[00:11:41]
[00:11:55]
UH,[00:11:55]
WELCOME TO THE JUNE 1ST MEETING OF THE TOWN OF PLANNING BOARD.PLEASE RISE ALLEGIANCE, MY PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
WE CAN, I MEAN, I CAN START WITHOUT THE RECORDER, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S HARDER FOR YOU.
ALRIGHT, BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT ON FACEBOOK.
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 9,150 SQUARE FOOT, UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A 2,250 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE THROUGH TO BE LOCATED AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
JASON BENDERSON, FIVE 70 DELAWARE AVENUE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.
I HAVE BEEN HERE A FEW TIMES FOR THE PUBLIC.
I WALKED THROUGH THIS PROJECT.
UM, THIS IS A LARGE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED IN FRONT OF GABE'S, IS THE EXISTING PROPOSED FRIENDLIES PROJECT IS DEMOLISHED THE FRIENDLIES AND BUILDING 9,150 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AGAIN, ANCHORED BY A COFFEE SHOP THAT WE DISCUSSED.
UM, AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, WE PROPOSED TWO ROWS OF PARKING INSTEAD, A PATIO IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, IN FRONT OF THE COFFEE SHOP.
STACKING COMES IN, WRAPS AROUND THE BUILDING AND OUT THE FRONT.
WE DID PROVIDE 14 STACK STALLS IN A DOUBLE STACK.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S PLENTY OF ADDITIONAL STAFFING ON SITE THAT
UM, THE BUILDING IS, UM, WE PROVIDE ALL NEW LANDSCAPING ACROSS THE FRONT AND ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE SITE.
I DID MEET WITH THE TOWN SUPERVISOR ON FRIDAY FOR ABOUT 90 MINUTES.
UM, THEY HAVE NO PLANS FOR A BIKE PATH IN THE BACK CURRENTLY.
I TOLD 'EM I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH THEM IF THEY EVER DO, LITERALLY NO PLANS.
BUT YOU'RE SURPRISED WHEN I ASKED ABOUT IT, BUT I SAID, IF THAT COMES TO FRUITION OR HE'S GONNA DO CALL ME, WE'LL GO OVER IT.
WE DID TALK ABOUT TYING IT THROUGH THE GATEWAY LANDSCAPING.
THEY ALSO HAVE NOTHING SET FOR THAT YET.
THEY'RE JUST STARTING TO DISCUSS IT.
SO I SAID AT THE TIME, EVEN IF THE PROJECT'S APPROVED, JUST GIMME A CALL AND WE'LL WORK WITH THEM ON IT.
THAT'S THE, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SHARE WITH US, SO WE CAN'T REALLY BUILD OFF THAT AT THIS POINT.
UM, AS FAR AS THE ARCHITECTURE, I WILL GUARANTEE IT'LL LOOK A LOT BETTER THAN THE FRIENDLIES.
UM, IT'LL BE A TRACK IN ADDITION TO
YOU CAN SEE THE COFFEE SHOP ON THE END, THE MIX OF BRICK AND WOOD.
THAT BRICK IS CARRIED THROUGH ACROSS THE FRONT IN ADDITION TO SOME WOOD SIDING, GLASS AND BRICK PIERCE.
WE WRAP THE GLASS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO CARRY IT AROUND.
THIS IS THE DRIVE THROUGH WITH THE OVERHANG.
AND WE WRAP THIS AS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING FACING GATE.
AND THEN WE SIDE OF THE, YOU REALLY HAVE A THREE-SIDED ARCHITECTURE WITH THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
THIS AREA, WE DIDN'T LEAVE IT FRONT, FLAT
[00:15:01]
OR CONCRETE ROCK.WE BROKE IT UP WITH A BRICK LAYER IN THE BACK AND A BRICK STRIKE TO KIND OF BREAK UP THE, UM, THE WALL LITTLE BIT.
ANOTHER FOUR, THIS NUMBER OF TIMES ON THAT DAY PROJECT.
SO THE, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE STARBUCKS AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE TWO TO FOUR RETAIL USERS, RIGHT? I I WOULD SAY TWO TO THREE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE PARKING, I MEAN, IT'S ONE PARKING HERE, BUT WE DID THE PARKING ANALYSIS SUMMIT RESTAURANT.
AND THEN, UM, THE REST OF THE SITE IN DETAIL.
CAN YOU REMIND ME HOW BIG, BIG FRIENDLY'S IS? SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE, LIKE THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCE IN SIZE BETWEEN UNITS? I, I THINK IT'S ABOUT 4,500 SQUARE FEET, SO IT'S ROUGHLY GONNA BE DOUBLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING? WHEN YOU REFERRED TO THIS, YOUR REFERRED TO A COFFEE SHOP? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SEMANTICS.
WHY AREN'T YOU SAYING IT'S STARBUCKS? AT STARBUCKS? OKAY.
BUT ALL THE PAPERWORK BE THERE.
YOU GUYS, AT THE TIME WE FILED THE APPLICATION, UH, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THEIR NAME WE'LL PAST THAT POINT, BUT THAT'S WHY.
AT THE TIME WE FILED THE APPLICATION, THEY DIDN'T ALLOW US TO USE THEIR NAME.
WE'RE NOW KIND OF PAST THAT POINT AT STARBUCKS.
JEFF'S THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS IT.
YOU DIDN'T, OTHERWISE YOU CAN I HAVE IT ON.
I I MEAN I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU READ IT.
LEGAL NOTICE ON A HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT TO OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY BENDERSON CORP, EXCUSE ME, BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 9,150 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A 2,250 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE SHOP AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 1ST, 2022 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL.
ALL RIGHT, SO AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROJECT? YES.
YOU COME UP AND SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS KIM PROFF AND I LIVE AT 1 26 PIERCE AVENUE HAMBURG.
UM, I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS BECAUSE, UH, ONE, I'M, I'M ON THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, WITH A STACK OF 14 CARS, THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF CARBON DIOXIDE BEING EMITTED IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR TOWN WHEN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A CLIMATE FRIENDLY VILLAGE IN TOWN.
AND I THINK THAT STACKS PRETTY BIG.
NOT ONLY THAT AS FAR AS THIS CARBON DIOXIDE, HOW'S THAT GONNA GET MITIGATED? ARE WE GONNA, UM, FORCE THE PERSON COMING IN OR THE GROUP COMING IN TO PLANT TREES SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THIS, UM, TOWN TO OFFSET THE POTENTIAL CARBON FOOTPRINT THAT'S GONNA BE BROUGHT UPON OUR TOWN BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF CARS THAT ARE SITTING THERE IDLING TIME AT THE TIME.
IT'S ABOUT, UH, FOR EVERY ONE HOUR CAR IDS IT'S ABOUT FOUR POUNDS OF CO2.
SO IF THE AVERAGE CAR IS IDLING ABOUT 10 MINUTES, MAYBE SITTING IN A STACK OF 14, UM, THAT'S GONNA BE ABOUT A POUND OF CO2 PER CAR PER DAY THAT'S SITTING IN THERE, WHICH CAN BE MULTIPLE AMOUNTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE BEING EMITTED.
SO HOW ARE WE GONNA OFFSET THAT? OR HOW IS THIS GROUP GONNA OFFSET THAT MAYBE BY PLANTING TREES? UM, WE DON'T WANT THE MONEY, WE WANT THE TREES.
'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY GONNA HAVE THE IMPACT ON THAT.
AND UM, AS A MEMBER OF THE, YOU KNOW, AS A TOWN INHABITANT, UM, MY CONCERN IS THEY JUST PUT A STARBUCKS IN TOPS AND THEY SPENT ALL THAT MONEY TO PUT THE STARBUCKS IN TOPS, WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD.
WHAT IMPACT IS THAT GONNA HAVE ON THAT STARBUCKS? THEY SPENT ALL THAT MONEY TO PUT THAT IN TOPS, WHICH IS A GREAT PLACE FOR OUR SENIOR CITIZENS TO GO AND POP IN THERE TO GRAB A CUP OF COFFEE DURING THE DAY.
WHY ARE WE PUTTING IT IN ANOTHER STARBUCKS? AND IS THIS GONNA BE REALLY OCCUPIED? BECAUSE I KNOW BENDERSON HAS A LOT OF EMPTY BUILDINGS, LET'S FACE IT, AROUND OUR TOWN THAT NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN IT.
AND THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN OCCUPIED IN SEVERAL BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT OUR TOWN.
SO WITH THE, WITH THE FIRST POINT, 'CAUSE WE DID GET SOMETHING FROM THE CAB ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S, THIS IS ALSO THE IMPACT.
WE GOT A, A GENERAL DRIVE THROUGH MEMO I THINK.
BUT, UM, THE VILLAGE HAS A, A LAW ABOUT IDLING.
SO IT WOULD BE THE TOWN BOARD THAT WOULD HAVE TO PASS SOME TYPE OF LAW THAT WOULD GOVERN IDLING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A CONCERN IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THAT MANY CARS.
BUT I'M, I'M TELLING YOU WHERE TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THE CONCERN.
IF YOU WANT THE TOWN TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN, THE TOWN BOARD WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS IT.
SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO, I THINK
[00:20:01]
IT'S A CONCERN TO, THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FROM THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE OKAY.THAT'S JUST PART OF THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT THAT WE DISAGREE ON THAT.
WELL THAT'S, I'LL CLARIFY THE ISSUE ON THE TREES.
UM, I DID SPEAK TO MARK TODAY.
UM, THE ISSUE WITH THE TREES IS IF YOU DO A LANDSCAPE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO PLANT THE LANDSCAPING, RIGHT? THE TREE ISSUE IS WHEN YOU HAVE A SUBDIVISION, THE TWO TREES PER LOT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CAN FINE AND DECIDE IF THE DEVELOPER COMES IN OR THE HOMEOWNER COMES IN AND SAYS, LOOK, THOSE TREES CAN'T GO THERE.
THEY CAN PAY THE DOWN A FEE IN LIEU OF, DOESN'T APPLY TO, TO THIS PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT, WHATEVER'S SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO PUT IN.
THERE'S NO BUYING OF, OF NOT PUTTING TREES IN.
SO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS AN OUR APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN.
SO WHATEVER THEY PUT IN THAT'S GOTTA GO IN FOR THIS SPOT, THERE'S NO BUYING OF, OF NOT PUTTING TREES IN.
SO THAT'S ONLY FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN A RARE INSTANCE WHERE THEY CAN'T PHYSICALLY FIT A TREE IN OR THE HOMEOWNER'S NOT GONNA ALLOW THAT TREE TO GO IN.
THEY CAN PAY MONEY TO THE TOWN IN WHO OF PLANTING THOSE TREES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT? OKAY, FOR THE SECOND TIME, ANY MORE COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE SOUTH PARK BEN PROJECT FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME? ANYMORE COMMENTS BEING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WERE NO COMMENTS ONLINE EITHER.
SO WE CAN PUT THIS ON FOR JUNE AND 15TH TO HAVE IT BACK.
CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS ON THE YEAH, I MEAN, UM, HEARING WE CAN WORK WITH SARAH TO GET YOU A COPY OF THOSE.
YEAH, THE WRITTEN COMMENTS I JUST GOT FROM THE, THE CONSERVATION I, I'D BE HAPPY TO PUT GENERATORS ON SET.
SOMEONE JUST SUMMARIZE THE COMMENTS FOR ME.
SO CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DRAFT, DRAFT DRAFT THAT WAS GONNA BE DRAFT RESOLUTION? THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TONIGHT.
OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT WE COULD ADD STUFF BEFORE YOU.
I FILL OUT DRAFTS OF DOCUMENTS FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
I, I, I WILL VERBALLY ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
UM, IT WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE TOPS AND THE STARBUCKS AND TOPS THEY CLAIM TO STILL TO STAY OPEN.
UM, AS FAR AS THE VACANCY, WE DO HAVE PART OF THE BUILDING LEASED.
WE HAD WORKED VERY HARD, THE LEASE THIS ENTIRE CENTER, I WAS STARTING
IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT THIS LOOKED LIKE AS FAR AS THE VACANCY RATE NEXT TO TOWN HALL, IT WAS ALMOST ALL VACANT.
UM, WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB FILLING LOT THE TENT SPACE AND WE ARE ALREADY GETTING INTEREST IN THE REMAINING TENT SPACE, BUT THE BUILDING IS STARTING WITH A TENANT.
SO WE'RE NOT STARTING A VACANT BUILDING.
IT'LL BE A GREAT ATTRACTIVE EDITION AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THE FRIENDLYS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT NOW.
AND AS FAR AS THE UM, CARBON DIOXIDE, STARBUCKS IS GENERALLY A DRAW OFF USER SO THAT THOSE CARS ARE ON THE ROAD.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ADDING CARS TO THE ROAD WHILE THEY ARE STOPPED HERE, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF CARS THAT STACK IS FIVE, NOT 14 OR 16.
THAT'S THE AVERAGE THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
WE DO HAVE OUR PEAK TIMES, YOU KNOW, IN THE MORNING MAY 14, THEY'RE MOVING THE LINE.
I DID GET THE NUMBER LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, QUICKER THAN THEY ARE.
AND THIS SITE IS ALL ASPHALT AND IT IS ADDING GREEN SPACE ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
SO YOU TALK ABOUT OFFSETTING THE ASPHALT, THE IMPACT FROM THE CARS.
WE ARE ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THE BUILDING, INCLUDING MORE PLANTING.
SO IT IS AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT TO THE SITE AND I'M HAPPY TO SUBMIT THAT WRITING.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, WE CAN PUT OUT FOR THE 15TH, WE ARE JUST TO TRY AND GET, START THIS UNDERWAY THIS YEAR.
WE CAN GET, WES GOT LIMITED INSTRUCTION SEASON, SO IT'LL BE SNOWING BEFORE, BEFORE I, SO I, I'LL MAKE, SORRY.
MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWN OF HAM PLANNING CONSULTANTS TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT TO BE RETURNABLE ON OUR NEXT MEETING OF JUNE 15TH.
THANK YOU THAT ON FOR THE 15TH.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ESSEX HOMES OF WESTERN YORK INC.
REQUESTED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 22 LAWN SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 14 POINT 12 ACRES OF VACANT LAND NORTH SIDE OF PLEASANT AVENUE.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN CLARK AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS OF THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS SURGEON MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
ALSO WITH ME IS CHRIS WOOD FROM CARINA WOOD DESIGN, PHIL NAULA AND KEVIN CURRY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS BOB JOHNSON, THE OWNER.
AS YOU RECALL, WE LAST PRESENTED THIS DURING YOUR MEETING ON MAY 4TH.
AT THAT TIME YOU CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
[00:25:01]
AND DIRECTED THE PLAN DEPARTMENT PREPARE PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE A F IN DRAFT FORM FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.SO I'M GONNA TRY AND FOCUS MY PRESENTATION THIS EVENING ON WHAT'S BEEN UPDATED SINCE THAT POINT IN TIME.
BASICALLY AS A RESULT OF THE INPUT WE RECEIVED DURING THE MAY 4TH MEETING, WE DID MAKE AN UPDATED PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMISSION ON MAY 12TH.
THAT INCORPORATES A COUPLE OF CHANGES.
NUMBER ONE, WE DID INCREASE THE WIDTH, THE PRESERVATION AREA THAT'LL RUN ALL THE WAY ALONG EAST AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE FROM 20 FEET TO 25 FEET.
AS YOU RECALL, THE 20 FEET WAS A MODIFICATION THAT WE PRESENTED ON MAY 4TH.
SO WE'VE INCREASED THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IT WAS ALSO EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION DURING THE MAY 4TH MEETING ABOUT THE TREE PRESERVATION LAW, WHICH AS DREW CITED EARLIER IN CONNECTION WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, REQUIRES THE PLANTING OF TWO TREES.
I THINK IT WAS YOU, MS. MCCORMICK, WHO ASKED IF WE GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO MAYBE PLANTING SOME ADDITIONAL TREES.
SO WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO DO IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOMES.
AND KEEP IN MIND ESSEX'S, A REPUTABLE BUILDER WILL BE BUILDING THE UPSCALE HOMES HERE.
WE'VE AGREED THAT EACH HOMEOWNER WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PLANT TWO ADDITIONAL TREES PER LOT.
THE REASON WHY WE'RE TIMING THAT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CO, PER OUR UPDATED SUBMISSION ON MAY 12TH IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE TIMES FOR THE HOMEOWNERS TO PUT THEIR HOMES IN.
AND STILL, NULA HAS ADVISED ME SOMETIMES THE PATIOS AND LANDSCAPING TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, BUT WE WOULD AGREE IN WRITING THAT EACH HOMEOWNER WILL HAVE TO PLANT TWO ADDITIONAL TREES.
SO THAT RESULTS IN AN INCREASE IN THE WIDTH OF THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE FROM 20 FEET TO 25 FEET.
TWO STREET TREES PER LOT PER THE TREE MANAGEMENT LAW.
BUT BASED ON THE INPUT WE RECEIVED IN ADDITIONAL TWO TREES TO BE PLANTED ON THE LOT IN CONNECTION WITH THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
SO IT'S THE TWO REQUIRED FOR THE TREE, FOR THE TREE CLEARING LAW? YES.
SO WE'RE AT FOUR PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL TREES PER LOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOMEOWNERS.
TWO FROM THE TREE PRESERVATION THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE FIRST TWO.
NO, THOSE ARE ALL I, ALL OF 'EM WON'T BE BASED ON THE TREE PRESERVATION LOT.
WELL, SO THE, SO THE TREE STREET, YOU'RE DOUBLE COUNTING THE STREET TREES AND THE TREE.
FOUR TREES PER LOT PLUS THE TWO ADDITIONAL TREES.
NO, WE'RE DOING FOUR FOUR TOTAL OR 6 2 2 2 STREET TREES PER LOT AND THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH MORE ROOM.
THAT AND TWO ADDITIONAL TREES PER LOTT FOUR WILL BE PLANTED, BUT TWO WILL BE SAVED.
'CAUSE REMEMBER WE'RE KEEPING THE ENTIRE MORE THAN TWO REAR 25 FEET AS WELL AS THIS LARGE 2.7 ACRES PRESERVED.
QUICK QUESTION ON THAT, JUST ON THE REAR YARD AREAS WHERE YOU'RE GONNA TRY TO PRESERVE TREES.
KEVIN, ARE WE GONNA HAVE REAR YARDS SWES BACK THERE? I THINK THE TOWN WE, WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE IF REAR YARD SWAS GO IN, THERE'LL BE NO TREES BACK THERE.
THE, THE IDEA IS THAT WE PUT THOSE IN FRONT OF THE TREES.
SO YOU'RE GONNA PUT, PUT THE TIP.
SO THE SWES WILL BE MORE THAN 25 FEET IN.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS THE WIDTH OF THE 25 FOOT AREA.
THE SWALE WILL BE ON THE INSIDE EDGE.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE SIZE OF THE LOTS ARE IN ACRES? NOT SQUARE FEET.
SORRY CHRIS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CONVERT IN YOUR HEAD.
UH, 17, LIKE ROUGHLY A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE.
SOME OF THEM ARE LARGER, SOME OF THEM ARE BIGGER AS THEY ON THE RADIUS OF, YEAH, LIKE SO WHAT'S LIKE THE, THE SMALLEST ONE I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
SMALLEST ONE, 16,800 OR 425 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS GREATER THAN A THIRD 43,000.
AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE EACH AND EVERY LOT THAT WE'RE SHOWING DOES EXCEED THE TOWN REQUIREMENT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO DO SOME AERIAL MATH ON S AND HOUSES THAT STUCK ON YOUR LOT.
AND ONE IMPORTANT POINT THAT I THINK WE'VE EMPHASIZED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN CONNECTION WITH THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS IS ORIGINALLY WHAT WE WERE SHOWING HERE WAS A 28 LOT SUBDIVISION, UH, BASED ON CONSULTATIONS WITH EARTH DIMENSIONS, WORKING CLOSELY WITH ESSEX HOMES.
WE VOLUNTARILY AGREED THAT HEY, ELIMINATING THOSE SIX LOTS AT THE BACK OF THE SUBDIVISION, THEREBY ALLOWING US TO REDUCE THE WETLAND IMPACTS.
MAKE SENSE? THERE'S SEVERAL BENEFITS THAT RESULT.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE PRESERVING ABOUT 90% OF THE WETLANDS ON SITE.
AND THEN SECONDLY, THIS LARGE AREA, WHICH DOES INCLUDE SOME MATURE VEGETATION WILL BE PRESERVED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBJECT TO EITHER A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS OR CONSERVATION.
