE FLOOD PLAIN INADEQUATE DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WETLANDS.
AND WETLANDS? UM, I, I GUESS I WOULD HAVE AN AMENDMENT THEN TO THE, THE ARCHEOLOGICAL CONDITION AS WELL.
WHICH WOULD BE, I JUST WOULD SAY THAT THE RESULTS ARE GONNA BE SUBMITTED AND WHICH IS IT? RIGHT.
BUT, AND THAT WE'RE, IT ASSUMES THAT WE'RE AVOIDING IF THEY FIND ANY SITES THAT THEY WOULD BE AVOIDED, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET A PERMIT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET A, WITHOUT THE SIGN OFF FROM, UH, FROM SHIPPO.
AND THEY, THEY REQUIRE A SLIP ON THIS.
ENOUGH YOU CAN CHANGE THAT TO SUBMIT IT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED IT FOR ISSU.
NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE SHE WON'T SIGN OFF UNTIL SHE SEES IT.
BECAUSE SHE NEEDS TO SWIFT NOW HAS A SECTION IN IT.
SITE PLAN RESOLUTION DOLLAR GENERAL LAKE SHORE ROAD AT BIGTREE.
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 LAKE SHORE ROAD AND BIGTREE ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER AND THE, AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP AND WHEREAS THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN'S ADVISORY BOARDS AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROJECT OR HELD PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XL IV OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ZONING LAW.
AND WHEREAS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN A FLOODPLAIN AND CONSISTING OF WETLANDS, THE APPLICANT REMOVED THEIR REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION DUE TO ISSUES RELATING TO DEVELOPING THE OTHER PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY DUE TO THE FLOOD CLAIM IN WETLANDS.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25TH, 2022.
TWO RESULTS OF THE PHASE ONE A AND ONE B ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
FOUR SIGNAGE SHALL BE PLACED ON SITE TO INSTRUCT TRUCK TRAFFIC TO TURN RIGHT OUT OF THE SITE.
THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS WILL BE AS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN AND NOT BEYOND AS TO AVOID ADDITIONAL DISTURBANCE OF WETLANDS.
[02:30:03]
IS A MOTION BY MR. CLARK.UH, MS. MCCORMICK? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
YOUR CLIENT'S GONNA GET COMPLEX.
WHAT'S THAT SAID? YOUR CLIENT'S GONNA GET THE COMPLEX THAT THE ONLY NIGHT SHE DOESN'T SHOW UP.
WHY DID SHE COME IF SHE WAS JUST MARRIED? DID SHE? HBO AND HAMBURG.
UM, OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SHAW TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 16TH MEETING.
ABSTENTION AND TWO ABSTENTIONS.
ANY MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION BY MR. SHAW TO ADJOURN.