BY THE WAY, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED ABOUT HOW TO ENSURE THAT THE 25 FEET REMAINS.
OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
IF YOU GO TO APPROVE THIS, YOU WOULD HAVE A CONDITION BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF THOSE, IF THAT 25 FOOT AREA IS DISTURBED IN ANY WAY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH A MITIGATION PLAN FOR THAT AND YOU WOULD HAVE IT AND NOT LEAVE IT UP TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES WANNA BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
[00:30:01]
FOR A MITIGATION PLAN.UH, SO AGAIN, THEY WILL DO THE BEST JOB.
WE JUST HAD A COUPLE PROJECTS WHERE IT WAS LIKE, OOPS, SORRY, YOU KNOW, CONTRACTOR HOE WENT AND KNOCKED ALL THE TREES DOWN IN THAT AREA THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH A TREE MITIGATION PLAN.
AND AGAIN, WE STILL HAVEN'T
AND WE'D BE, AND WE'D BE FINE WITH THAT CONDITION.
I THINK THIS IS PRETTY CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM PROBABLY THOSE OTHER SCENARIOS.
AND THAT ESSEX IS BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND THE BUILDER? YES.
SO THEY HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THIS PROJECT.
AND AGAIN, I'VE WORKED WITH 'EM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THEY TAKE TREE PRESERVATION VERY SERIOUSLY BECAUSE ULTIMATELY HAVING SOME TREES ON SITE IS AN AMENITY THAT INCREASES THE VALUE OF LOTS.
AND WOULD A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THOSE 25 FOOT FEET? BECAUSE OTHERWISE A HOMEOWNER TO MOVE IN AND DECIDES THEY DON'T LIKE THE TREES AND TEAR 'EM DOWN IF THEY NEED FIRE.
THAT'S ONLY ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS WHAT'S TO PRECLUDE THE LAND LIKE, 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE LOTS GO INTO THE, THEY DO THE 25 FOOT BUFFERS.
THEY DO WHAT'S TO PRECLUDE THE LANDOWNER? AND I HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, WE, WE KEEP HEARING THAT THE BUILDER AND DEVELOPER VOLUNTARILY GAVE UP THE SPACE IN THE WETLAND THEREBY LIKE REDUCING THE LOTS.
BUT DID WE ACTUALLY LIKE EARTH DIMENSIONS? DID THE DELINEATION, BUT DID YOU ACTUALLY GO SO FAR AS TO GET A DELINEATION TO LEARN FROM THE ARMY CORPS? WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS IN FACT A BUILDABLE LOT? 'CAUSE HOW DO WE KNOW THE ARMY CORPS WASN'T GONNA SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD HERE AND THEN YOU DIDN'T GIVE UP ANYTHING, BUT YOU KEEP TELLING US THAT YOU
OH, SO, SO WHAT WE DID IS, UH, WE HAVE A, A ATION THAT WAS PREPARED.
ULTIMATELY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR ISSUED A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
AND OF COURSE THIS LARGE AREA THAT EXTENDS HERE AS WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY MM-HMM
WE'VE PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT TO THE TOWN.
MM-HMM
AND AGAIN, THAT WAS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS WE DID.
KEEP IN MIND, ULTIMATELY THE WETLAND PERMIT WON'T COME UNTIL AFTER A SECRET DETERMINATION AND A PRELIMINARY PLA DECISION.
AND ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS FOR THAT IS YOU NEED TO GET WHAT'S KNOWN AS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FROM THE DEC.
THE DEC WILL NOT ISSUE THAT PRIOR TO A SECRET DETERMINATION.
MM-HMM
WE'RE NOT SAYING WE GUARANTEE THAT WE'LL GET THAT WETLAND PERMIT, BUT WE'RE QUITE CONFIDENT BASED ON THE PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION OF SCOTT LIVINGSTON AND SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY IS, SO THIS THE WETLAND, IS THAT DEC JURISDICTIONAL OR IS THE APPLICATION OF THE DEC ONLY FOR THE WATER QUALITY.
THERE'S NO DC WETLANDS ON THIS SITE.
AND AS YOU KNOW, GENERALLY THEY HAVE TO EXCEED 12.3 ACRES OR CONNECTED OR LOCAL REPORTS.
AND THAT'S THE TYPICAL PROCESS IS CAM PUT IN HER MEMO TO BASICALLY GET FINAL PLA APPROVAL OR FINAL, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT ALL THEIR PERMITS AND APPROVALS TO, TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
SO THERE IS A, A BACKUP TO THAT, THAT BASICALLY TAMMY DOES NOT SIGN OFF ON IT.
AND YOU DO REALIZE THE SUBDIVISION IS THAT UNTIL THE ROAD IS ACTUALLY BUILT AND GIVEN THEY DON'T DO THE FINAL PLAQUE AND DON'T FILE THAT MATCH COVER UNTIL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN PLACE.
CORRECT? THAT THIS SUBDIVISION CORRECT.
SO IT'S KIND OF A INTERESTING PROCESS.
YOU GIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND THEN THEY WORK ON A FINAL PLA, FINAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.
IF THOSE ARE APPROVED AND ALL THE PERMITS ARE GIVEN, THEN THEY ACTUALLY GO OUT AND CONSTRUCT THE IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY GO THROUGH A PIP PROCESS.
ONCE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE TOWN, THEN THEY'LL FILE THE MAP COVERAGE.
THEY CANNOT SELL THE LOTS UNTIL THAT LOAD IS IN PLACE AND BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TOWN.
SO I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT I HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH, THAT'S THE PROCESS OF THE TOWN OF AMBER.
IT IS DIFFERENT IN OTHER TOWNS, BUT THAT IS THE PROCESS.
YOU SHOW ME THAT, SHOW ME ON THE MAP HOW CLOSE THE BACK OF THE LOT IS TO THE PARK BECAUSE I WALKED THIS, THIS SIDE TWICE.
HOW FAR FROM PARK'S? THE ADJACENT PARCEL IS IT RIGHT NE RIGHT.
THERE'S A ROW PINE TREES THAT GOES ALONG HERE.
YEAH, I SAW THAT'S THE BOUNDARY LINE BASICALLY.
ARE THOSE ON YOUR PROPERTY OR THE PARK PROPERTY? UH, GOOD QUESTION.
PROBABLY I WALKED THAT WHOLE, I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE RIGHT ON THE BORDER.
IT'S, I WALKED THE WHOLE LINE.
EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A MAP WHERE IT ENDED AND JUST EXPLAIN 'CAUSE I WALKED BACK THROUGH WHERE THE ROAD IS GONNA HAVE TO GO IN AND THEY, AND THEY WILL BE PRESERVED.
I THINK THEY'RE ON BOTH PROPERTIES.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF TREES ON ON THE PERIMETER.
SO THE OTHER, I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF OTHER TOPICS.
SO OBVIOUSLY AS YOU RECALL THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT WOULD ACCEPT A CUL-DE-SAC.
UH, CHRIS DID MEET WITH HIM IN ADVANCE OF THE MAY 4TH MEETING AND HE DID DEEM THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
OBVIOUSLY THAT CUL-DE-SAC AND THE ENTIRE ROADWAY IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE TOWN STANDARDS AS WELL AS THE EMERGENCY ACCESS STANDARDS SET FORTH IN
[00:35:01]
APPENDIX VIA THE FIRE CODE, WHICH SETS FORTH WHAT THE MIN MINIMUM RADIUS DIAMETER, TURNING ANGLES, ET CETERA.SO THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY ACCESS VEHICLES, SNOW PLOWS, FIRE TRUCKS, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
SO ALL THAT, ALL THAT IS IN PLACE.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANNA ADDRESS IS OBVIOUSLY I THINK WE PRESENTED A LOT OF INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS DURING THE MEETINGS, BUT WE REALLY DO THINK IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT YOU'RE IN A POSITION NOW THAT YOU COULD ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO INCORPORATE THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THIS BOARD OVER THE COURSE OF NUMEROUS MEETINGS.
SECONDLY, I THINK, THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL THE WIDE ASSORTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INCLUDING DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY, WHICH WE'VE CONFIRMED YES, DURING WET WEATHER CONDITIONS THERE IS SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY, COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS ZONED, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT MAP TWO 10 IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS FUTURE LAND USE, IT ACTUALLY DESIGNATES THE SITE AS HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING LOWER CLASSIFICATION THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED.
WE'VE ADDRESSED WETLANDS, WE HAVE A NO IMPACT LETTER FROM SHIPPO.
WE HAVE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY SRF ASSOCIATES.
SO WE DO THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED EVERYTHING.
AND THEN OF COURSE, FINALLY, BASED ON THE INPUT RECEIVED ON MAY 4TH, WE'VE MADE AN EFFORT TO WIDEN THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE AREA, STILL PRESERVE THAT LARGE AMOUNT OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE IN THE BACK AND THEN AGREE TO PLANT ACTUALLY MORE TREES THAN REQUIRED BY THE CODE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
WE DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THE ISSUE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPECTFULLY WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO THAT.
SO THEN NOW WE CAN PROCEED TO FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS AND SEEKING PRELIMINARY PRODUCT REMODEL.
CAN YOU MY MORE QUESTIONS, CAN YOU REMIND ME IF THERE'S UM, AN EASEMENT OR ANY KIND OF PROTECTION GOING ON THE, THE WETLAND AREA? I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER.
YES, THERE'S PERMANENT PROTECTION GOING ON THE, THE WETLAND.
SO THE REMAINDER OF THE WET, THE REMAINDER OF THE WILDLANDS TO BE PRESERVED.
FIRST OF ALL WE'VE VOLUNTEERED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS THAT WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
BUT ALSO AS PART OF THE REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ONE OF THEIR TYPICAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS IS THEY'RE GONNA REQUIRE THIS RECORDED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE WILDLANDS TO BE PRESERVED.
AND IT'S A PRETTY ONEROUS REQUIREMENT.
YOU HAVE TO ATTACH THE PERMITS AND YOU HAVE TO FILE THAT WHEN YOU FILE THE MAP COVER SO THAT ALL FUTURE OWNERS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THEIR ATTORNEYS ARE FABULOUS AND WE'RE COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
PROBABLY CAN'T BUILD IT IS WHAT MY FIRST QUESTION WAS, BUT UM, I'M NOT GONNA LABOR THAT.
BUT THE THING ABOUT THE TREES AT THE HOMEOWNER'S EXPENSE, SO BACK TO CAITLIN'S POINT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, IT'S FOUR TREES, NOT SIX, RIGHT? TWO OF THOSE FOUR TREES ARE AT THE HOMEOWNER'S EXPENSE.
AND I DON'T REALLY LOVE THAT AS A MITIGATION MEASURE BECAUSE WHO'S GONNA ENFORCE THAT? THE HOA AND THEN WHAT TREE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? LIKE HAVE WE LOST A 50 FOOT PINE AND WE'RE PUTTING IN A THREE FOOT DOGWOOD THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF LIKE ROOT SYSTEM AND EROSION CONTROL.
UM, SO I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE DEVELOPER HAVE TO PLACE SOME TREES IN OTHER AREAS.
OUR ONLY, OUR ONLY, IT IS NOT REALLY AN FILL RENEWAL WHO'S SUPPRESSANT CAN CONFIRM THIS.
IT'S, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AN EFFORT TO PASS THAT COST ON TO THE HOMEOWNER.
THE CONCERN HE HAS IS THAT DICTATING WHERE THOSE TREES SHOULD GO JUST BEFORE SOMEONE BUILDS A HOUSE IS DIFFICULT.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE EACH HOMEOWNER WANTS DIFFERENT.
SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WE ARE AGREEABLE TO THE CONDITION AND CHRIS HAS ACTUALLY ADDED A NOTE TO THE PLAN THAT BASICALLY SAYS THIS FOLLOWS EACH BUILDING OUGHT TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TOTAL OF FOUR TREES, TWO TREES LOCATED AND CHOSEN FOR TYPICAL TOWN OF HAMBURG STANDARDS AND CHOSEN AND LOCATED PER THE HOMEOWNER.
THESE FOUR TREES SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR EACH HOME.
YEAH, NO, TWO AND TWO ADDITIONAL THE STREET TREES ESSEX WILL PLANT AND THEN THE TWO ADDITIONAL TREES.
SO THE FOUR ADDITIONAL TREES, YES.
AFTER IT'S CLEARED, NO THEY'LL HAVE FOUR TREES.
AFTER IT'S FOUR, THEY MAY NOT HAVE A NET INCREASE IN FOUR TREES.
THERE WILL BE RIGHT FOUR TREES AFTER.
I MEAN THE QUESTION I HAVE IS FOR DREW, SINCE HE KNOWS THE CODE BETTER THAN ANYONE IS THERE ARE THE STREET TREES AND THEN THERE ARE THE SEPARATE TREE CLEARING MITIGATION TREES.
CAN YOU DOUBLE COUNT THIS? YOU CAN REQUEST AND WE, WE THOUGHT THIS BEFORE UNDER THE TREE MANAGEMENT LAW, BECAUSE YOU'RE ISSUING THE SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THIS CASE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, YOU WERE ISSUING THE TREE MANAGEMENT LAW.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE ISSUING THE PERMIT BY YOUR APPROVAL IN THAT LAW.
IT GOES ON AND DESCRIBES THE THINGS AT THE END OF THAT LAW IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT SAYS IF YOU BELIEVE THE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT, YOU CAN ASK FOR MITIGATION.
THEY'RE PROVIDING THEIR MITIGATION, THEY'RE OFFERING, AND I WON'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THEIR, THEIR MITIGATION THEY'RE OFFERING IS A PRESERVING THE 25 FOOT BUFFER AT THE BACK OF THE LOTS.
THEY'RE ALSO OFFERING TWO ADDITIONAL TREES AND LOT THE TWO REQUIRED ON THE ROAD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TREE MITIGATION THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE TOWN SUBDIVISION LAW THAT HAS TO GO IN.
UM, BUT THEY'RE OFFERING AGAIN
[00:40:01]
TWO MORE TREES PER LOT.SO, SO TWO TREES ARE THE STREET TREES, WHICH ARE THE ONE WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO SUBDIVISION REQUIRED BY CODE.
AND THEN LAST, AT THE LAST MEETING YOU HAD READ TO US, I I BELIEVE IT'S PART OF THE TREE CLEARING CODE.
YEAH, I HAVE IT IF YOU WANT ME TO READ IT.
AND THAT WAS TWO TREES AS TREE CLEARING MITIGATION.
SO WHAT IT, WHAT IT SAYS, LET ME, LET ME READ IT AGAIN.
IF APPROPRIATE, TREES CANNOT BE PRESERVED THE PLANNING BOARD AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT 'CAUSE WE ARE PRESERVING TREES IF APPROPRIATE TREES CANNOT BE PRESERVED.
THE PLANNING BOARD WILL REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF TWO NEW TREES FOR BUILDING SITES AT LOCATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE TOWN.
TREES FOR REPLANTING SHALL BE SELECTED FROM THE TOWN OF HAMBURG SPECIES LIST AND BE A MINIMUM OF TWO AND A HALF INCHES IN CALIBER OR AS SPECIFIED.
AND WE'VE AGREED, OBVIOUSLY THERE'LL BE PER THE TOWN'S PLANTING LIST AND TWO AND A HALF INCHES IN CALIBER.
SO I MEAN WE'RE, WE'RE HITTING THAT MITIGATION MEASURE EXACTLY ON POINT.
REMEMBER THAT'S PREFACED ON IF YOU WERE CLEARING EVERY TREE ON THE SITE, WHICH WE'RE NOT UNDERSTOOD.
SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAD RAISED AT THE, SO THIS IS GETS BACK TO THE MATH I HAD EARLIER IS WE TALKED ABOUT THE TWO STREET TREES AND THE TWO.
SO I HAD ASKED FOR COULD WE GET TWO MORE BEYOND THOSE FOUR? SO CAN WE GET UP TO SIX ON THE LOT? AND THAT I GUESS IS THE QUESTION THAT, THAT I WAS AT.
CAN WE GET UP TO SIX? THE CONSERVATION BOARD BOARD HAS RAISED CONCERNS.
I RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S TRICKY BUT WE HAVE TWO STREET TREES THAT MAY BE UP AT, AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT.
I KNOW WE'RE PRESERVING SOME AT THE BACK, BUT I GUESS MY ASK AT THE LAST MEETING IS, WAS COULD WE GET UP TO SIX PER LOT? YEAH.
AND I GUESS, AND I GUESS OUR RESPONSE IS IN TERMS OF STREET TREES OR IS, OR I GUESS I WOULD SAY, OR IS THERE SOMEWHERE ON THIS PROPERTY EITHER AT THE ROAD FRONTAGE ALONG ONE OF THE ROADS OR SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT WE CAN ADD IN THE EQUIVALENT OF TWO ADDITIONAL TREES PER LOT OR SOME OTHER SORT OF PLANTING AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN SOMETHING.
I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THE OTHER WHAT WE'VE GOT 16, 14 LOTS TO 22 LOTS.
SO YOU WOULD BE 44, RIGHT? I MEAN IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO THAT, THAT WAS THE ASK THAT I HAD PUT FORWARD.
WHICH IS WHY I KIND OF WAS TOO EXTRA BEYOND THE THE TWO AND THE TWO.
WELL REMEMBER LAST TIME WE WEREN'T PROPOSING THE TWO AND THE TWO, WE WERE PROPOSING TWO STREET TREES.
BUT YOU DID ASK FOR SIX AND WE THOUGHT, WELL WE PROPOSED.
WELL WE THOUGHT WE PROPOSED WAS A FAIR COMPROMISE IN TERMS OF NUMBER ONE, INCREASING THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE WITH BEYOND WHAT WAS ASKED AND THEN AGREEING TO THE TWO TREES PER LOT.
I THINK PHIL, YOU CAN CONFIRM ULTIMATELY MOST OF THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE GONNA PLANT MORE THAN TWO TREES ON THEIR LOTS.
WE CAN COME UP, IT'S JUST HARD TO PRESCRIBE EXACTLY WHERE AND WHEN THAT'LL OCCUR.
IF YOU WANNA ANSWER THAT, PHIL, GO AHEAD.
I THINK THE POINT I WANNA MAKE IS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT WILL RELATE TO THIS.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN HOA THAT WE'RE, WE HAVE TO FILE, UM, THAT HOA IS GONNA HAVE ALL SORTS OF RESTRICTIONS IN IT.
UM, THE REASON THAT, UM, FIRST OF ALL, I I I UNDERSTAND THE TREE ISSUE AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE ADDED TWO MORE TREES.
AND I JUST WANNA REITERATE, WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT TOTAL FOUR TREES, RIGHT? BUT WE ALSO ADDED A TOTAL OF 25 FEET OF CONSERVATION SPACE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE TO ADD ANY, WE WE STARTED WITH 20.
WE HEARD YOUR COMMENTS, WE ADDED ANOTHER FIVE.
IT'S ALMOST FROM THIS BEAM TO THE BACK OF THIS ROOM, JUST SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THAT.
UM, THE HOA WILL MONITOR THAT AND I AM THE HOA UNTIL THE BOARD IS FORMED.
SO I TAKE MY PROJECTS VERY SERIOUSLY AND WHEN WE PUT THE LOTS IN AND PART OF OUR CONTRACT IS GONNA BE A RECOGNITION OF THAT CONSERVATION SPACE AND THERE WILL BE PENALTIES TO THAT HOMEOWNER IF THEY GO INTO THAT SPACE AND IT'S SOMETHING THE HOA WILL IMPOSE ON THEM AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT AND WE CAN LEAN THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY DON'T COMPLY.
SO WHAT WHAT HAPPENS WITH AN HOA IS I'M ON THE, I'M THE BOARD UNTIL WE SELL 50% SELLING CLOTHES, 50% OF THE SITE OR FIVE YEARS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
OBVIOUSLY THE 2022 BUCKS, 22 BUCKS.
WE'LL HAVE THAT PROBABLY SOONER THAN FIVE YEARS.
WHEN, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHEN THE 50TH PERCENTILE IS NOT, THEN WE BRING TWO BOARD MEMBERS ON OF THE RESIDENTS.
I STAY ON UNTIL THE LAST LOT SOLD AFTER THAT IT IS THEN THE HOA OF THE, OF THE UH, COMMUNITY.
BUT THE OA IS FILED WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IT'S NOT DEEP RESTRICTIONS.
IT'S A, A FILED LEGAL DOCUMENT.
BUT THERE ACTUALLY WILL BE A DECLARATION THAT GETS FILED AS WELL AS PART OF THE OA.
DID HOA AMEND THAT AT ANY TIME? UM, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN SO GOING BACK TO THAT POINT THEN I WOULD RATHER SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO STICK THE 25 FEET ON THE BACK OF THE LOTS AS PART OF NOT PART OF THE PARCELS THAT PEOPLE ARE BUYING IN.
[00:45:01]
THEM TO THE HOA OWNED PART AT THE BACK? THEY HAVE TO BE PART OF THE PARCEL, OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T MEET THE LOT SIZE.BUT I DO WANNA KEEP IN MIND, SO WHILE AN H FIRST OF ALL, THE HOA IS NOT GONNA BE CHANGED UNLESS THEY PROBABLY GET YOU UNANIM MISSED CONSENT.
SECOND OF ALL WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A DEED RESTRICTION REGARDLESS.
SO THE HO A'S NOT GONNA HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT, THAT BECOMES A RECORDED DOCUMENT AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
AND AGAIN, WE'VE DONE THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN HERE.
IT'S GONNA RECITE THAT IT'S BEING REQUIRED PURSUANT CONDITION IMPOSED BY THIS BOARD.
HOW MANY ACRES IS THE SPOT IN THE BACK AND THE 2.7 INCLUDING THIS, THE BUFFER INCLUDING THE BUFFER, UM, INCLUDING THE BUFFER.
IT'S ABOUT 3.9 ACRES ALTOGETHER IS 3.9 APPROXIMATELY.
SO IT'S 1.2 IS THE 25 AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 9.9.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE SOME TREES IN THAT AREA.
AND AS YOU RECALL, WE SUBMITTED A DETAILED LETTER FROM SCOTT LIVINGSTON ON MAY 4TH WITH AN AERIAL HISTORY OF THE TREES ON THE SITE.
SO THERE'LL BE 9.9 ACRES OF CLEARING.
BUT NOT ALL OF THAT'S HEAVY, HEAVY VEGETATION.
SO THE OTHER THING THAT WE'D ASKED ABOUT WAS LOTS THE WET, THE LARGELY WETLAND LOT AND THE POTENTIAL TO PRESERVE, TO NOT BUILD THAT LOT.
AND NOW THAT THEY NOT BUILD A LOT, AND I I ASSUME YOU'RE GIVING THE SAME ANSWER YOU GAVE MARGO AND I AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I'M GONNA ASK AGAIN.
SO OUR PREFERENCE OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT LOT WE HAVE MADE.
WE ARE, WE HAVE DONE ONE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT SINCE LAST TIME 'CAUSE IT CAME UP THAT AREA BACK HERE ON THE REAR OF LOTS 12 AND 13 WHERE THE WETLANDS WILL BE PRESERVED EVEN THOUGH ACTUALLY YOU ACTUALLY CAN REMOVE THE VEGETATION THERE.
SO THIS AREA WILL REMAIN WITH THE EXISTING VEGETATION.
SEAN, WHEN YOU SAY THIS AREA, WHAT THE REAR OF LOTS IN 13 AND 12.
THAT CON, THAT CONSTITUTES JURISDICTIONAL FEDERAL WETLANDS.
AND AGAIN, ULTIMATELY, KEEP IN MIND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT.
WE THINK WE HAVE STRONG JUSTIFICATION, BUT IF THEY DON'T THEN WE WOULD LOSE THAT LAW.
ALRIGHT, SO DREW MAY GAVE US PARTS TWO AND THREE TO THE A A F.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE THING, BUT ONE THING I HAD IN MY NOTES, UM, SEVEN H WAS NOT CHECKED AND IT LOOKS LIKE MY MAT, THEY'RE GONNA DISTURB JUST OVER 10 ACRES.
SO I THINK SEVEN EIGHT SHOULD BE CHECKED.
YEAH, BUT THE MINUS THREE, NO THE CITES 13.8.
THERE WAS CONFUSION BEFORE BECAUSE THE 14 POINT 12 INCLUDES 13 AVENUE.
SO IT'S LIKE 13.8 OR SOMETHING.
SO IT IS TO JUST UNDER, I LEFT IT UNCHECKED BILL 'CAUSE I WANTED THEM TO TALK ABOUT IT.
THE FINAL PLAN OF HOW MUCH THEY'RE REMOVING, THEY'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE IT.
THE SECRET SETS A SETS A THING OF 10 ACRES BEING A THRESHOLD THAT IT DEFINITELY 10 ACRES.
YOU HAVE TO STUDY YOU AT 9.9 ACRES.
QUIBBLE OVER 9.9 OR, OR WHATEVER.
IT'S BASICALLY SECRET POINTS OUT THAT IT'S A KIND OF A THRESHOLD.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND KEEP IN MIND THAT WHOLE OBSERVATION BOARD HAS SAID, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND KEEP IN MIND THAT WHOLE 9.9 ACRES IS NOT FORESTED.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION DOES SAY.
I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT THERE.
I DO WANNA ALSO NOTE, AND I DON'T THINK YOU PROBABLY WANT ME TO GO THROUGH MEAN, SO, SO HOW IS FORESTED DEFINED MEAN? THAT'S, 'CAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE, THE SATELLITE PICTURE, IT'S PRETTY FORCED.
I MEAN THERE'S NOT A HARD AND FAST DEFINITION FOR, I MEAN THERE'S DIFFERENT SUCCESSIONAL FOREST THAT SAME TRANSITION.
I MEAN YOU'RE GONNA GET RIGHT.
HOW IS IT DEFINED AS PER NEW YORK STATE SECRET LAW? I DON'T THINK IT'S DEFINED EITHER.
THE LAW AND I WOULDN'T KILL YOURSELF OVER IT.
WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE FACT, I WOULD CHECK THE BOX MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT.
OBVIOUSLY ALMOST ALL THE CONVERSATION YOU'VE HAD IS ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES AND THE HABITAT IN THERE.
THE GOOD FROM THEIR STANDPOINT, THE DEC WROTE A LETTER THAT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A NOTED SIGNIFICANT HABITAT.
THERE'S NO THREATENED ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THERE.
IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT IT'S A TENANT, WHETHER IT'S 10 ACRES, WHATEVER OF, OF A STANDUP TREE IS A WOODED AREA.
IF YOU GO DOWN THAT STREET, IT'S, IT'S A LARGE STAND OF TREE.
SO YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB, YOU'RE REVIEWING THAT IMPACT.
AND WHAT IMPACTS WILL IT HAVE? OBVIOUSLY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM, THE REMOVAL, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOTTA BE DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY'RE REMOVING, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE HAVE CERTAIN PARAMETERS.
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF HAS MORE RUNOFF TO A TREE.
TREE SITES HAVE MORE RUNOFF THAN A, A MEADOW WOULD HAVE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
BUT ANYWAY, ALL THOSE FACTORS GO INTO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE REMOVAL OF THOSE TREES.
[00:50:01]
AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS A TOPIC THAT WAS RAISED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.WE DID GO THROUGH THE EXTRA STEP OF HAVING EARTH DIMENSIONS GO BACK OUT AND VISIT THE SITE SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THAT TOPIC.
AND THEY DID SUBMIT A DETAILED LETTER, AS YOU RECALL, ALL THE WAY INTO THE SEVENTIES.
THIS WAS FAR, THERE WAS THE ONLY TREES THAT WERE THERE WERE THOSE PINE TREES ALONG THE PARK THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
AND ULTIMATELY EARTH DIMENSION'S CONCLUSION WAS AREAS OF SUCCESSIONAL FOREST, THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL IT.
AND THIS AGE RANGE ARE VERY COMMON IN HAMBURG, IN THE SURROUNDING REGION.
AREAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR AGRICULTURE, WHICH HAVE BEEN LEFT FALLOW FOR VARIOUS REASONS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES.
SO IS IT A RESOURCE? CERTAINLY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, WHAT'S THE RANGE OF THE TREES? I JUST DIDN'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, POST 1970S, HERE'S A OF WATER AND IT HAS A WHOLE HISTORY OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT THAT SITE.
I MEAN I, YEAH, I WAS JUST THINKING OF THE NATURAL LIFE OF THE TREES.
'CAUSE IF YOU'RE REACHING 30, 40 YEARS, I'M NOT GONNA THAT EVIDENCE, BY THE WAY WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL, THIS IS STILL IN A STATE DESIGNATED, COUNTY DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
BUT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THERE'S NO EXISTING AGRICULTURAL ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S NO EXISTING AGRICULTURAL ON EITHER SIDE OF IT OR DUSTING IT.
SO THEY'RE REALLY, AN AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT WOULD BE, YOU WOULD GO TO ADJOINING FARMERS AND SAY, IS THIS PROJECT GONNA AFFECT YOUR FARMING OPERATION? GOOD, BAD OR DIFFERENT? THERE ARE NO FARMING OPERATIONS IN THIS AREA.
DID VE COUNT AS A FARM? WHAT'S THAT? DOES THE VET COUNT BECAUSE THEY NO.
BUT I, I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR, WE DID SUBMIT ONE OF THE DOCTORS WHO WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT WAS THE AG DATA STATEMENT.
WE SUBMITTED THAT I THINK SARAH, YOU PROVIDED IT TO THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE COUNTY.
AND I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY HAS RESPONDED.
TYPICALLY WHEN THE PROJECT'S NOT BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND NOT IMMEDIATELY PROXIMATE TO AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES, WE TYPICALLY DON'T RESPOND.
I HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATION WITH IOWA MARKETS AND LOCAL AGRICULTURAL WILDLIFE PROTECTION BOARDS BECAUSE OF SOLAR PROJECTS.
THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO AGRICULTURAL ADJACENT TO IT OR ON THE PROPERTY, REALLY HAS NO IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE.
I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE THE HISTORY OF THE AREA OF THE SITE IS AGRICULTURAL.
THIS WAS PROBABLY FARMED UP TO THE SIXTIES OR WHATEVER, 70 THEN WHEN FALLOW AND HAS TREES GROWN UP ON IT.
AND OF COURSE THE, WAS PROBABLY AN AGRICULTURAL, I'M GUESSING HISTORICAL PHOTOS OF THE AREA TO SEE HOW THE AREA TRANSITION.
SO BILL, YOU HIT ON THE, THE BIG ONE IS THE TREES.
YOU HAD THE ISSUE OF THE WETLANDS, WHICH YOU TALKED ABOUT.
THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE SITE.
YOU ARE IMPACTING, THEY SAY THEY MINIMIZE THAT IMPACT, UH, TO THE WETLAND AREA.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE RELATED TO THE ISSUE THAT ALWAYS A TOUGH ONE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE AREN'T CHANGING THE LOOKS OF THE AREA.
I MEAN YOU HAVE, YOU DO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL IN THE VILLAGE BEHIND THERE, BUT ON EITHER SIDE YOU HAVE A PARK AND YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT VACANT AREAS.
UM, HAVE THEY DONE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE OF FITTING THIS SUBDIVISION INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, SPEAKING OF FITTING THE SUBDIVISION IN.
THE THIRD THING WE ASK FOR, AND HOPEFULLY I'M NOT GONNA STRIKE OUT AND BE OH FOR THREE IS A, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE OH, FOR TWO, FIRST OF ALL, OKAY,
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'D WANNA HIT OR TO DO IT, BUT TO INTEGRATE ACCESS AS AN AMENITY FROM THIS TO THE PARK.
SO HOW WE ADDRESSED THAT TOPIC PREVIOUSLY, ORIGINALLY THAT WAS DISCUSSED TO ME POSSIBLY BACK HERE, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE GIVEN WHERE IT WOULD COME OUT IN THE PARK.
SO THE OTHER AREAS WE'VE DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS IT BETWEEN 18 AND 19? YES.
AND WHAT WE'VE ADVISED YOU PREVIOUSLY IS WHEN WE GET TO PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
I THINK WE ALL AGREED IT'S REALLY NOT A SECRET IMPACT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE'LL CONTINUE.
I MEAN IT'S LIKE AN INTERCONNECTION.
I MEAN THAT WOULD BE MY, THAT WE NEED TO INTEGRATE.
WE WANNA INTEGRATE INTO THE COMMUNITY.
THAT I THINK IS AN EASY WAY TO DO.
AND I JUST HAVE TO GET THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO AGREE WITH THAT.
I JUST HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY AGREE THAT THEY WANT THAT CONNECTION.
I CAN'T SEE WHY THEY WOULDN'T, BUT WELL, WOULDN'T YOU WANNA TALK TO THE VILLAGE? THAT'S VILLAGE.
AND SARAH, YOU DID TALK TO 'EM THOUGH.
AND ULTIMATELY THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL WE SAW FULLY, RIGHT? THEY DO HAVE PLANS.
'CAUSE THE VILLAGE LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT? YES.
AND WE, WE DID DO THE NOTIFICATION OF VILLAGE, RIGHT? YES.
SAID THAT PLANS, OKAY, WELL CAN WE GET AN ASSURANCE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME TYPE OF AN APPROPRIATE CONNECTION? CAN I COMMENT ON THAT? UH, I'VE DONE NUMEROUS PROJECTS LIKE THIS AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH PROJECTS THAT WERE DONE BY OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT I'VE
[00:55:01]
BUILT IN PROJECTS THAT HAVE ACCESS LIKE THIS.THEY CAN BECOME VERY PROBLEMATIC AND A PROBLEM FOR THE TOWN BECAUSE IT OPENS UP FOR KIDS FOR, UH, LITTERING OF BEER CANS FOR, UH, ACCESS IN BETWEEN SOMEONE'S LOT.
SO YOU HAVE 1% ON EACH SIDE AND THERE'S THIS RIGHT CALL IT TO ENTER THERE.
AND I THINK YOU LOOK AT IT LIKE THERE'S PEOPLE WITH STROLLERS AND KIDS GOING THROUGH AND ALL THAT, AND THAT'S PART OF IT, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF IT.
AND POLICING IT AND MONITORING IT AND CREATING IT AS A NUISANCE IS SOMETHING THAT'S REAL.
I MEAN, I END UP WITH DEBRIS ON, ON MY LAWN FROM THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT THAT OUTWEIGHS THE BENEFIT OF INTERCONNECTIONS.
AND I THINK I'M NOT SPEAKING OF JUST DEBRIS, I MEAN PEOPLE WOULD STAND THERE, THEY COULD CONGREGATE THERE, THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, YOU ME, WE'RE NOT THE PROBLEM.
UM, THERE ARE, UH, PEOPLE THAT EVEN LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CREATE THESE PROBLEMS. AND IT IS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WE KIND OF DEALING WITH, AND I'M SURE THEY'LL BE CALLING THE POLICE FOR.
I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS A SHAME THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE MARKETING A DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS, LIKELY TOWARDS FAMILIES WITH LOTS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE POOLS AND SHEDS AND MM-HMM
AND THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS A PARK AND THERE'S, YOU CAN'T WALK, THERE'S NO SIDE.
WE ALREADY WAVED SIDEWALKS ON THE FRONTAGE ONLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT FEASIBLE.
BUT LIKE, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT FEASIBLE OPTION, IT SEEMS TO NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE SOMEBODY HAVE TO DRIVE FROM THERE ALL THE WAY AROUND TO GET TO THE PARK THIS NEXT DOOR.
I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT IF THE TOWN'S GONNA REQUIRE SOMETHING, THEN THEY'RE GONNA LIVE WITH SOME OF THE REPERCUSSIONS ZONE.
AND I'VE SEEN BE VERY, VERY NEGATIVE AND YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE ELEMENT THAT'S THERE, AND YOU NEVER KNOW, I MEAN, I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SOMEBODY SHOT A 30 ODD SIX RIFLE IN, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU NEVER THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
AND UH, IT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS AND, AND UH, YOU KNOW, SO THINGS HAPPEN.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S GONNA LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW WELL THE KIDS ARE GONNA BEHAVE AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON WHATEVER LOTS THEY ARE, IF THERE'S PEOPLE ACCESSING THEM, ACTING IN THAT MANNER THERE, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE PROBLEMATIC.
AND THE HOMEOWNERS, I'M SURE WON'T TOLERATE IT AND THEY'LL BE CALLING THE POLICE.
UM, CAN I SPEAK TO BOB JOHNSON? I HOME A LOT CURRENTLY.
I OWN A LOT AND I DUNNO IF ANY OF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE AT ALL.
THIS WHOLE SECTION HERE, THERE WHERE WE'RE SPEAKING AT, I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT HERE WHERE THE PARK WHERE IT'S NEXT DOOR TO THE PARK.
IF YOU WALK OFF OF MY PROPERTY ONTO THE PARK WHERE YOU'RE NOT AT THE VETERINARY, UH, PASTURE, RIGHT.
YOU WALK INTO A BASEBALL DIAMOND.
SO, SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS OF THAT.
THAT PARK HAS BEEN CUT AND MOWED OVER INTO OUR PROPERTY FOR HOW MANY YEARS.
I'M NOT, WHAT AM I GONNA START AN ARGUMENT WITH THE VILLAGE ABOUT THAT? BUT THE QUESTION BEING, WE'RE SEEING AN ACCESS POINT YOU'LL ACCESS RIGHT INTO A BASEBALL DIAMOND THAT PLAYS GAMES ALL SUMMER LONG, RIGHT? SO YOU END UP RUNNING INTO SOME ISSUES THERE, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, THE PASTURE'S UP HERE SHORT OF THAT.
SO IT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTY TO ENTER INTO.
AND THEN FRANKLY THERE'S NO ACCESS TO THAT PARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND IT EITHER.
RIGHT? THEY HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD AND INTO IT.
SO, SO IT'S A, IN MY EYES, I DON'T KNOW THAT IF IT'S NECESSARY A NECESSARY EVIL.
I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND I I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT YOU'RE ALSO TAKING, NO ONE ELSE HAD THAT REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? THERE'S OTHER SIDES OF IT THAT ARE DEVELOPED AND DONE.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WELL, AND THOSE ARE LIKELY IN THE VILLAGE, WHICH IS NOT OUR JURISDICTIONS, BUT YEAH, WE'VE APART, NOT ACROSS THE BOARD INTERCONNECTIONS, BE IT PARKING LOT INTERCONNECTIONS, BE IT SIDEWALKS, BE IT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT COMMENTS ON THE STARBUCKS THAT BENDERSON HAS OVER MCKINLEY ABOUT WANTING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
SO THIS IS LIKE AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE GRAPPLING WITH ACROSS THE PROJECTS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
IT IS NOT JUST THIS PROJECT BEING SINGLED OUT AND SEAN AND CHRIS HAVE SAT THROUGH ENOUGH MEETINGS THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS COME UP AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO YEAH, I YOU, YOU HAVE SO
AND, AND HONESTLY TO SPEAK ONE MORE THING TO THE VEGETATION, I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN KNOW ABOUT SIX ACRES OUT THE BRUSH OUT, SO IT JUST HASN'T BEEN DONE, YOU KNOW, BUT IT, YOU COULD, SO I, I KNOW AND THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU CAN EASILY ACCESS WITHOUT, WITHOUT CUTTING IN THE AROUND TREES.
SO IT'S, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN AND EVERYTHING, BUT A LOT OF IT'S, WE'RE LITERALLY BRUSH SO YOU CAN JUST MOVE IT OUT.
SO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, I, I GUESS WHAT OUR ANSWER ON THAT IS, I THINK WE GO BACK TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED BEFORE.
I THINK WE ALL AGREE PREVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
PHIL HAS RAISED SOME ISSUES THAT OBVIOUSLY ARE UNDERSTANDABLE.
IF YOU JUST LET US DEFER THAT TOPIC WHEN WE COME BACK, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
LET US, LET US TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
I THINK WE'RE STILL WILLING TO DISCUSS IT.
YEAH, I MEAN, BUT THAT WAS PART OF LIKE THE, WE CAN'T DO A SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT? WE KIND OF GOT ON BOARD WITH THE SLOPES AND THE POSITION.
SO, AND, AND IT WAS CHAIRMAN CLARK WHO RELAYED THAT THOUGHT AT WHAT WE INITIALLY WERE HERE.
[01:00:03]
ALRIGHT? SO THEY WANT US TO DO A VOTE ON SEEKER SO WE CAN HAVE THEM COME BACK ON JUNE 15TH AND OUR VOTE WOULD BE BASICALLY WHETHER OR NOT WHAT'S PRESENTED.SO WE'VE GOT WHETHER 44 TREES ARE ENOUGH MITIGATION, WHETHER THE WETLAND IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED ENOUGH.
UM, I MEAN I JEN WEIGH IN ON THE CONNECTIVITY ISSUE, BUT I, AND A LOT OF THE POTENTIAL IS LARGE FOR DRAINAGE ISSUES.
I BELIEVE CAMMY CAN COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, OR DO WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ASSURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING A DRAINAGE PROBLEM.
SO I'LL PUT YOU ON THE SPOT TWO WEEKS FROM NOW OR, BUT UH, TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE WELL AND YOU, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND I DON'T HAVE FULLY ENGINEERED CORRECT.
SO BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE NOW, THEY DID PROVIDE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LETTER THAT EXPLAINS HOW IT INTENDS TO BE DESIGNED AND HOW IT'LL MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT'S GOING TO BE SORT OF MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT THAT'S WHERE WE STAND AT THIS TIME.
BUT WE DID DO THAT LETTER AND I THINK CAMMY YOU CONFIRMED, YOU KNOW, TO ENSURE EVERYONE THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE WELL AWARE WHAT THEY ARE.
AND WE ALSO DID A SIMILAR LETTER EXCEPT THAT ONE IS BACKED BY VERY QUANTITATIVE DATA AND DOWNSTREAM ZERO CAPACITY.
SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE DECISION THAT WE'D HAVE TO MAKE NEXT TIME THIS COUNTS.
RIGHT? NOT THE MITIGATION OFFERED, WE THINK IS ENOUGH FOR A NEGATIVE DECK.
I GUESS MY, MY OWN WE'RE NOT DOING THAT TODAY.
WE'RE DOING THAT AUTHORIZED PREPARATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZED ME TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT.
I'M GONNA HAND, I COULDN'T GIVE THIS DOCUMENT TO THE APPLICANT UNTIL YOU RECEIVED IT OFFICIALLY.
THIS MEETING, THIS IS THE DRAFT PART TWO AND PART THREE.
DO WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THAT? I, WELL YOU NEED TO EMAIL ME ANY OF YOUR COMMENTS ON THE CON THE CONTENT OF THAT, UH, AND LET ME KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING TONIGHT IS THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
DO YOU NEED ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT TO POTENTIALLY MAKE A DECISION IN TWO WEEKS? WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM THEM? I THINK WE'VE KIND OF GONE OVER CONCERNS.
WHETHER OR NOT EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE THEY'RE FULLY ADDRESSED IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION, BUT I THINK, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THERE'S INFORMATION WE'RE MISSING.
IS THERE ANYTHING, OBVIOUSLY WITH IT BEING NOTED THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE DRAFT PART TO, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT DRAFT THAT WOULD TRIGGER YOU WANTING SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK I HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO GIVE BACK TO DREW ON WHAT WAS IN SOME OF THE PART THREE, BUT I DON'T DISAGREE.
PART THREE, I DIDN'T MAKE DECISIONS, SO I THOUGHT I WENT TO A CERTAIN POINT AND THEN STOPPED.
YEAH, I HAVE SOME, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT.
I PART TWO, I'M, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M NOT, I THINK WELL, LET'S JUST GO OVER OUR COMMENTS.
UH, WE'LL START WITH PART TWO IF WE COULD.
NOW YOU, YOU HAVE SEEN THE CONSERVATION BOARD'S MEMO THAT YOU HAVE.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT YOU, THAT YOU NEED, THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANTS RIGHT TO ADDRESS? I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION FROM THE CAB LETTER THAT I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED FOR US BEFORE, BUT IF WE GET IT IN THE MINUTES, WE'LL ANSWER FOR THE CAB.
AND THEY, THEY SAY THAT, UM, BECAUSE I KNOW I ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS AND YOU SAID THE MAPS DON'T LINE UP, UM, ON WHERE THE WETLAND IS ON THE EARTH DIMENSION STUDY VERSUS WHERE IT IS HERE.
AND YOU ALL HAD EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE, I I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOP, WHAT NUMBER IS THAT? YEAH, NUMBER LOT.
THAT THAT LOT 13 AND 14 HAVE THE WETLAND OUTLINED ON THIS PLAN? BECAUSE THAT'S THE POTENTIAL AREA OF IMPACT, RIGHT? WELL, NO, 12 AND 13, THE WE LAND LINE THERE GOES LIKE THIS AND IT DOES, IT IS RECITED ACTIVE.
AND SO THE QUESTION FROM PART IS JUST THE IMPACT OUTLINE IS THE WETLAND.
AND SO THE QUESTION FROM THE CAB IS THAT LOTS 18 THROUGH 14 ARE ALL IN THE FEDERAL WEAND.
YOU SAY EIGHT THROUGH I'D SAY EIGHT THROUGH 14.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT.
AND 12 NOT, IS THAT IN THE MEMO MAR? IT'S, YEAH.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT LOTS EIGHT THROUGH 14 TOUCH THE WETLAND OR JUST 12 AND 13 WELL TOUCH THE WETLAND.
10 DOES AND 12 AND 13 DO, BUT WE'RE NOT.
AND THEN FOUR, IS THAT 14 THAT'S NEXT TO IT? DOES IT CARRY OVER INTO LOT? 14.
BUT, UH, 10 WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY IMPACTS.
SO IT IS JUST 12, 13, AND 14, RIGHT? 10, 10 OR 14 IMPACT.
OH, THERE IS, OH, THE SHADE IS IMPACT.
[01:05:01]
ABOVE FOUR.SO I WANT, I'M CLARIFYING THAT PER NUMBER TWO IN THE CAB'S LETTER WHERE THEY SUGGEST THAT LOTS EIGHT THROUGH 14 ARE IN THE FEDERAL WETLAND, THE CLARIFYING ANSWER FROM THE APPLICANT IS THAT LOT 10 TOUCHES THE WETLAND, BUT THERE IS NO IMPACT.
AND LOTS 12, 13 AND 14 MAY HAVE A WETLAND IMPACT, WHICH IS STILL PENDING A PERMIT FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN ORDER TO BUILD.
AND THE IMPACT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 0.28 ACRES.
AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO OFFSET THAT WITH THE ARMY CORPS BECAUSE IT'S OVER A 10TH OF A DAY.
MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED OR ANYTHING OVER A 10TH OF A DAY.
I DO WANT, I DO WANNA NOTE THAT THE MOST RECENT MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY DEKALB DATED MAY 26TH.
WE DID RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT ON SATURDAY.
OBVIOUSLY BY THE TIME WE RECEIVED IT, YOUR DEADLINE FOR THIS MEETING HAD ALREADY PASSED.
WE DID PREPARE A DETAILED RESPONSE TO EACH AND EVERY COMMENT.
I DIDN'T THINK YOU PROBABLY WANTED ME TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE.
MOST OF 'EM WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED PREVIOUSLY.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT MEMO, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER 'EM NOW? WE ASK THEM NOW WE CAN FILE THAT SO WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD.
WELL, WOULD I THINK I'D PUT IT IN THE FORM OF A LETTER.
CAN YOU PUT THAT IN THE FORM OF A LETTER? ABSOLUTELY.
I JUST WANNA KNOW IF THERE WAS NO WAY WE COULD DO IT BEFORE THIS MEETING.
BUT IF YOU COULD PUT IT IN A LETTER BEFORE THE DEADLINE AND YOU'RE GONNA EMAIL IT TO ME.
JUST LIKE REMEMBER WE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED A LETTER ADDRESSING THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED, UM, IN LATE APRIL.
THERE WERE FIVE SEPARATE COMMENTS AND WE PREPARED A DETAILED RESPONSE TO EACH.
WELL, MY REQUEST OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS THEY'RE GONNA GET YOU SOME, I WILL NEED YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PART TWO AND THREE BY THE MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK.
I THINK WE SHOULD GO OVER THOSE COMMENTS NOW.
BUT I MEAN, IF YOU WANNA DO THAT NOW, BILL, I MEAN YOU COULD DO THAT, RIGHT? I MEAN, AS OPPOSED TO JUST GOING NUMBERING MY NUMBER AND READING IT.
ANY COMMENTS THAT ANYBODY HAS? LET'S, LET'S, UH, PUT 'EM ON THE RECORD NOW PLEASE.
SO YOU ARE WILLING TO COMMIT TO THE FACT THAT THE LARGE PINE TREES THAT ARE RUNNING THIS WAS, UH, IN COMMON 12 THE CAB HAD NOTED THE LARGE PINE TREE BORDER.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THAT FALLS ON PROPERTIES FALLING WITHIN THIS PROPOSAL AND THIS PROPERTY, YOU'RE WILLING TO COMMIT TO PRESERVING AT THIS TIME, UNLESS SUCH TIME IT BECOMES A DANGER THAT THOSE, THAT PINE TREE BORDER WOULD BE MAINTAINED? YES.
I THINK WE MAINTAIN ABOUT HOW THE PARK IS MOWED ONTO HIS LAND WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE ALL OF THOSE TREES ARE ON THIS PROPERTY AND NONE OF THEM ARE ON.
THAT'S, UH, I DUNNO IF THAT'S HUNDRED PERCENT OKAY.
BUT, BUT I ALSO WOULD NOTE, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE ATTACHMENTS TO THE LETTER FROM SCOTT LIVINGSTON DATED MAY 4TH, IT ACTUALLY SHOWS THOSE PINE TREES PREDATE ALL THE VEGETATION ON SITE.
SO THEY, THEY WON'T CONTINUE AND THEY FALL WITHIN THE CONSERVATION.
THEY'RE WITHIN THE 25 FEET CONSERVATION MATTER.
THE CONSERVATION BOARD IS WORRIED.
AND YOU DO SOMETIMES HAVE TO HAPPEN IF YOU HAVE A STAND OF PINE TREES AND YOU MOVE, REMOVE SO MANY TREES AND LEAVE ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE PINE TREES, THAT THEY'RE, THEY TEND TO FALL OVER A LOT.
BUT WE'RE NOT DOING WHAT THEY WON'T, THEY'RE LEAVING.
YOU'RE LEAVING, HOPEFULLY LEAVING ENOUGH AREA TO PROTECT THOSE PINE TREES FROM THE WIND THAT CAUSES PINE TREES TO DO THIS.
THEY'RE NOT DEEPLY ROOTED DEPENDING BY THE PINE TREES.
AND WE ARE KEEPING THE PRESERVATION AREA WHERE THOSE PINE TREES ARE, AGAIN, BASED ON THE INPUT WE RECEIVED.
AND THIS MIGHT BE, UH, JUST SORT OF A QUESTION ON THE CABS QUESTION, WHICH MAYBE CAMMY YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO.
MAYBE YOU ALL DON'T WANT ME TO ASK THIS AND I'LL STOP ASKING IT, BUT A, A HANDFUL OF THE CAB'S COMMENTS SUGGEST THAT, I'M PARAPHRASING HERE, BUT SUGGEST THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT MAY CAUSE HARM TO THE WETLAND BY WAY OF RUNOFF.
IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF A WETLAND TO FILTER SOME OF THAT RUNOFF AND PROTECT AGAINST EROSION.
WELL, LIKE IS THERE HARM TO THE WETLAND, BUT IS THAT THE WETLAND'S JOB TO DO SOME OF THAT FILTERING AND MITIGATION? SO THE, THE CURRENT PROPERTY, AND LET'S EVEN CALL IT SURROUNDING AREAS 'CAUSE WETLANDS DON'T CARE ABOUT PROPERTY LANDS.
IT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RUNOFF DOES CURRENTLY GO INTO THIS WETLAND AREA.
THE WETLAND, OF COURSE, IT, ITS PURPOSE IS NOT TO FILTER IT OUT.
IT NATURALLY DOES DO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS VEGETATION AND, AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN YOU WOULD IN A STANDARD VEGETATED FOREST OR SHRUB AREA, LET'S SAY.
NOW THE RUNOFF FROM THIS PROJECT HAS NO INTENTION OF GOING INTO THE WEATHER.
OKAY? IT'S COLLECTED IN THE STORM SEWERS, IT'S COLLECTED IN THE POND, AND THEN THE POND OUTLET IS PROPOSED TO GO PAST THE WEB, UH, INTO THE EXISTING PIPE THAT IS IN THE NEXT PROPERTY.
WHICH IS HOW, 'CAUSE CURRENTLY THE SITE, IF YOU START TO LOOK AT THE GRADES CURRENTLY, THE SITE ALL ENDS UP IN THAT CORNER.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM PLEASANT MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION AS WELL AS NORTH, UH, NOT NORTH, SOUTH, EAST TO WEST.
I BELIEVE ON THE FAR END, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE GRADES,
[01:10:01]
I KNOW THAT I NOTED THAT THERE'S LIKE A SANITARY SEWER MANUAL IN THE ONE CORNER, RIGHT.THAT IS SIX FEET HIGHER THAN THE INVERT OF THE PIPE ON THE OTHER CORNER.
SO IT TELLS YOU EVERYTHING ALREADY WANTS TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION.
THE DIFFERENCE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THERE'S NO HARD SURFACE.
SO THE HARD SURFACE IS WHAT STORM WATER REGULATIONS IS DESIGNED TO HANDLE.
SO THE RUNOFF FROM THERE, WHICH HAS A CHANCE OF, UH, ISSUES SUCH AS CONTAMINATION, SEDIMENT AND SO ON, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT IT INCREASES HOW MUCH WATER COMES OFF, HENCE THE STORM WATER POND IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS COLLECTING ALL OF THAT AND THEN CONTROLLING ITS RELEASE PAST THE WEAPON INTO THE PIPE, UH, DOWNSTREAM.
ALTHOUGH DOWNSTREAM MAKES IT SOUND LIKE IT'S PART, IT'S LITERALLY RIGHT AT THAT CORNER.
THAT WAS A VERY, VERY HELPFUL EXPLANATION AND I, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THAT WILL ANSWER A HANDFUL OF THE CABS QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
SO THE WAY IN WHICH THIS IS WORKING, HOW THE ROAD RUNOFF, NONE OF THAT IS GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE WEAPON.
AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND WE ALSO HAVE TO IMPLEMENT STORMWATER QUALITY, RIGHT? YES.
SO IT'S NOT JUST QUANTITY, IT'S QUALITY THAT'S REGULATED AS WELL.
THAT IS IN FACT WHY YOU HAVE TO DO THE, AND THIS IS A QUESTION THAT USUALLY FOLLOWS UP WITH THAT.
WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S STILL ENOUGH WATER GETTING INTO THE WETLAND AREA, THAT WE'RE NOT STARVING THE WETLAND AND IT JUST DRIES UP AND BECOMES A NON WETLAND AREA EITHER.
SO THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER RISK YOU TAKE IN DIVERTING TOO MUCH OF THE WATER THAT YOU'RE STARVING THAT AREA AND IT'S JUST GONNA DIE, DIE OUT, RIGHT? BECAUSE WETLANDS NEED CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SOIL, VEGETATION AND WATER.
TRICKY PART OF DESIGN IS YOU WANNA TAKE AWAY THOSE SERVICES THAT WOULD, BUT ALSO STILL HAVE ENOUGH WATER GOING IN THERE THAT YOU'RE NOT STARVE THAT AREA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PART TWO? NO.
HOW ABOUT COMMENTS ON THE PART THREE? I HAVE COMMENTS ON THE PART THREE.
UNDER FIVE, UNDER IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS, UM, WE DO NEED TO, BASED ON THEIR ADDITIONAL BUFFER NOW UNDER THE 10 ACRES AT 9.9 ACRES, SO THAT ON SECTION FIVE RIGHT AM CORRECT AT 9.9 ACRES.
IF YOU'RE, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH WAY TO MATERIAL IN THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES TO BACK UP THE ASSERTION THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS TO PLANTS AND ANIMALS.
'CAUSE THERE WILL BE A CONVERSION.
YOU KNEW I WAS GONNA SAY THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH WEIGHT THERE.
I THINK THAT WE CAN AT THIS TIME STATE THAT THEY HAVE DONE THE ADDITIONAL TO GET TO THE 9.9 AND REDUCE IT FROM THAT OTHER NUMBER.
THEY HAVE INCREASED A BUFFER 25 FEET OF OPEN SPACE.
WE CAN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE 2.7 ACRES OF PRESERVED WETLANDS.
UM, I WOULD STILL, YOU KNOW, I'D STILL PUSH FOR SIX TREES AND THE WORDING WOULD BE, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
THE WORDING WOULD BE THEY HAVE CHANGED THE PLAN AND DONE MITIGATION THAT YOU BELIEVE WOULD, WOULD CAUSE IT NOT TO BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
AGAIN, THEY, AND I DUNNO IF I'M READY TO SAY THAT SPECIES OR NOTHING LIKE THAT.
AND HAVE THEY DONE ENOUGH TO BASICALLY SAY AGAIN, IT'S NOT A BIG, IT'S THEY'VE CHANGED THE PLAN PRESERVING X AMOUNT WHATEVER BACK THAT THIS IS NO LONGER A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
AND I THINK THAT'S, WE WERE CLEAR CUTTING THIS SITE, I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, WITH THE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BUT, OR HAVE THEY DONE ENOUGH TO SAY THIS IS NO LONGER SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT YEAH, AND I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A, AND I DO, YOU KNOW, AND THE CAB DID NOTE THAT THEY HAD ENCOURAGED US TO PUSH FOR N-D-I-S-I, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THEIR COMMENT AND PUSH FOR WHAT CAME, THEY WANTED US TO DO ANY IS THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS ON THE LIST, BUT THEY REALLY DIDN'T GO INTO DETAIL WHY THEY DID NOT JACK UP, WHY THEIR ASSERTION.
UM, SO THAT'S, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO CHEW ON IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SUFFICIENT MITIGATION TO, TO OFFSET THEM.
BUT I DO THINK WE WANNA ITEMIZE THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED.
SO YEAH, THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY COMMENT.
I WASN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT READY FOR THAT.
BUT I THINK YOU CAN ADD SOME OF THOSE OTHER, AND, AND LIKE I SAID, I'LL GET YOUR INPUT.
I'M EVEN, WE'RE GONNA GET, I'LL ASK FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE US.
SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M NOT REFERENCING OR MISSING IN HERE, PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME ADDITIONAL STUFF.
THEY, THEY SUBMITTED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TONIGHT.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD WHY, HOW WE ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
JUST ANOTHER ASPECT ON THE TREE CLEARING THAT, THAT DIDN'T COME UP YET.
[01:15:01]
WE GO IN AND WE ARE THE BUILDER AND DEVELOPER, LIKE SEAN MENTIONED, SO WHEN WE GO IN AND, AND MEET WITH THE CUSTOMER, WE DO A TREE CLEARING MEETING AND WE DON'T ALLOW CUSTOMERS TO STRIP CLEAR TREES THAT ARE, ARE ABLE TO BE SAVED.SO ONCE YOU GET BEYOND THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT WITH THE PROPER SLOPE, THEN THOSE TREES CAN BE SALVAGED BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT FILLING THAT LOT.
SO WE WILL PROBABLY BE SAVING LITERALLY DOZENS OF TREATS ON EACH LOT.
BUT IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE THAT BECAUSE ONCE THE HOUSE IS SET, THE GRADE ICE ARE SET.
UM, AND THEN WE DO, WE, WE KNOW WHAT HOUSE IS GOING ON IN THE LOT.
THERE'S THREE CAR GARAGE AND TWO CAR GARAGE, ALL THOSE VARIABLES.
UH, THEN WE DO A TREE CLEAR MEAN OUT, NOT WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA OBVIOUSLY.
SO WE DO HAVE THE, WE WILL PROP IN REALITY HAVE MORE TREES REMAIN ON THE SITE THAN WHAT YOU MAY BE THINKING.
THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL INFORMATION.
SO IS THERE A WAY TO WRITE THAT? SO IT IS ACTUALLY, SO IT'S PART OF, IT'S OUR POLICY PROCEDURE AND I GUESS WE COULD SAY THAT WITHIN THE, THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR PROCESS IS.
SO IS THERE A WAY TO COMMIT TO IDENTIFYING TWO TREES? AT LEAST TWO AND A HALF.
I CAN'T SAY THAT DEVELOPER ON, ON THE OR TOTAL OF 44 ACROSS ALL OF THE PARCELS.
LET US, LET US, CAN WE, YOU KNOW WHAT I LET THINK ABOUT THAT THERE'S A WAY TO FIND THOSE THAT, THAT WE CAN, I'M GETTING TO NUMBER THAT WE CAN THEM ACROSS.
AND EVEN IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S HARD, WHERE MOST OF THE TREES GET TAKEN OUT AND NOT ANY ARE SAVED, MAYBE THEY HAVE TO PLANT MORE BASED ON HOW MANY COME OUT SOMETHING DO YOUAND WHAT I'M, MAYBE THERE'S A COUPLE OF THOSE LOTS THAT YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ARE CURRENTLY SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SOME AREAS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE COUNTED THEM AS CLEARING, BUT YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE AREAS ON SOME OF THE BIGGER LOTS WHERE YOU COULD PRESERVE, MAYBE THERE'S JUST SIX OR SEVEN TREES IN ONE AREA THAT YOU CAN COUNT THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE THING ON ONE LOT AND THERE'S NOT ON SOME OTHERS BECAUSE THE LOT SIZE WE HAVE TO A, WE WANNA LOOK AT THE SPECIES OF THE TREES.
I MEAN, ARE THERE ASH TREES IN THERE THAT ARE GONNA DIE OR WILL DIE EVENTUALLY? UH, WE WANNA LOOK AT THE HEALTH OF THE TREE IF IT'S NOT AN HATCH TREE.
UM, BECAUSE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS IF YOU DON'T TAKE TREES DOWN DURING A MAJOR BUILDING OF A LOT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME, IT IS THREE TIMES MORE COST THAN YOU GET A TREE DOWN ONE BY ONE.
AND, AND IT'S HARD TO EVEN GET PEOPLE THESE DAYS TO COME OUT AND DO IT.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE BALANCE ALL OF THAT.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO IN EVERY PROJECT WE WORK ON.
UM, AND, AND WE DO, UH, PROMOTE THAT WITH, AND AND THAT'S, IF WE CAN FIND A WAY, IF YOU CAN FIND IT X NUMBER AND IF YOU, SEAN CAN TAKE A, I THINK SEAN UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST THAT THERE'S A WAY TO COME BACK ACROSS THE LOTS, NOT, YEAH.
LET US TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION.
BUT MANY OF THESE, YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND CAMMY WILL HELP ME.
THE FINAL ENGINEERING PLANS HAVE SOME GRADING TO IT FOR THE ROAD AND WHATEVER THE ACTUAL LOTS, WHEN THEY GO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT LOT, THEY SUBMIT THAT PLAN, THAT INDIVIDUAL PLAN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH THE GRADING ALSO TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN CONFORMANCE TO THE OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN.
SO THERE IS A PROCESS WHERE THEY ALSO CHECK.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA PLACE A CONDITION ABOUT, I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE WORDING OF THAT.
THAT IS, AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, THAT THEY, WHEN THEY SUBMIT THAT GRADING PLAN AND WHATEVER, THAT THEY'RE TRY GONNA TRY TO MINIMIZE THE TREE LOSS.
I MEAN THAT TREE LOSS THAT'S ON THE SITE, NOT THE 25 FEET THAT THAT IS REQUIRED, THEY CAN'T TOUCH THAT 25 FEET.
BUT IN THE LAYOUT OF THE LOT, THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO MINIMIZE, JUST UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOTTA BE IN A WAY THAT THE TOWER ENGINEER AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WE'RE ISSUING THAT INDIVIDUAL PERMIT CAN, CAN ENFORCE THAT.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THE SITE ARE GONNA BE GRADED AT THIS POINT.
ALSO, IF YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE MINIMIZE RIGHT.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S GONNA GO WELL, AND JUST TO COMMENT TOO, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THIS ROOM AND ADD ON SITE AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT TREES, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE LOCATION IS.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE DRAINAGES FLOW, WHERE THE REAR YARD DRAINAGE IS.
WHAT YOU DON'T WANNA DO IS SAVE TREES THAT ARE, ARE NOT GONNA SURVIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE, AND I'M NOT PROPOSING A SPECIFIC, I'M SAYING THAT YOU IDENTIFY THEM AND YOU WILL PICK THEM, BUT THEY, ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO OF PRO INDIVIDUAL YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WE CAN AGREE TO SOME NUMBER YES.
LET'S, SO WHAT I HAVE IN MY, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO, YOU TAKE IT BACK AND I THINK THAT'S AT THE POINT OF DISCUSSION, I, I'M JUST LIKE IN MY HEAD WHAT I'M THINKING AND I DON'T KNOW IF IF THAT'S WHERE WE END UP OR NOT.
IT'S JUST WHAT I'M THINKING IS AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, SOMETHING THAT SAYS IF YOU CAN SAVE SIX OR MORE TREES, THEN YOU ONLY NEED TO PLANT TWO.
IF YOU CAN'T SAVE THIS MANY TREES, THEN YOU SHOULD PLANT FOUR.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THE HOMEOWNER WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
RIGHT? SO, SO THE MORE TREES YOU SAVE, THE LESS ADDITIONAL ONES YOU HAVE TO PLANT, THE LESS YOU CAN SAVE, THE MORE YOU PLANT.
WELL WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING IS IF WE'RE, IF THERE'S TWO TWO TREES
[01:20:01]
AT TOWN, TREES AT THE STREET AND THEN TWO OTHER TREES TO BE PLANTED, RIGHT? AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE MADE A CONDITION WITHIN 12 UH, MONTHS.YEAH, BECAUSE BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THE TREES IN THE LANDSCAPING PLANTS IF YOU'RE PUT YEAH, WE GOT THAT.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE AS LONG AS THERE'S A COMMITMENT AND YOU AS THE HOA ARE GONNA GO BACK AND SAY IF 12 MONTHS ARE UP, IF YOU DON'T PUT IT IN, WE'RE PUTTING IT IN, IN BILLING NOW.
SO IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF WE'RE ABLE TO SAVE MORE NATURAL TREES ON THE LOT, THEY MAY NOT HAVE TO PUT THOSE TWO TREES IN.
WELL THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT THOSE TWO TREES IN.
I MEAN THE SECOND, NOT THE SECOND.
YEAH, I'M I'M SAYING NOT THE SIXTH
THE STREET TREES ARE GONNA BE REQUIRED.
STREET TREES REQUIRE MATTER LOT.
I MEAN MAYBE WE COULD COME UP WITH A NUMBER WHERE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PLANT ADDITIONAL TREES.
BUT I, I WAS THINKING AND I I JUST PULLED SIX OUT OF NOWHERE IF THEY CAN SAVE SIX, YOU PLANT TWO.
IF THEY CAN SAVE LESS THAN SIX, YOU PLANT FOUR.
SO, SO YOU PLANT, SO, SO IF YOU COULD SAVE SIX MORE, I, I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT AT ADD TWO TOTAL FOUR.
I MEAN THESE TREES, I DUNNO IF YOU PRICED A TREE RECENTLY PUSHING FORWARD OUT, THAT'S I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
AND WHY DON'T YOU COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL.
WE CAN EACH COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS I SIGNED.
BUT SEAN, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POINT IS.
I GET, I GET THE OTHER ASPECT THAT YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE IS WHEN THEY DO THE, EVEN THE FRONTAL LANDSCAPING, NORMALLY PEOPLE PUT A TREE AT, AT THE CORNER OF THEIR HOUSE.
WELL THAT, BUT THAT, THAT'S SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE FOUR.
I MEAN ONLY IF THAT TREE IS ON THE TOWNS TREE LIST BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER APARTMENT, WHATEVER THESE TREES ARE, THEY HAVE TO BE ON THE TOWN TREE LIST TREE, WHICH IS A PRETTY EXTENSIVE LIST, WHICH IS PRETTY EXTENSIVE LIST.
BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME DECORATIVE UMBRELLA TREES OR THINGS THAT MAY NOT QUALIFY ON THE TREE LIST.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE PRACTICALITY OF THIS BECAUSE I'M OBVIOUSLY IN CAMP MORE TREES, BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE THE PERSON WHO BUYS THE LOT AND IT'S ALL ASH TREES AND NOW WELL THAT YOU HAVE TO PLANT 8 TRILLION TREES.
NO, I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO PLANT THAT PERSON.
PLANTS SIX SAID IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC, 8,000,000,000,006 IN TWO.
SO IT'S REALLY A NOT FOUR TREES.
I'M JUST SAYING THERE, THERE MIGHT NOT BE A LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY THAT EACH HOMEOWNER HAS TO DEFINED.
I THE POINT WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER IS WE LOOKING AT THIS AS TWO PLUS TWO.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS IT'S MOST LIKELY IN RE IN REALITY GONNA BE QUITE A FEW MORE TREES IN THAT.
THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO, THAT'S AND AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, TO TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN WRITING TO THE POINT WHERE IT CAN HAPPEN.
HONESTLY, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T ALLOW 'EM TO REDUCE TREES.
SO LET'S KEEP IT AT THE ADDITION OF THE TREES NO MATTER HOW MANY TREES WE SAVE ON THE YARD.
I I WASN'T, I WASN'T PLANNING ON REDUCING THOSE TWO.
YEAH, THOSE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
SO, SO THE TWO TWO STREET TREES AND TWO ADDITIONAL TREES.
AND THEN IF YOU CAN'T SAVE ANY OLD TREES THEN SO, SO TREES ONE THROUGH FOUR.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO STAY WITH OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION AND IT'S, AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS, AND I THINK ADDED QUITE A BIT IN TO THE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE REQUEST I GUESS THAT I MADE IS THAT YOU COME BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL IF POSSIBLE, IF YOU ARE GONNA TRY TO MINIMIZE YOUR TREE CLEARING ACROSS THE PORT.
MY COMPROMISE WOULD BE ACROSS THE PORT, THE 22 LOTTS, YOU FIND ANOTHER 44 TREES THAT YOU HAVE SAVED AND WE FIND A WAY TO KEEP TRACK AS A TALLIES.
YOU CAN EACH BUILDING PERMIT THAT YOU'VE PRESERVED AND IF YOU GET THROUGH THE FIRST SIX LOTS AND YOU'VE ALREADY SAVED ALL THOSE, YOU MAY SAVE MORE.
BUT THAT YOU LOOK, YOU LOOK AT A LOT LIKE THIS, WHAT PEOPLE ARE BUYING THIS LOT FOR IS THIS BACKYARD AND THE SIZE OF IT.
NOW GRANTED THEY'RE GONNA WANT SOME YARD, BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT BEYOND THIS CONSERVATION AREA, THE LIKELIHOOD IS WHERE ALREADY NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT IN HERE WHERE YOU CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WETLAND.
OH, SO WE'RE TALKING THIS LINE.
I THINK WE WELL I COULD POINT OUT TO ANYBODY.
I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU GO BACK AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU CAN COME BACK WITH AS A FINAL PROPOSAL NEXT TIME OR RIGHT.
LET'S, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT, BUT I WANNA REITERATE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT AND THE BEST WAY THAT YOU CAN VERIFY THIS IS TO ACTUALLY DRIVE THROUGH ONE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS THAT PHIL HAS WORKED ON IS THE EFFORT THAT REALLY IS MADE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE TOWN'S OVERSIGHT IS TO PRESERVE TREES.
I MEAN HIS COMPANY VIEWS AS AN AMEN.
THEY DO NOT ALLOW CLEAR CUTTING OF LOTS.
WE TELL PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T LIKE A TREE LOT AND PICK A NON TREE LOT 'CAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THESE NOT, THEY'RE NOT ALL TREE.
I MEAN IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT THAT WAY FROM THE ARROW, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT THAT WAY.
THERE'S OPEN SPACE IN THAT PROJECT.
YEAH, THERE'S, THEY NO, SO LET US, WE UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT.
I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE, IT COULD WORK, BUT I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POSITIVE POINT YOU THAT I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET MORE TREES THAN YOU ALL THAT AND, AND I WANNA FIND A WAY THAT WE CAN QUANTIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD AND HAVE SOME SORT OF TRUST.
SO SORRY I DON'T, I'M JUST CONFIRMING THAT EIGHT THERE WAS NO ANALYSIS ON,
[01:25:01]
BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO NOTE THERE.YEAH, I MEAN THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF WE HAVE A PARK CONJOINING THIS SITE AND ARE WE IMPACTING THAT PARK BY THIS DEVELOPMENT? FROM OUR CONVERSATION, THE ONLY THING WE TALKED ABOUT IS POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO THE PARK.
I HAD, SO I THINK THAT WE PROBABLY KNOW ON THAT.
I THINK WE CAN LET HIM LEAVE OR IT'S A SCHOOL NIGHT.
LIKE A MOM GET HOME, YOU HAVE TO GO HOME AND GO TO BED.
SO, SO ON A, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WE, IT'S NO ADDITIONAL IMPACT AND PEOPLE MOVING IN ELSEWHERE.
WE'RE NOT EXPECTING GOOD LUCK.
I, I DUNNO THERE WAS NO IMPACT ON THE OPEN SPACE OR RECREATION.
I DUNNO IF YOU NEED, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY THOUGH.
I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S NOT IS PRIVATE, THIS IS PRIVATELY OWNED LAND THAT'S NEAR A PARK.
I WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE PARK.
SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, WHATEVER.
I THINK THE, THE TREE LINE IS GONNA BUFFER THE VISUAL IMPACT.
SO I GUESS THE ONLY THING WE WOULD ASK, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN AT THIS SOME TIME AND WE'VE RECEIVED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
WE WOULD ASK THAT OBVIOUSLY IN CONNECTION WITH NEXT MONTH'S MEETING, IF YOU COULD ASK THE P DEPARTMENT PREPARE A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CONSIDERATION, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
WE THINK I DID HAVE ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE PART THREE.
I'M SORRY TO KEEP BELABORING THIS.
IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL'S QUESTION FOR DREW.
SO THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AREA, WHICH IS YOU'VE NOTED AS AN IMPOUNDMENT IS 0.25 ACRES.
BUT WE'VE MARKED YES AS THE CREATION OF A WATER BODY.
BUT THE WETLAND THAT THEY'RE FILLING IN IS 0.2 ACRES.
SO I JUST, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THE CLASSIFICATION OF A STORM WATER RETENTION POND.
IS IT A CREATION OF A WATER BODY BY ANSWERS? A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T CONSIDER THAT A CREATION OF A WATER.
IT'S NOT, IT'S A DRY, IT'S NOT PERMANENT.
IT'S, IF IT'S, IF IT'S DEFINITELY NOT HOLDING WATER, THEN I THINK I WOULD, I WOULD WANNA SEE.
I WOULD WANNA CHANGE CHANGE THAT ANSWER.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT TO ME AS WELL.
I APPRECIATE THAT DIFFERENT PLANNING BOARD TELLING ME DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I AVOIDED THAT OR WHATEVER I PUT IT IN THERE.
SO NO ONE SAYS I IT WAS, IT WAS MORE OF A CLARIFYING QUESTION THAN A A.
YEAH, NO, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
YOU'VE BEEN AT THIS LONGER THAN ME.
YOU'RE ALSO GONNA FILL IN 10 AND I ARE GONNA FILL IN 10.
DO WE NEED ANY OTHER INFORMATION ON THE CAPACITY OF ENERGY UTILITY SYSTEMS? I ASSUME YOU GUYS HAVE A LETTER THAT YOU HAVE THERE.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR A NEW SUBSTATION OR ANYTHING THERE.
AS YOU NOW THE UTILITY COMPANIES WON'T REVIEW THE PLANTS ENGINEER IF THERE'S, THERE'S BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ALL THIS AND THERE'S NO CAPACITY.
NOT LIKE YOU HAVE TO BUILD A SUBSTATION AT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
UM, DO WE NEED ANY, UH, YOU ALSO HAD LISTED PLAN TO ILLUSTRATING MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE PARK AND ITS USER SUCH AS THIS ADDITIONAL BUFFER COUNT IS SUFFICIENT, UM, IMPACT TO THE PARK.
DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN ON NUMBER SEVEN? YEP, THEY ARRIVED.
I MEAN, BUT I JUST, HE, HE HAD PUT THIS INFORMATION IN THERE.
DO YOU THINK WE NEED ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I DON'T.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST CHECKING IMPACT THE PARK ANYWAY.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT SEEKER RESOLUTIONS ON ESSEX TO BE RETURNABLE FOR JUNE 15TH.
SO MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECOND BY MR. SHAW.
THANK YOU EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT EVENING.
NO, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT ONE.
DID WE ALREADY DID THAT ONE OR IS THAT WE ALREADY HAD THE HEARING.
ARE ANY COMMENTS ONLY WRITTEN? WE CAN SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS IN TO SARAH AND SHE'LL DISTRIBUTE THAT.
CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? THERE'S NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET ANOTHER MEMO FROM THE CONSERVATION BOARD TWO BOARD YOU WOULD TAKE I HAVE NO IDEA.
JUST WE CAN'T RESPOND TO, I, I UNDERSTAND TO THOSE TWO LADIES CLARIFICATION WHY THEY'RE, WE'RE PREPARING A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS.
ARE WE PREPARED? WE'RE NOT READY TO PREPARE PRELIMINARY
[01:30:01]
PLAN APPROVAL.I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA ASK AND THEN I THEN I WAS GONNA, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT WE NEED PREPARE.
I MEAN I YOU JUST SAID IT'S NEGATIVE BACK, RIGHT? YEAH.
OKAY, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED COFFEE SHOP TO BE LOCATED AT 3 6 7 0 MCKINLEY PARKWAY.
JAMES, BOB, AGAIN SEND MY CALLING AFTER SEAN'S NICE
SOMETIMES I, I DUNNO HOW YOU ENDED UP IN BETWEEN.
IT'S KIND OF NOT THING UP IN BETWEEN.
UM, THIS, THIS, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROJECT.
I WANNA GO THROUGH THE CHANGES WE MADE, I THINK ADDRESS THE COMMENTS.
SO WE ALL KNOW IT'S A STARBUCKS AND IS A STARBUCKS NINE O COFFEE SHOP.
LET ME START WITH THE ONE THAT WAS THE BIGGEST ISSUE WAS THE STACKING AND PROVIDED 16 PREVIOUSLY THAT HAS TO GO TO 20.
WE HAD A LOT OPEN SPACE IN THIS AREA.
WE ALSO MAINTAIN THE PARKING FIELD IN THE FRONT.
I SUBMITTED THE PARKING STACKING STUDY.
UM, WE NOW HAVE MORE THAN THAT.
CHIEF DEWA IS THE ONLY TOWN IN THE REGION THAT'S GOT A STACKING REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE.
THEY REQUIRE 16 WEEK EXCEEDS REQUIREMENT BY FOUR.
SO WE ARE AT 20, WHICH IS WHAT THE BOARD ASKED ME TO GET TO.
UM, I GOT, I GOT AN EMAIL TODAY THAT I COULDN'T FORWARD TO YOU BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE, BUT I ALSO GOT IT IN HARD COPY AT FIVE O'CLOCK TODAY.
IT'S, IT'S A RESPONSE FROM JAMES, UM, COMMENTS THAT WE MADE.
I DID, BUT I JUST SAID I SUBMITTED THE RIGHT.
UM, I, THE CHIEF CODE SECTIONS, YOU COULD SEE IT.
AND I ALSO SUBMITTED OUR, HOW WE REVISE THE PLAN TO MAKE IT WORK.
WE DIDN'T HAVE TO MOVE THE BUILDING.
WHAT HAPPENED IS IN THIS AREA THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE.
WE'RE ABLE TO SHIFT THAT OPEN UP AND PICK UP ADDITIONAL STALLS.
IT WAS JUST A HUGE AREA OF JUST OPEN AREA THAT WE WERE JUST WAS THAT KEY OPEN PAVEMENT THOUGH WE DIDN'T LOSE ANYTHING ELSE.
THE OTHER ISSUE YOU ASKED ME TO LOOK AT WAS LANDSCAPING UNDER OUR SIDEWALK.
UM, WE ADDED LANDSCAPING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE SITE.
NEW LANDSCAPING BEDS ARE BETWEEN THE NEW PARKING, THE, THE PARKING IS KIND OF THERE, THE ASPHALT IS THERE AND THE ROADWAY.
THE OTHER OPTION IS TO THE SIDEWALK IN WHICH I HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S NOT, UM, WHICH WOULD BE A SIDEWALK CONNECTED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE END OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THE SIDEWALK CONNECTED THIS PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE END OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
NOW IF THE STATE EVER CAME THROUGH, THAT WOULD BE A DOUBLE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T, THEIR SIDEWALK IF THEY COME THROUGH WILL BE OUT HERE.
UM, SO IT'S THE DIVORCE DISCRETION.
I CAN PUT THE SIDEWALK IN OR I CAN DO THE LANDSCAPING.
I CAN PROBABLY DO THE SIDEWALK IN A LITTLE BIT OF LANDSCAPING.
AND THIS AREA HERE, WE MAYBE I'LL FILL A LITTLE BIT AND SOMETHING HERE.
NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY WON'T BE THE SAME LANDSCAPING WE SHOWED IN THE, OF THE PLAN.
YOU GOTTA LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU WANT.
AND BY THE WAY, WE, WE HAVE, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
UM, BUT I DID GO BACK AND RESEARCH 'EM, WHATEVER.
SO I KNOW IF YOU'VE LOOKED ON, IT'S IN FRONT OF THE FI YOU KNOW WHERE THE FIVE GUYS FIVE IS? YEAH.
THIS IS WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE.
WE THOUGHT AT THAT TIME IT WAS GOOD BECAUSE THEY CONNECTED IN AROUND TO THE STREET THERE, WHICH WAS THE RESIDENTIAL STREET EVERYWHERE ELSE.
UNFORTUNATELY THERE AREN ANY, I'M NOT SAYING NO.
WHEN YOU GET UP TO MILES TRIP AND MCKINLEY, THERE ARE SIDEWALKS AT MILES TRIP, MC, MCKINLEY WITH THE CROSSWALKS AND WHATEVER, WHICH WE'RE RECOMMENDING COMPLEMENTS WITH
SO IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT.
YOU COULD GO EITHER WAY WITH THIS.
YOU COULD MAKE PUT THE SIDEWALKS IN.
NOW THEY DO GO FROM NOWHERE TO NOWHERE.
THE PREVIOUS TOWN ENGINEER WOULD MAKE THE DECISION BASICALLY BASED UPON THAT.
THEY GO NO NOWHERE TO NOWHERE.
WE DON'T LIKE TO SEE HERE'S, I'M SORRY, HERE'S HERE'S WHAT THE ONE LOOKS LIKE IN FRONT OF THE, THE, UH, THAT'S THE FIVE GUYS PLAZA AND OBVIOUSLY THE REST OF THE ROAD LOOKS LIKE THIS.
ANOTHER THING THAT JAMES ONE, I MEAN, COULD SOMEBODY SAY FOR THE RECORD WHERE THE SIDEWALK WOULD GO? IT WOULD GO FROM THE WEGMANS PROPERTY LINE TO THE, THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE SIGNAL.
BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD CONNECT THROUGH THE BUILDING KIND OF FUNCTION.
THERE'S A PARKING LOT OR A PEDESTRIAN
[01:35:01]
WALKWAY ACROSS.SO IT KIND OF GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE US PUT IT IN LATER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONNECT TO ANYTHING NOW.
AND THAT WAY YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE US LOCKED IN FOR THE FUTURE.
SO IF WEGMANS COMES INTO YOU AND SAYS, WE HAVE A PROJECT AND YOU SAY WEGMANS, YOU HAVE SIDEWALK AND ALL YOU DO IS SAY TO US, NOW YOU GOTTA EMPHASIZE YOUR CONDITION TO PUT THE SIDEWALK IN.
IS THAT ENFORCEABLE? THAT'S ENFORCEABLE.
WE, IT'S A CONDITION WE ACCEPT.
RIGHT? I MEAN THAT'S THAT WAY YOU GET THE LANDSCAPING RIGHT? WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAVE SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING IF WE EVER HAVE TO PUT THE SIDEWALK IN.
THE OTHER OPTION IS IF YOU THEN DON'T CONNECT TO SOMETHING AND THEN IF THE STATE EVER DOES IT, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO REQUIRE, RIGHT? SO IF THE STATE COMES IN BEFORE THAT AND SAYS, UM, WE'RE PUTTING A SIDEWALK IN, BUT WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST.
I DO IT IN CHIA A LOT WHERE I SAY I AGREE TO PUT IN WHEN YOU TELL US TO WHEN YOU GET SOMEONE ELSE.
HAS, HAS THE CONDITION EVER BEEN EXERCISED IN GENERAL IN CHECK CHIA EXERCISE? IT, I TAKE IT, I TAKE IT AS APPROVALS THERE ALL THE TIME BECAUSE THEY HAVE SIDEWALKS IN NOWHERE.
BUT THEY DON'T WANT US, THEY WANT TO.
I MEAN HAS IT BEEN LIKE, HAVE YOU GONE, HAVE YOU HAD TO INSTALL THE SIDEWALKS? WE HAVE NO SOLD THE SIDEWALKS.
SO THIS IS A THAT WE'VE DONE THAT WAY YOU GET THEM.
WE'RE TAKING AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
IT MAKES IT EASY TO GET KIND OF THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
IT'S DEFINITELY THE, CAN YOU PROVIDE US, JEN, LOOK INTO, BECAUSE USUALLY DO WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF TO DO FUTURES? OH, CAN YOU PROVIDE US AN EXAMPLE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU I MIGHT STARTED DIG OUT OLD THE APPROVAL.
WELL, SO I'LL SEE IF WE GOT ALL THE APPROVAL, BUT WE HAVE TAKEN THAT BEFORE AND I AGREE TO THAT CONDITION AND IT WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE 'CAUSE IT A CONDITION OF OUR SITE APPROVAL.
SO IT'S NOT, I MEAN I'VE, FROM LIKE THE AESTHETIC BEAUTIFICATION, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME SORT OF LANDSCAPING.
BUT IDEALLY THE, IDEALLY THE DOT WILL COME IN AND JUST DO THE WHOLE STRIP.
RIGHT? BUT IF THEY DON'T, THAT DOES GIVE US THE OPTION IF OTHERS COME IN.
AND AND THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S NO PLAN FOR THE DOT TO COME IN AND DO IT AND THE WAY STUFF GOES.
AND THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM IS IT HAS TO GO ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IS A BIGGER PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE BIG, IT'S A DITCH SWELL AND THEN THE BERM AREA THAT'S BEHIND HOW THAT WAS DESIGNED IN THE SEVENTIES OR WHATEVER.
THAT WAS DESIGNED 60 THAT WAY.
WELL, AND AND IF THE DOT CAME IN AND SAID IT COULD GO ALL THE WAY FROM MCKINLEY TO THAT SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE FRONT OF FIVE GUYS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I WAS SURPRISED.
IT RUNS ON MILE STRIP FROM THOSE PLAZAS ON MILE STRIP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE INTERSECTION.
AND THEN IT RUNS ON THE MALL SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE MALL ENTRANCE ON MILE STRIP AND DOWN FURTHER.
SO THERE ARE SIDEWALKS IN THAT AREA.
IT'S JUST MCKINLEY HAS NO SIDEWALKS EXCEPT FOR IN FRONT OF THAT PLAZA WE APPROVED YEARS AGO THAT WENT IN THERE.
I THINK MOST OF THE OLDER STUFF WAS AT A TIME WHEN PEOPLE WANTED CARS.
SO IT'S KIND OF THREE OPTIONS FOR YOU.
YOU, I MEAN WE'RE HAPPY TO DO ANY ONE OF THEM.
UM, YOU GOT THE LANDSCAPING, YOU GOT THE SIDEWALK.
WE GOT THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
PUT THE LANDSCAPING IN, PUT THE SIDEWALK IN.
AND THE ONLY THING IS THE DOT EVER CAME THROUGH.
WE PUT THE SIDEWALK IN NOW THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SECTION OF SIDEWALK.
YOU HAVE TWO PARALLEL SIDEWALK.
I WOULD RATHER THEY PUT THE SIDEWALK IN AND I JUST WENT CONNECTION OUT TO THE SIDEWALK TO PUT IN AND FUNCTION THAT LETTER.
SO FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT, YOU WOULD BE DIRECTING US TO, I'M ASSUMING SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS ATTACHED.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A PUBLIC HEARING YET.
TECHNICALLY FROM THE LETTER OF THE LAW, YOU HAVE 60 DAYS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DON'T SAY THAT BECAUSE I TELL YOU THE TIMEFRAME START RUNNING UNTIL SECRET'S COMPLETED.
SO THAT WAS MAY BECAUSE IT'S UNDER A CERTAIN SIZE.
SO YOU HAVE 60 DAYS FROM MAY 4TH TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS.
WELL BILL, WE HAVE THIS ON THE LETTER OF THE, ON JUNE 15TH POTENTIAL AGENDA.
WE GOT, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT ON JUNE 15TH SO WE CAN GET IT IN BEFORE 30 DAYS.
I, I JUST HAVE, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE LATE IN THE GAME.
REMEMBER HOW MY CONCERN WAS WHEN YOU COME IN FROM MCKINLEY TO GO TO WEGMAN'S? YEAH, WE'RE THERE.
WELL, YOU KNOW, WENT BY THERE A FEW TIMES AND I'M JUST WONDERING, AND MAYBE IT'S REACHING FOR THE SKY, BUT WHEN YOU COME IN, YOU KNOW, YOU TURN RIGHT IN HERE.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN MOVE THIS UP THIS WAY? BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT ALL THAT BETWEEN THERE AND, UH, I CAN'T MOVE THAT 'CAUSE THAT'S LOCKED IN WEGMANS.
THIS, THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS AN EASEMENT THAT DOESN'T, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T YOU NO MATTER REMOVE THAT.
OH, COULD YOU SEE IF IS THAT WOULD REALLY ALLEVIATE ALL MY PROBLEM? YEAH, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE, BECAUSE IT'LL BE COMING UP HERE THEN THERE'S BE PLENTY ROOM HERE.
I MEAN ISN'T IT HILL? DOESN'T IT DROP DOWN PRETTY STEEP? IS THERE A HILL THERE? I DON'T THINK SO.
IT COMES DOWN, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY STEEP.
WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE LIGHT, IT GOES DOWN.
YEAH, NO, I WAS THINKING LIKE IF YOU GO BETWEEN THAT BURN AND TJ MAXX, THAT'S NOT LEVEL.
SO WEGMAN'S PARKING LOT, YOUR STILL BURNING.
[01:40:01]
ALLEVIATE MY, MY PROBLEM WITH THE STACKING EITHER IT'S IF YOU'RE UP HERE, WELL I THINK THAT THE ADDITION OF THE 20 STACKING SPACES WAS TO ALLEVIATE THATI MEAN THAT'S HOW WE ADDRESSED IT.
I I REALLY DON'T, WE DON'T ASK WEGMANS, WE INITIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
UM, UNTIL WE BOTH NEED SOMETHING.
NEITHER OF US SAY ANYTHING FOR SOME SOMETHING AND THEY'RE NOT WORRIED.
WE'RE NOT GONNA AGREE TO THAT UNLESS YOU'RE TRADE FOR IT.
I MEAN, I GOT ASKED TO BRING THE 20 SPACES.
I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING, I'M SAYING, YOU KNOW, WAIT A MINUTE, IF WE CAN JUST MOVE THAT 10 OR 15 YARDS IN, YOU'RE ON, THEN YOU'RE ON LEVEL GROUND AND YOU'VE GOT TIME TO GET IN AND MAKE A TURN AND THEN YOU WEAVE BACK OVER TO THE, TO THERE.
AND THE THIRD ITEM WAS ADDRESSING THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURE, WHICH I, WE DID DO, UM, WE ACTUALLY, UM, THIS SIDE USED TO MAKE A POINT BLANK WALL, WHICH IS THE DRIVE THROUGH.
WE ACTUALLY PUNCHED GLASS THROUGH TO GIVE A TRANSPARENCY.
SO YOU CAN SEE NOW UNDER THE DINING AREA UP THE ROAD, WE HAD A DECORATIVE LIGHTING ALL ACROSS THE SIDE.
THIS BRICK IS ACTUALLY THE SAME COLOR AS THIS BRICK.
UM, OKAY, SO SO THIS IS GONNA BE THE SAME SORT OF TEXTURE.
IT'S JUST THE WAY IT PRINTED OUT 'CAUSE IT'S A BIGGER AREA.
BUT WE DID, THIS USED TO BE ALL BLANK WALL HERE.
YOU REMEMBER WE WAS LIKE, WE PUNCHED THE BLASTER, WE HAD THE DECORATIVE LIGHTING.
WE COVER THE ELEMENT FROM HERE TO THE MIDDLE AND THEN THE NEXT LITTLE KITCHEN AREA SO WE CAN HAVE IN HARD AREA, WE CAN'T REALLY PUNCH ANY GLASS THERE.
SO I DID, I DO BELIEVE WE ADDRESS THE COMMENTS WE GOT, UM, TIME I WAS HERE LOOKS BETTER.
I I THINK THE CONDITIONAL SIDEWALK IS I THE WAY I WOULD APPROVE AS LONG AS OUR ATTORNEY'S OKAY WITH IT MM-HMM
SO YEAH, IT WOULDN'T BE, THE LAW REQUIRES SIDEWALK.
YOU WOULD BE DOING A LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE NOT WAIVING 'EM OR WE'RE SAYING THEY HAVE TO GO IN AT A LATER DATE WHEN, WHEN WE GET OTHER SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA TO CONNECT TO AND WHERE THEY MAKE SENSE.
IT IT WOULD, IT WOULD SIMPLY SAY THE CONDITION IS SHEET.
THEY WAY IS THEY CAN ORDER SIDEWALKS IN ANY TIME.
SO THE WAY THE CONDITIONS IS AT SUCH TIME AS THE TOWN ORDERS THE SIDEWALK TO BE PUT IN.
SO OH, OUR CONDITION WOULD BE AT SUCH TIME AS YOU ORDER THE SIDEWALK TO BE PUT IN, WE'LL PUT IT IN BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING YOU WOULD ORDER IT TO BE PUT IN.
AND THAT WOULD BE FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE, IT'LL BE CONDITION PLANNING PERMIT.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE I'M ASSUMING YOU WOULD ORDER TO PUT IT IN, YOU HAD SOMEWHERE CONNECTED.
AND THAT WAY IF YOU GET WEGMANS YOU CAN JUST SAY, NOW WRITE WHERE A LETTER OR IT SAYS THE CONDITION WE'RE WE PUT SETTLEMENT, WE'LL WORK WITH JENNIFER TO WRITE LANGUAGE JUST BECAUSE SHE
YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE A LAW SO WE'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME, IF FOR SOME REASON I'M LEANING TOWARDS THAT SOLUTION, IF FOR SOME REASON JENNIFER SAYS WE CAN'T DO IT, THEN WE'LL CROSS IT OUT AND WE'LL EITHER RIGHT.
SIDEWALKS OR LANDSCAPE IT BECAUSE WE GO EITHER WAY WITH IT.
I JUST THINK THAT'S A GOOD, A GOOD WAY TO SPLIT THE ON IT.
ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES? THOSE WERE THE BIG ISSUES.
UM, YEAH, YOU KNOW, WE STILL TALK ABOUT THEY, THEY'VE ACQUIESCED TO LARGER STACKING.
UM, IN THE FUTURE, LIKE I SAID, I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THAT'S IN THE FUTURE LONG TERM WHEN WE DO SIDEWALKS AND OTHER THINGS, INTERNAL MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREAS.
BUT THEY'RE DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENTS AND WHATEVER.
I MEAN THEY'VE HAD BATTLES AND OTHER TOWNS ABOUT IT.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, TYPICALLY YOU WOULD NOT DESIGN THAT THROAT LENGTH AS DENNIS HAS POINTED OUT SO SHORT.
UM, BUT YOU REALLY HAVE, RIGHT NOW IT'S THERE.
I MEAN I LIKE THAT THROAT LONGER THAT THAT CROSSES BUT BE FURTHER BACK IN THE SITE.
I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT NOW IT SEEMS LIKE.
SO WHY CAME TO US FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT? WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO US REACHING OUT TO ADJUSTING AFTER WORK WITH THEM IF IT, IT'S AN ODD SITUATION BECAUSE IT ALSO TIES OUT WHEN THE MOVE IS BACK AND IF YOU SEND MARKING IT DOESN'T, IT WON'T HIT THIS MAIN, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE WHAT I ALWAYS CALL MY TOWN'S LIKE THAT IS A ROAD THAT MIRRORS THE ROAD THAT'S DOWN HERE SO PEOPLE CAN MOVE AND TURN TO THE SITE AND NOW YOU CAN GO FROM WEGMANS TO HERE RIGHT ACROSS.
THE ONLY ISSUE WHEN YOU DO THAT IS THAT WON'T BE THE CASE ANYMORE.
AND I'M SURE WEGMANS, I DON'T HAVE THAT SITE.
I'M SURE IT SHOWS UP AT THEIR PARKING LOT ALSO.
SO INSTEAD OF WINDING UP NOW YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE ARE GONNA JOG UP, CUT OVER, JOG BACK DOWN AND IT'S A DIFFERENT TRAFFIC MOMENT BEHIND.
I GO BEHIND THE, I I THINK I REALIZED THERE ARE HOLES OVER THERE.
CRA I THINK I REALIZE WHY THAT, UM, THE DEON WAS THINK ABOUT THIS, WHY THE STACK IS, IS SO BAD AND WHY THIS RIGHT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S YOUR FAULT AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING YOU CAN DO WITH THE STACK TO SOLVE IT.
I THINK IT'S THE LEFT INTO THE WEGMANS.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE COME IN THAT MAIN LIGHT, THE WEGMANS
[01:45:01]
ENTRANCE IS RIGHT HERE.AND PEOPLE ARE PASSING YOUR ENTRANCE OKAY.
TO MAKE A LEFT INTO THE WEGMANS, BUT THEY RUN INTO THE TRAFFIC LEAVING WEGMANS.
SO EVERYBODY STACKS UP IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
IT'S ON SOME WEGMANS ARE THEY'RE HIRING A FOLLOW IN THEIR DRIVEWAY, WHAT'S GOING ON? YEAH.
SO IT'S GONNA CAUSE A BOTTLENECK OF PEOPLE MAKING A RIGHT INTO STARBUCKS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT DENNIS AND I ARE REALIZING.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SOLVE AND IT'S ALREADY A PROBLEM.
BUT I THINK THAT THE, THE QUICK RIGHT IS NOT NECESSARILY GONNA ADD TO IT NOW THAT THERE'S ENOUGH STACKING ROOM.
BUT I THINK THAT THAT DRIVEWAY IS JUST GONNA BOTTLENECK FOREVER.
PEOPLE WHO USE THIS AREA WILL LEARN TO COME IN THE OTHER ENTRANCE AND COME IN THAT WAY TO TARBUCKS.
I'M DRIVING DOWN, THEY HAVEN'T YET MORNING ROUTINE AND I'M GONNA ENTER IN THE OTHER ENTRANCE, COME DOWN AND COME INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH.
AND THAT'S WHERE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINE TALKED ABOUT MOVEMENTS, TRAFFIC, SOME OF TRAFFIC'S LEARNED MOVEMENTS AND LEARNING MOVEMENT'S GONNA END UP BECOMING, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING PEOPLE LEARN.
PEOPLE LEARN THAT WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING THE OTHER DRIVEWAY, LIKE OVER ON MILE STRIP, THERE'S, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME LEARNED MOVEMENTS THAT COULD FIX THAT, BUT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED THEM
SO IT'S, I MEAN WHEN, WHEN THIS, THIS PREDATES ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD WHEN THIS, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WENT IN.
BUT THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF BOTTLENECKS IN THE PARKING LOT IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO, BUT I I DO THINK THE STACKING THE 20 MAY HAVE, THERE'S A LOT OF STACKING THERE.
WELL THAT'S, SO YOUR NEXT STEP IS TO AUTHORIZE US TO WHETHER YOU WANNA PREPARE YEP.
OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THE CONDITIONS.
SO I'LL TRY TO GET WORK THOSE OUT AND GET THEM TO YOU.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THIS ARE GONNA BE NO SECRET DECISION, JUST RIGHT, NO SECRET DECISION.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CREATE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR THE BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT, MCKINLEY STARBUCKS TO BE RETURNABLE ON JUNE 15TH.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS COLLEAGUES POOLS REQUESTING SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE AT 4 9 5 3 CAPE ROAD.
ASK THE COURT'S PLEASURE THAT JOSH ROGERS IS A NEW PLANNER AT HER OFFICE AND I SAID HE COULD DO A QUICK INTRODUCTION THIS PROJECT, KIND OF A LEARNING EXPERIENCE ON, ON HOW CATCHING US UP, WHERE WE'RE CATCHING UP, WHERE WE'RE JOSH GO AHEAD.
UH, JUST TO JOSH, I'M A PLANNER WORKING AT WENDELL NOW.
UM, I'LL BE HELPING OUT SARAH AND I'LL BE HELPING OUT DREW OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS ON THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
UM, THEY'RE SEEKING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, WAREHOUSE.
UM, THEY WERE HERE ON MAY 4TH, UH, WHERE THEY GOT SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION.
UM, THIS PROJECT IS AN UNLISTED ACTION, SO THE PLANNING BOARD WILL NEED TO DECIDE ON WHETHER YOU WANT A COORDINATED REVIEW.
UM, AND THIS PROJECT ALSO IS GOING TO NEED A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, WHICH WE'LL NEED TO DECIDE WHEN YOU WANT THAT TO.
SO I'M UH, CHRIS WOOD WITH CARWOOD DESIGN.
WE'RE THE ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECT.
UH, LIKE, LIKE WE SAID, WE'RE PROPOSING A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR COLLEAGUES.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE LOCATED BEHIND THEIR EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING, WHICH IS SET BACK PRETTY FAR INTO THE SITE.
UM, THIS BUILDING IS A, A COLD STORED BUILDING.
THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY, UH, WATER OR SEWER THAT GOES OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S JUST FOR STORAGE OF THEIR, THEIR MATERIALS AND THEIR VEHICLES.
UM, MARKET PLAN, SINCE I WAS HERE LAST TIME, WE DID SUBMIT THE FULL ENGINEERED PLANTS AND UH, CAMMY HAS THOSE AND CURRENTLY REVIEWING THOSE.
UH, ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS LANDSCAPING.
WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE EXISTING PRETTY DENSE ROW OF PINE TREES THAT GO AROUND THE PERIMETER AND WE'VE NOTED ON THERE FOR THEM TO PROTECT IT, PROTECT THOSE TREES.
IF THEY DO DAMAGE ANY OF THOSE TREES AFTER REPLACE THOSE, UM, THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING WILL MATCH THE EXISTING, UH, WAREHOUSE BUILDING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A, A GRAY AND BLACK.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU ADD IN THE NOTES TO THE SITE PLAN WHAT COLORS OR ON ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THEY'RE GONNA BE USING? WELL, YEAH, I'LL KNOW IF IT'LL MATCH THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE, WHICH MATCHES THEIR EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING.
SO AS FAR AS THE COORDINATED REVIEW GOES, I WAS PLANNING ON JUST DOING THAT BECAUSE I, I THINK THE EARLIEST WE COULD
[01:50:01]
SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING IS JULY 6TH ANYWAY, SO WE'VE GOT TIME FOR THE COORDINATED REVIEW.WELL BILL, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS, THIS IS MY STANDARD RECOMMENDATION.
THERE ARE NO OTHER APPROVAL AGENCIES HERE, SO YOU'RE REALLY NOT GONNA GET ANY INPUT MADE.
I DIDN'T EXPECT TO GET ANY, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND A COORDINATED REVIEW.
DO THEY'RE NOT DOING, IF THEY WERE DOING A NEW ENTRANCE ON THE ROAD, I WOULD SAY COORDINATE WITH DOT.
WHY IS THERE A 2 39 STATE HIGHWAY? STATE HIGHWAY HIGHWAY.
AND WE DON'T HAVE, SO YOU NEED TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING, NO COORDINATOR REVIEW, BUT SARAH'S GONNA DO THE 2 39 REFERRAL.
SO IF YOU'RE WANNA CALL, I MEAN YOU'RE, BEFORE WE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING, I'LL BE HERE ON THE SIXTH.
IS ANYBODY NOT GONNA BE HERE THE WEEK 4TH OF JULY? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, IS THERE ANY REASON WE DON'T? WE HAVE SINCE THE HOLIDAY.
GETTING BETTER JULY, JULY 6TH IS WHEN THAT WOULD BE.
I MEAN I'M, I'M A TBD, BUT I PLAN TO BE HERE.
I PLAN, I DON'T HAVE PLANS TO BE ON 50.
EITHER OF YOU GUYS WANNA BE HERE.
ACTUALLY, I PROBABLY DON'T BE.
ARE YOU GOING AWAY THAT WEEK OR ARE YOU GONNA BE HERE? I'M GONNA BE HERE.
JUST BEFORE WE PUT TOO MUCH ON THAT AGENDA, GOOD CALL.
WELL WE'VE ALREADY HAVE UH, A FEW THINGS ON THAT.
I, WELL THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT WE SHOULD CONFIRM BEFORE WE ADDED MORE BE HERE.
YOU'LL BE HERE, BUT YOU'LL BE HAPPY.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE HAVING YOUR HEARING, YOU HAD ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED BEFORE WE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? WE HAD ASKED YOU TO CONFIRM, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BEING STORED IN THE, IN SOME SORT OF THEY'RE FLAMMABLE.
IT WAS FLAMMABLE OR THERE'S NO FLAMMABLE MATERIALS BECAUSE I THINK POOL SUPPLIES COULD BE HAZARDOUS BUT NOT FLAM.
NO, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE EXPLOSIVE.
I MEAN, IF THEY COULD WRITE A LETTER.
IS IT NO CHLORINE LIQUID? NO, NO LIQUID CHLORINE.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU COULD GET THEM TO WRITE A EQUIPMENT.
IS CHLORINE EXPLOSIVE? YEAH, I THINK SO.
CHLOR, IT'S, IT'S KNOW, IT'S DANGEROUS BUT IS IT FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE? I DON'T, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE MS SHEET.
I DON'T THINK IT SHEET, IT PROBABLY BURNS.
BUT IN THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION, THERE IS A FIRE DEPARTMENT FORM.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WANTS YOU TO LIST WHAT THINGS YOU INCLUDE IN YOUR BUILDING.
SO IF THEY'RE GONNA DO CHLORINE, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE CHLORINE STORAGE IN THERE.
IT'S ONE THING FIRE DEPARTMENTS WANNA KNOW ABOUT CHLORINE STORAGE BE A PAIN IN.
CAN WE NOTIFY THE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SO WE CAN WE SEND OKAY.
SO WE CAN MAYBE IF, IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, THEY CAN SEND US INPUT BEFORE JULY 6TH.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT BULK STORAGE OR CHEMICALS.
NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY DO NOW WE'RE, WE'RE JUST ASKING CHRIS WHAT THEY'RE GONNA STORE IN THE BUILDING SO WE CAN PUT IT ON THAT FORM.
I FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS ON FILE SO THEY KNOW WHAT'S BEING STORED IN THAT BUILDING.
YOU SAID THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW EXPLOSIVE OR FLA FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES.
THIS IS MORE ABOUT JUST LETTING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOW WHAT'S STORED IN THAT BUILDING.
WE ALREADY THE FORMS WHAT? SNOW LETTER.
IT IS NORMALLY UNSTABLE AND READILY UNDERGO VIOLENT HEALTH COMPOSITION, BUT NOT SO ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO KNOW BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING? ALRIGHT, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON COLLEY'S POOLS FOR JULY 6TH.
WE WE COULD DO SECRET ON JULY 6TH TOO, RIGHT? THAT'S I MEAN, SECRET.
WELL, YOU'RE NOT OUT ANYHOW, BUT 2 39 WILL BE BACK BY THEN BECAUSE TODAY'S THE FIRST DO WE NEED TO DO SECRET ON THIS? YES, WE DO.
NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO A COORDINATOR REVIEW.
WE'RE JUST GONNA MAKE WE DECISION.
JUST GONNA MAKE A SECRET DECISION.
CAN YOU, ARE YOU ASKING CAN YOU DO C SAME MEETING? YEAH, I GUESS WE CAN.
THE REASON WHY, I MEAN, THEY, THEY WANNA, THEY'RE KIND OF IN A HURRY TO GET IT DONE JUST BECAUSE THE END OF THE SEASON BE COMING, THEY'LL HAVE TO STORE A LOT OF THEIR STUFF.
WE'LL DRAFT RESOS RIGHT? DOESN'T MEAN WE'LL VOTE ON THEM, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT SOLUTION.
AND YOU'RE GONNA PROVIDE US A LETTER THAT COMMENTS ON WHAT THEY'RE GONNA CHEMICALS WILL STORE IN THERE AND THEN WE CAN FORWARD THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
[01:55:02]
ALRIGHT.UM, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS LIFE STORAGE REQUESTING SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A SUB STORAGE FACILITY AT 3 9 5 0 MCKINLEY PARKWAY.
LESS THAN ONE OF US ON THE SIXTH, RIGHT? APRIL SIX WEEKS.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
I'M THE LIFE STORAGE CIVIL SITE ENGINEER WITH BRANDON PETERSON.
WITH ME IS TIM MCVAY FROM STORAGE.
WE'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR MOVING FORWARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY CONCURRENTLY WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THE OLD MCKINLEY HOTEL INTO A TWO STORY CLIMATE CONTROLLED FACILITY WITH THE ADDITION OF A BRAND NEW THREE STORY CLIMATE CONTROL BUILDING AT THE NORTHEAST END OF THE SITE.
IT IS ALSO PROPOSED TO HAVE, UM, OUTDOOR PARKING FOR ABOUT 55 RVS, BOATS, TRAILERS TO BE LOCATED BEHIND BOTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
SO, BUT BY, BY TALKING YOU YOU MEAN STORAGE? YES.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.
AND FROM WHAT, UM, BOOK SUBMITTED TO, TO SARAH THAT WAS SENT TO YOU GUYS BY, I THINK IT WAS A DROPBOX LINK.
WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH, UM, CALL IT A HIGH LEVEL REVIEW THAT CAMMY'S DONE ENGINEERING WISE, WHICH WE HAVE THEN UPDATED OUR SITE DESIGN PLANS, WHICH I HAVE HERE WITH ME IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE 'EM, BECAUSE THEY DO CONTAIN, UM, A MORE IN-DEPTH LANDSCAPING PLAN AS WELL AS THE SITE LIGHTING PLAN.
ANYBODY? YOU GUYS ALL GOT THAT EMAIL FROM ME? YEAH.
I HAVE EVERYBODY ON LARGE BOARDS TOO, BUT I DUNNO IF ANYBODY WANTS ANYTHING IN FRONT OF THEM TO TAKE A LOOK.
DO YOU WANT ME TO PASS THIS OUT? SURE.
SO I GUESS TO ADDRESS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE, UM, TIM CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAYS THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS ALLOWABLE BY THE TOWN CODE.
SO I'VE ASKED SARAH TO ASK IF HE'LL SEND US A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT.
UM, BECAUSE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS THE PERSON WHO INTERPRETS THE TOWN CODE AND WE DON'T INTERPRET THE CODE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
SO IF, IF HE SAYS THAT WHAT THEY DO MEETS THE CRITERIA, THEN IT WOULD, BUT DREW DISAGREES WHETHER IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA.
I AND THE TOWN ATTORNEY WROTE THE LAW.
I'VE ATTENDED DOZENS OF MEETINGS WITH HOW WE CREATED THIS LAW.
THIS LAW SAYS ONLY EXISTING PUBLIC MINI STORAGE FACILITIES CAN ACT OUTDOOR STORAGE.
THIS IS NOT AN EXISTING PUBLIC.
SO IT'S TIM'S JOB TO INTERPRET IT THOUGH.
WHAT'S THAT? TIM'S JOB IS TO INTERPRET THE PUBLIC, AND I SPOKE TO TIM TODAY AND HE UNDERSTANDS NOW I SAID YOU THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE MEETING, WHATEVER.
SO, SO I ASKED FOR A LETTER FROM TIM.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ORIGINALLY WE PRESENTED THIS TO ROGER GIBSON AS WELL AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ROGER TOLD US THAT THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE WOULD BE ALLOWABLE WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WHICH WE DO HAVE IN WRITING THROUGH SARAH STATING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CONFIRMED THIS.
THEN WE ALSO CAME BEFORE YOU GUYS APRIL 6TH FOR A WORK SESSION WHERE IT'S EVEN IN THE MEETING MINUTES THAT WE WERE TOLD THAT WE CAN RUN SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BUILD THE BUILDINGS THAT GET TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL FIRST.
US NOT AGREEING TO DO THE PROCESS CONCURRENTLY IS NOT THE SAME AS US SAYING THAT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND IT'S, AND IT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT MAKES THAT DECISION ANYWAY.
WHICH AT THE TIME WE PROCEEDED VERY, WE HAVE FULLY ENGINEERED DESIGN PLANS.
NOW WE PROCEEDED FULL SPEED AHEAD BASED ON ROGERS GIBSON'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE PRIOR TO HIM RETIRING.
AND, AND IF THE ISSUE IS BECOMING A SELF STORAGE FACILITY FIRST ON LIFE STORAGE END, WE HAVE NO ISSUE OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BEING CONDITIONED ON THOSE TWO CFOS BEING ISSUED FOR THOSE NEW BUILDINGS
[02:00:01]
FIRST.BUT I THINK THAT WAS REFERRING TO ANYTHING THAT WAS IN PLACE ALREADY AT THE TIME.
THE LAW WAS WRITTEN, NOT HAVING THE STRUCTURE BILL AND THEN BEING ABLE TO, THE PUBLIC MINI STORAGE INDUSTRY CAME TO US BECAUSE WE WERE RUNNING A LAW THAT PROHIBIT PUBLIC MINI STORAGE IN THE C TWO ZONE.
WE DID NOT WANNA ENROLL OUR MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CHARTERS.
THIS IS THE TOWN BOARD AT THE TIME.
THEY BASICALLY WENT TO ADOPT A LAW FOR PIVOTING ALL PUBLIC MINI STORAGE ALONG THOSE MAJOR CHARTERS.
THE OWNERS OF EXISTING PUBLIC MINI STORAGE FACILITIES SAID, LOOK, WE'VE INVESTED THOSE FACILITIES AND WE CONTINUE THOSE FACILITIES AND DO THINGS THAT WE HAD PLANNED TO DO ON, DO DO WITH THEM.
ONE OF THEM WAS PUTTING OUTDOOR STORAGE LIKE UP ON
WE SAID WE WOULD ALLOW THAT IN THE LAW FOR EXISTING PUBLIC MINI STORAGE FACILITIES TO PUT IN OUTDOOR STORAGE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE FUTURE.
THAT WAS A COMPROMISE WITH THE INDUSTRY TO SAY, LOOK, WE REALLY DON'T WANT THESE, BUT WE'LL ACCOMMODATE YOU TO DO OTHER THINGS ON THIS, ON EXISTING PUBLICLY STORAGE.
SO I I I'M, I'M SORRY THAT ROGER, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IT INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE DOESN'T SAY, CODE SAYS IT DOESN'T SAY EXISTING PRIOR TO A CERTAIN DATE.
SO, SO I MEAN, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
SO I THINK WE ALL AGREED, WELL, LET'S, LET'S GO THAT PUBLIC MANY STEWARD IS NOT ALLOWED REALLY EASY.
TIM IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
HE IS GONNA INTERPRET THE CODE.
THEY'VE RAISED SOME OTHER ISSUES RELYING ON WHAT ROGER GIBSON SAID AND, AND PUTTING ON AN EXPENSE.
WE'LL HAVE OUR ATTORNEY JENNIFER, GIVE AN OPINION ON HOW THAT DOES OR DOESN'T IMPACT WHAT TIM DECIDES.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROCESS IT'LL DO.
AND SO, AND IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION THAT COMES FROM TIM, YOU CAN'T APPEAL A DECISION OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO THE ZONING BOARD.
IT'S ONE OF THE OTHER DUTIES OF THE ZONING BOARD.
SO I HAVE TO CONVINCE TO DO THAT BECAUSE HE TOLD ME TODAY AT FOUR O'CLOCK HE WAS NOT PUTTING ANYTHING IN WRITING.
WELL, SOMEBODY ELSE, WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT IT'S AN ALLOWABLE USE.
I'LL TALK TO TIM, CONTINUE YOU AN BEFORE YOU.
LET'S, SO THIS ISSUE THAT, THAT'S ON, I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I'M LOOKING AT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE, THERE'S NO WAY IN MY MIND THAT THIS FITS IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF WHAT WE WANNA DO ON MCKINLEY PARKWAY.
I DON'T WANNA SEE PEOPLE WRITING DOWN.
I DON'T WANNA WRITE DOWN AND SEE A BUNCH OF RVS PARKED SOMEWHERE.
UH, I THINK THIS AREA HERE, IT, IT JUST, TO ME IT DOESN'T FIT.
HOW WOULD YOU SEE IT? THIS IS, THIS IS THE RENDERING.
OH, WE HOW SEE IT, IF I'M DRIVING, I'M GONNA GO UNDER TWO GUY OR FIVE GUYS.
YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE 600 FEET BETWEEN FIVE GUYS IN THE BACK SIDE OF THIS.
YOU'RE GONNA TELL ME THAT ALL THE STORAGE IS BETWEEN THIS BUILDING AND THIS BUILDING? NO, NO.
THE RIGHT, RIGHT NOW THIS IS A PRIVACY FENCE.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH IT AT THE STREET VIEW.
YOU'RE AT AN ELEVATION WHERE THIS FENCE, THE BUILDINGS ARE GONNA BLOCK ANY FIELD.
HOW, HOW HIGH IS THAT FENCE? RIGHT NOW IT'S A SIX FOOT BASED ON YOUR CODE.
IF YOU TELL US TONIGHT, YOU CAN PUT, WE PUT EIGHT FOOT UP, BUT I DON'T WANNA GO FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
THIS IS YOUR GATE RIGHT HERE IN THE BLADDER.
THAT WOULD BE YOUR VIEW ON MCKINLEY.
FIVE GUYS IS ANOTHER 700 FEET THAT WAY.
THAT'S FULLY, FULLY LANDSCAPED EXISTING VEGETATION.
WE'RE DOING A SOLID STOCK, EIGHT, SIX FOOT FENCE, SIX FOOT.
SO, AND THESE, THE UNIT GONNA BE STORED THERE.
HOW HIGH ARE THEY? EIGHT, 10 FEET.
THESE BUILDINGS NOV THESE RVS EIGHT, EIGHT TO 10.
I I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE IT AT A HUNDRED FEET.
IS NOTHING FENCE OVER THE FENCE TREE LINE HERE.
STRIP MALL SMALL IS GONNA BE TALLER THAN RACHEL'S IS.
THERE'S AN EMPTY PARCEL ON THAT SIDE THERE.
A BUILDING, THERE'S ANOTHER PARCEL.
AND THEN DOWN, DOWN THE RIGHT A LITTLE BIT IS WHERE THE FIVE GUYS WHERE ALL THAT, THAT MULTI STRIP RESTAURANT OFFICE BUILDING AREA'S.
I'M SAYING THAT'S WHAT I THINK SHOULD DONE THIS.
I JUST, JUST DON'T THINK IT FITS IN BEYOND THE CURRENT BUFFALO RETAIL.
DOES THE EXISTING
UNDERSTAND, I KNOW THIS PARKING SEEMS SILLY TO YOU GUYS
[02:05:01]
WITHOUT THE PARKING.THIS DEAL PROBABLY FALLS APART FOR US.
IF THAT IS A DEALBREAKER FOR YOU, THEN THAT'S THE DEALBREAKER.
SO I WAS NOT HERE ON A MEETING ON THE SIXTH, SO I KNOW YOU JUST WALKED THROUGH SOME OF THAT.
BUT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND TAKING A MOMENT TO JUST WALK THROUGH WITH THIS LAYOUT AGAIN FOR ME, WHAT YOU HAVE WHERE, WHERE IT'S RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING AT, TAKE A LOOK AT SHEET TWO.
THAT IS WHAT WE'RE LABELING AS THE SITE PANEL.
WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU UP HERE, YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG WITH.
THIS TIMELINE IN THE BACK, I KNOW YOU CAN'T READ MUCH ON THAT.
RIGHT HERE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE IS THE EXISTING OLD DILAPIDATED THIS HOTEL.
THIS BUILDING IS GONNA BE RENOVATED INTO ANOTHER CLIMATE CONTROLLED FACILITY.
WE'VE GOT RENDERINGS HERE THAT'S GONNA SHOW HOW MUCH BETTER THIS IS GONNA LOOK.
OH, THOSE GONNA BE MY QUESTION.
SO THE FOOTPRINT STAYS THE SAME, THE HEIGHT IS STAYING THE SAME.
THE AESTHETICS ON THE OUTSIDE WILL BE UPDATED COMPLETELY? YES.
AND THEN JUST NORTH OF THAT IS GONNA BE A THREE STORY CLIMATE CONTROLLED FACILITY AS WELL.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS.
I THINK SOMEWHERE WEST HER, SOME OF STORING CARS THERE.
THAT'S IN ALL THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
RIGHT NOW ALL OF THIS AROUND IN HERE IS FALLING APART.
IT'S THE SITE IS OVER 85% IMPERVIOUS.
THERE'S NOT MUCH GREEN AT ALL.
AND THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY LIKE A CHAPTER NINE RED UP WHERE WE'RE GONNA MINIMIZE SITE DISTURBANCE AND TAKE CARE OF WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY CONTROL, BUT NOT REALLY DIG INTO THE ASPHALT.
WE'RE GONNA MAINTAIN THE EXISTING GRADES THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW.
WE DON'T WANNA REVAMP THIS WHOLE SITE.
I'LL REPLACE THE LAPTOP AS NEEDED.
UM, SO YOU'VE GOT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW BUILDING.
IT'S 180 FEET BY ONE 15 WITH THE THREE STORIES.
IT'S LIKE 62,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET.
YOU'VE GOT YOUR OUTDOOR STORAGE BACK HERE AND AS WELL AS BACK IN THIS AREA.
SO THIS, SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY.
SO THE FENCE, IS IT GONNA BE AROUND THOSE PARKING SPACE OR OR IS IT AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY? IT'S AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE BACK CORNER OF THE NEW BUILDING AROUND THE, THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN IT COMES BACK, COMES ACROSS WITH A, WITH A GATE ACROSS THE DRIVE AND THEN THEN ANOTHER GATE AND FENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
AND YOU HAVE A NET DECREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AS THE REMOVAL OF THE ASPHALT ON THIS.
AND YOU ARE NOT CREATING ASPHALT ANYWHERE? THERE ISN'T ANY CURRENT.
WE ARE ACTUALLY ADDING IN SEAT THIS AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THIS WAS, THIS IS ALL BLACKTOP RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE OFF THE LAPTOP AS MUCH OF THE STONE THAT EXISTS AND REPLACE THIS ALL WITH GREEN.
SAME THING UP THROUGH AND HERE AS WELL AS WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE TOWN HERE.
BURKE PARKWAY IS A PAPER STREET RIGHT NOW.
IT'S THE OLD STONE MILLINGS SURFACE WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THE LENGTH OF OUR PROJECT.
THAT SURFACE AREA IS GONNA COME OUT AND THAT'S GONNA BE REPLACED WITH UM, A GREENERY AS WELL.
THAT'S WHAT THE TOWN IS HOPING TO SEE.
WELL IF THE SUPERVISOR AND HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT AGREED TO THAT, THAT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO IT, THEY WOULD PREFER TO SEE GRASS GO IN THERE THEN LEAVING THE OLD FEET UP ASPHALT AND RIGHT.
SO SENSE THE PAPER ROAD EXTENDS.
SO THE PAPER ROAD EXTENDS ALL THE WAY THROUGH HERE.
THAT PAPER ROAD GOES ALL THE WAY TO EAST HIGHLAND AVENUE ALL THE WAY TO THE NORTH TO ACTUALLY BEHIND FIVE GUYS COMES OUT RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA TAKE OUR STORMWATER DISCHARGE IS RUN THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT RIGHT AWAY.
WHICH I DID SQUARE UP THAT PIPE AND DISCHARGE IT TO THE EXISTING, UH, VERY DEEP DITCH ON EAST ISLAND BECAUSE WE AREN'T TOUCHING THE GRADING ON THE SITE NOW.
I CAN'T MAKE ANY DISCHARGE WORK THE SITE.
I CANNOT COMPREHEND WHERE ALL OF THIS RUNOFF GOES BECAUSE THERE, ALL WE FOUND WAS ONE 12 INCH PIPE DISCHARGING ONTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.
THAT COULD BE WHY THE BLACKTOP ISN'T THE CONDITION IT IS, BUT WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS BETTER.
WE'RE GONNA STOP IT FROM FLOWING ONTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY AND TAKE IT DUE NORTH TO THAT CREEK, WHICH THEN IT FALLS ISLAND FOR A HUNDRED FEET AND THEN GETS CONTAINED AGAIN WITHIN THE, UM, ALL THE RETENTION FOR THE THREEWAY.
SO UP FRONT IS THE OLD MONUMENT SIGN FOR IT CAN LEAVE HOTEL THAT'S GONNA GET REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE FOR LIFE STORAGE.
BUT THEN THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE LANDSCAPING PROVIDED HERE.
THEY REALLY WANNA MAKE THIS BEAUTIFUL.
THESE GUYS DO WONDERFUL JOBS WITH THESE BRAND NEW BUILDINGS.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORLD CLASS, THESE CLIMATE CONTROL.
[02:10:01]
OF THEIR NEW ONES, IT LOOKS NICE.THERE ARE, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE RENDERINGS HERE, UH, THE CAGES, BUT THIS IS THE CORNER.
THIS IS THE GLASS CORNER OF THE, THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING.
CAN'T TELL ME THAT'S NOT GONNA LOOK PRETTIER.
THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.
SO THIS IS MORE OF A FULL SCALE VIEW THAT THE ARCHITECT PUT TOGETHER.
THIS WILL BE THE NEW BUILDING AS WELL AS THE PARTIAL.
I CAN ZOOM INTO THE OTHER SHEET HERE FOR WHAT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL LOOK LIKE.
THIS IS A, A LITTLE ANGLE VIEW OF WHAT THE OLD MCKINLEY HOTEL WILL SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE.
NOW THIS IS NOT, THIS IS GONNA BE A FALSE ENTRANCE.
THERE'S NOT ANY ENTRANCE OUT FRONT.
EVERYTHING COMES THROUGH THOSE GATES INTO THE BACK OF BOTH BUILDINGS.
THE FRONT OF THE NEW BUILDING WILL HAVE PARKING IN FRONT OF IT.
THERE'S AN OFFICE SO PEOPLE CAN COME IN, RENT THEIR UNITS LEAVE AND DRIVE AROUND AND PUT THEIR BELONGINGS OR WHATEVER UNIT THEY PURCHASED.
BUT THIS IS, AND IN YOUR PACKETS THAT I JUST HANDED OUT NOW IS A, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DEVELOPED.
THESE GUYS DON'T SPARE EXPENSE.
IT'S A VERY DECENT LANDSCAPING WHERE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COATS.
WE'VE GOT MAPLES, WE'VE GOT REALLY PRETTY RED BUDS.
THEY HAVE THOSE HEART SHAPED LEAVES, THEY LOOK BEAUTIFUL.
UM, THE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE MONUMENT SIDE'S GONNA LOOK GREAT AND AS WELL AS AN ENTIRE AREA ON THE SOUTH, THAT ONCE IS NOW BLACKTOP IS GONNA BE GREEN GRASS IN A FIRE RETENTION AREA THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AND HAVE ALL KINDS OF GRASSES AND WATER LOVING PLANTS IN THAT AS WELL.
I'M SORRY, WE, SHEET 14 IS THE ONE 13.
I JUST THIS SHEET, UH, THIS TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD HAVE COMMENTS ON THE SPECIES SELECTED AND THEIR COMMENTS.
THEY USUALLY I'LL GET THEM TO SARAH.
I THINK THE HARD COPY ALREADY GONE.
SO WE HAVE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AS THE NEXT STEP SITE PLAN.
UM, ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT ON JULY 6TH? NO, I HAVE.
WELL THE NEXT, THE NEXT PART WAS GONNA BE ANY MORE INFORMATION WE WANT BEFORE THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, UM, DO YOU WANNA DO A COORDINATOR REVIEW ON SPEAKER OR YOU JUST WANNA ACTION MAKE DECISION? WE ARE NOT THE APPROACHES FOR MCKINLEY.
SO THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY ERIE COUNTY HIGHWAY INVOLVEMENT.
OUR DRAINAGE IS GOING TO A TOWN DITCH ON EAST HIGHLAND.
I MEAN IT DOESN'T SLOW IT DOWN AT ALL BECAUSE I MEAN IF THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BACKUP OF THE THROUGHWAY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
IT'S THE WAYS AWAY MAY BE WORTH JUST DOING THAT.
THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA COMMENT, BUT RIGHT.
I MEAN I, I DON'T THINK WE GET MANY COMMENTS BUT I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO THE COORDINATED REVIEW.
BY THE WAY, SO YOU START THINKING ABOUT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME ISSUE THAT YOU JUST HAD WITH THE DO ONE OF PUT SIDEWALKS IN OUT FRONT OF US.
'CAUSE IF SOMEBODY DEVELOPS A PARCEL IN BETWEEN YOU AND THE RACHEL'S MEDITERRANEAN AND FIVE LAWS PUT SIDEWALKS UNLESS YOU WAVE.
I MEAN I THINK, I THINK SIDEWALK GO.
ANY OTHER THINGS WE WANNA MAKE SURE MEMO FROM TIM.
MY OTHER QUESTION WAS WHAT'S THE SETBACK BETWEEN YOUR NEW BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SIDE RIGHT NOW? UP FRONT, I BELIEVE YOUR MINIMUM'S FIVE FEET, BUT WE'RE AT 15.6 AND 18.8.
THE OKAY FOR THIS POINT ON THE COVER SHEET OF THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU DOES LIST THE SETBACKS OF WHAT WE'RE MEETING FOR EACH EXISTING IN THE PROPOSED.
AND THE, THE LOT IN BETWEEN, THAT'S NOT BEING USED AS RESIDENTIAL.
THEY'RE ALL OF ZONE COMMERCIALS.
ZONE COMMERCIAL, BUT IT'S NOT USED AS RESIDENTIAL.
THERE'S AN EXISTING CURVE CUT.
[02:15:04]
SO YEAH, I I WILL TALK TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S ATTORNEY AND TIM AND DID SOMETHING TODAY.WHAT'S THAT? DOES SHE COME TO THE MEETING AT ALL? YEAH, SHE WAS SICK TODAY SO SHE THINKING SHE MIGHT HAVE AND SHE'S WATCHING IT ON FACEBOOK, SO MAYBE I THINK SHE WOULDN'T RESPOND RIGHT NOW ANYWAY.
I I THINK WE WANT, I THINK TIM'S MY FIRST CALL BEFORE I TALK TO HER ANYWAY, SO, BUT SHE'LL BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I JUST WOULDN'T HAVE PROCEEDED THIS FAR IF THIS WASN'T VIABLE.
I I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE.
THAT'S WHY I, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WOULD, DEPENDING ON WHAT TIM SAYS WITH WHAT'S RUN BY OUR ATTORNEY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
SO, AND WHAT ROGER SAID
I MEAN DO YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL WRITTEN RIGHT DECISION FROM ROGER? FROM ROGER HIMSELF? NO, I MEAN TO, SO, SO HER POINT IS THAT THERE WAS A MORAL DISCUSSION AND SHE RELIED UPON THAT DISCUSSION AND CREATED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURES AS PART OF THIS UH, PROJECT, WHICH HAS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS POTENTIALLY.
SO YEAH, IT'S NOT IN WRITING, BUT THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING ELSE IN THE NEXT, THAT'S WHY WE TALK TO JEN TIMING FOR THIS WITH THE SALE.
THE CLOSURE IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE COMING UP OUR DUE DILIGENCE, DUE DILIGENCE EXPIRING ON THE DEAL.
WHICH IS PUSHING UP AGAINST THE NEXT, YOU HEARING, YOU MEAN, I'M ASSUMING YOU MEAN THE PHASE ONE ESA? NO, OUR PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
SO WE'RE, I MEAN IT'S, YEAH, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN EARLY JULY.
WE'RE GONNA, I MEAN I'M GONNA SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 6TH, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D BE IN A POSITION TO VOTE ON IT THEN YOU AS TO WHERE IT MIGHT GO, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO YEAH.
DECIDE TO EVEN BETTER MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK BY JULY 6TH WE CAN TRY TO HAVE SOME ANSWERS.
TIM WE HAVE ANSWERS PROBABLY QUICKER THAN THAT BECAUSE IF THE ANSWER IS THEY CAN'T DO IT, WE'LL PROBABLY TRY FOR A USE VARIANCE.
AND THE CUTOFF OF THE USE VARIANCE IS THE 16TH OF JUNE.
SO IF WE CAN HAVE IT, YEAH, OKAY.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
SO WE'LL, WE'LL GET, UH, TRY AND GET SOMETHING FROM TIM OR AT LEAST WE'LL KNOW WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T GET FROM TIM BY JUNE 16TH.
SO YOU CAN, IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR USE VARIANCE, YOU'LL HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DECISION BY THE TIME YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
AND THE USE VARIANCE MEETING IS THE NIGHT BEFORE JULY 6TH.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON LIFE STORAGE FOR JULY 6TH.
DO YOU NEED TO SPECIFY THAT IT'S FOR BOTH SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE? UM, IT, YEAH, PROBABLY.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT IS FOR BOTH SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE.
THE AGENDA WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT.
SO, UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANYTHING ELSE TONIGHT, SO.
WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
OKAY DREW, UM, YOU HAVE IN YOUR, UH, A MISSION STATEMENT OR A BUSINESS STATEMENT YES.
FROM HAT, SO HAT IS RESTAURANT BUILDING.
UM, TIM JUST WANTED TO RUN BY WHETHER YOU NO SITE PLAN WAIVER WAS APPROPRIATE OR IF WE THOUGHT SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS WARRANTED.
IT'S, IT'S, THEY'RE JUST BUYING THE BUILDING, RIGHT? I'M SORRY? THEY'RE JUST BUYING THE BUILDING AND, AND THEY'RE NOT NO, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING.
THERE WILL BE NO STRUCTURAL CHANGES DONE TO THE BUILDING AT ALL.
SO UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WE USUALLY DO A SITE PLAN WAIVER.
IF EVERYTHING, IF ALL CHANGES ARE THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING, NOT THE OUTSIDE.
SO THIS IS NEXT TO THE FIRE TRUST
[02:20:01]
E ONE.IF THEY COME OUT HOWARD DEAD END.
I THINK TIM JUST WANTED SOMETHING ON THE RECORD.
YEAH, HE'D LIKE A WAIVER BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING FROM MAYBE SORT OF LIKE A FAMILY RESTAURANT TO PATRICK AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SUPPOSED BAR CAR KARAOKE IN 2:00 AM RIGHT.
SO HE JUST WANT IF IF NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN OR WHATEVER, THAT'S AN ALLOWABLE USE OF THAT ZONE.
SO EVEN IF WE DID WANNA COMPLAIN ABOUT IT, WE CAN'T GO.
SO DREW YOU SAID TWO MINUTES? YEP.
ALL I HAVE IS YOU HAVE A COPY.
SARAH SENT YOU A COPY OF THE FEIS FOR THE DOLLAR GENERAL PROJECT.
IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE IDEA THAT THE APPLICANT WROTE IT.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR OPINION.
SO WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE FORMAT.
SO IT'S THE APPLICANT SAID THIS AND WHATEVER, WE'RE GONNA HIGHLIGHT THE AREAS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
YOU UNDERSTAND NOW YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION WHEN THEY COME TO A CONCLUSION.
THAT'S GOTTA BE YOUR CONCLUSION, NOT THEIR CONCLUSION.
SO BASED UPON THE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD.
SO WE'RE JUST HIGHLIGHTING THOSE AREAS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON, NOT THEM, THAT THEY MAKE THE DECISION, WELL THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR WHATEVER.
SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE GONNA DO FOR YOU GUYS.
YOU'RE PROBABLY READING IT ALREADY.
WE DO HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A TIMEFRAME.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF A PUBLIC HEARING HAVE AN FEIS.
BUT BECAUSE THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO THE FEIS AND THEY DID NOT GET IT TO US UNTIL LAST WEEK.
I'M GONNA PUT IN WRITING, I'LL WORK WITH JENNIFER THAT OUR TIMEFRAME IS NOT FARTING UNTIL THE DAY THEY, THEY SUBMIT IT THAT WE HAVE 60 DAYS.
I JUST WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD THAT I, THEY ALL OF A SUDDEN DON'T GO HAVE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DEIS MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO THEY TOOK WHATEVER IT WAS, FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS TO DO THIS DRAFT.
SO I APPLAUD THEM FOR DOING, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST TAKING THEIR TIME AND DOING IT.
BUT I'M ASSURE I'M ASSURED THAT YOU'RE NOT AGREEING WITH ALL THOSE.
WE WILL GET YOU SOME OTHER STUFF.
NOW BASED UPON THE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR DECISION ABOUT THOSE PARTICULAR IMPACTS WE IDENTIFIED? CAN YOU FORWARD JOSH THE TRACK CHANGES COMMENTS I MADE BEFORE THE WHAT? I MADE COMMENTS AND TRACK CHANGES BEFORE THAT I SENT TO SARAH AND I THINK YOU ACTUALLY OKAY IF JOSH, IF YOU HAVE A CARD I CAN EMAIL 'EM TO YOU AS WELL.
I HAD DONE THEM IN TRACK CHANGES.
IF WE CAN INTEGRATE, IF YOU, IF YOU COULD TAKE A FIRST TRACK INTEGRATING SOME OF THOSE AS WELL.
SO, WHICH WHICH IT'S A GOOD POINT YOU'RE MAKING REMEMBER PART OF A-F-E-I-S IS THAT WE CAN MAKE CHANGES TO THE DEIS OR WE CAN JUST INCORPORATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU MAY WANNA MAKE CHANGES TO THE DEIS.
NO, I WANT THE COMMENTS I MADE ON THE DEIS TO BE IN THE OH OH, OKAY.
THEY DID, THEY DID NOT LIST THEM ALL.
THEY DID NOT INCLUDE NO I SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE YOUR D YEAH, NO, NO WE DID TWO.
THERE'S THE BIG COMMENTS AND THEN I DID TRACK CHANGES ACTUAL LINE BY LINE EDITS THAT WE DID NOT GIVE THEM.
YEAH, BUT YOU EDITED THE DEIS.
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO EDIT THE DEIS.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS IN THERE, I WAS MAKING THEM FOR US TO USE AS THE FINAL YES.
SO I WAS TAKING THE DI EIS AND RUNNING IT TO THE FINAL.
SO WHAT I WANT IS THOSE CHANGES.
SO I THINK WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT ALREADY.
AND AND I'LL GET IT TO JOSH SO WE CAN START INCORPORATING THOSE BUT RIGHT.
REPRESENT TO THE FBIS THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.
SO WE'LL PUT THOSE IN THERE AND THEN THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD HAS TO DECIDE AGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS SO, RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND THEN BASED UPON THAT, BY THE WAY, AS YOU'RE FINALIZING AN FBIS, I AM ALSO DRAFTING THE FINDINGS DOCUMENT.
YOU WAIT YOUR MINIMUM OF 20 DAYS.
I BELIEVE YOU CAN SEND THAT OUT.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO ISSUE YOUR FINDINGS.
SO I DO THOSE TOGETHER 'CAUSE THERE'S NO SENSE DOING IT SEPARATELY.
THEY HAVE TO MATCH EACH OTHER.
WHAT YOU'RE STATING THE FBIS SHOULD BE WHAT YOU MAKE THE DECISION ON IN THE FINDINGS.
JOSH IS THE UNFORTUNATE DUTY OF DOING SIDE BY SIDE AND PUTTING IN YOUR TRACK CHANGES.
THEN CAN YOU EMAIL US THE NEW VERSION OF THIS? THIS AND HE'S DOING THIS ANALYSIS WITH THE HIGHLIGHTS TOO, RIGHT? RIGHT.
AND HE'S GONNA SEND US THE HIGHLIGHTED VERSION AND NEITHER OF THOSE ARE IN THIS HARD COPY.
WE JUST SENT YOU WHAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED.
SO SO TO GO BY THE 60 DAY TIMEFRAME WHEN THEY SENT IT.
WE WILL HAVE TO GO OVER THIS AT OUR JUNE 15TH MEETING.
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AT THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY.
SO THEY SENT THIS TO US ON MAY.
THEY SENT IT, THEY SENT THIS TO US THE DAY AFTER OUR LAST MEETING.
NO, THEY GOT IT FRIDAY BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY.
[02:25:01]
WE'VE ONLY HAD IT FOR LESS THAN A WEEK.OH, WHEN WAS THE LAST, SO OUR LAST MEETING WAS FARTHER THAN YES.
SO YOU HAVE SOME TIME AGAIN, I'LL WORK WITH JENNIFER TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND ON THE RECORD.
AND AGAIN, SECRET TIMEFRAMES ARE DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE GO 61 DAYS AND AUTOMATICALLY THEY'RE APPROVED.
WE'D STILL LIKE TO COMPLY WITH THE TRIAL.
WE TRY TO COMPLY AS BEST WE CAN.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, ONE CHANGE TO THE MINUTES.
VICE AND VICE CHAIR IS SPELLED WRONG.
I'M SORRY, WHAT'D YOU SAY? SORRY.
VICE AND VICE CHAIR IS SPELLED WRONG.
BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WHAT VIC CHAIR MEANS? I DUNNO.
BUT THAT'S, UM, WITH, WITH THAT CHANGE, I WOULD PROPOSE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES TO THE MAY 18TH MEETING.
MOTION BY MCCORMICK SECOND BY MR. SHAW.
THAT'S ALL WE NEED IS FOR ALL RIGHT.
IT WASN'T THE BIGGEST OF DEAL.
I A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING MOTION BY MR. SHAW.