[00:16:00]
[00:16:01]
ALRIGHT.[00:16:03]
ALRIGHT.[00:16:04]
LET'S GET STARTED WITH THE WORK SESSION BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A FEW ITEMS. UH, FIRST ONE IS FUNK ELECTRIC REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND SOUTH OF 4 6 4 6 BAYVIEW ROAD.DO YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN OR YEAH, THEY DO.
I ONLY HAVE THIS BUILDING PLAN.
YOU HAVE BUILDING PLAN SHARE IT.
DO YOU HAVE BUILDING PLANS? BUILDING PLAN.
CAN WE LOOK AT THAT? DO YOU NEED THAT ONE OR CAN WE OH, NO, YOU CAN HAVE THIS.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE AN OLDER PLAN.
'CAUSE I DO HAVE THE PARKING CHANGE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT ONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A BIG DEAL, BUT THAT ONE, THAT ONE UP A LITTLE.
ACTUALLY HAVE SIX ON ONE SIDE, SIX ON THE OTHER.
YOU WANT ME TO PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN? THIS IS SIX BY 60.
IS THIS BEHIND THE, UH, THE ANTIQUE GUY? WHAT GUY? RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OLD SINS.
ANTIQUE GUY THAT'S GOT ALL KINDS OF STUFF FOR SALE.
SO YOU'LL BE BEHIND HIM OR THAT'S YES.
THAT'S BETWEEN HIM AND THE THROUGHWAY.
WELL, I MEAN IT'S SIMPLE TO RELATIVELY SMALL BUILDING JAMMED IN THERE NEXT TO THE THROUGHWAY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR ISSUES THAT ANYBODY SEES? I MEAN, THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD IT, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY CAMEO HASN'T GOT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS DRAINAGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S GOT SOME LANDSCAPING, UM, FOR THOSE EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.
THERE'S, IT'S FULLY WOODED RIGHT NOW, SO WE'LL KEEP AS MANY AS WE CAN.
ESPECIALLY THE MORE MATURE TREES.
IS THAT YOUR DOG? WHAT'S THAT? NO.
IT'S NOT EVEN ONE THAT THEY PASSED OUT HERE.
THAT'S PROPERTY ZONE C TWO MEET ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANTS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THERE.
DON'T YOU EXPLAIN IF I MISSED IT, WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN THERE.
6,000 BUILDING, THAT'S BUSINESS.
WE WEREN'T PLANNING ON TAKING ALL OF IT.
[00:20:01]
PLANNING ON TAKING LIKE 60 BY 60 AND POSSIBLY RENTING OUT THE OTHER TWO POSSIBLE SPACES OR THE REMAINING, UH, 40 BY 60.EITHER WITH TWO 20 BY 60 TENANTS OR ONE, UH, 40 BY 60 TENANT DEPENDING.
AND MAYBE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO.
WE'RE JUST A INTELLECTUAL CONTRACTOR, SO UH, MAYBE SOMEONE WOULD LIKE US WOULD RENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, OR STORAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WOULD THERE BE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THAT TOOL? WHAT'S THAT? WELL, THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE IF YOU ISSUE THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
YOU GUYS MAKE THE DECISION ON THE NUMBER OF MARKETING LICENSE WHEN YOU HAVE FUTURE TENANTS LIKE WE DO.
YOU'RE NOT A, BUT LIKE WHEN WE DO WITH, WE KIND OF SAY, WELL, WE'RE BASING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING ON A CERTAIN TYPE OF TENANT.
IF YOU AND THE CONDITION WOULD BE, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF TENANT LIKE THAT WOULD'VE MORE PARKING SPACES, YOU MAY HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.
UM, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT KNOWS THE REVIEW AS, AS A, AS A SPACES BILLED OUT THAT IT'S, IT'S BASED UPON WHAT WE APPROVE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
IS THIS IS THE USE MORE ACCESS HERE.
YEAH, I WOULD HOPE JUST TO RUN IT TO SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO STORE THEIR BOAT.
SOME RICH GUY AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE LIKE IN AND OUT EITHER.
I'D LIKE IT JUST TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
WE'D PROBABLY HAVE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR SPACE OF BEING USED JUST FOR OFFICE WORK.
WE HAVE A LITTLE OFFICE IN THERE.
I MEAN, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONE A BIG QUESTION WE HAVE FOR PARKING IS BECAUSE IT'S C TWO, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD GO IN THERE.
SO WE MIGHT WANNA FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD, I DUNNO.
SO WE DO NEED SOME GUARANTEES ABOUT LIKE STORING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, RIGHT? LIKE WE JUST DID WITH THE POOL ONE.
LIKE, THIS IS NOT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO IF BE A LITTLE MORE CAREFUL WITH YOUR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PER SE, UH, YOU KNOW, AND OBVIOUSLY THE SPECIFIC USE, THEY KNOW THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT KNOWS IF SOMEONE ELSE GOES IN, WANTS TO GO IN AND GET A CO FOR ANOTHER BUSINESS THAT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR C TWO, THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW.
AND WE HAVE LIKE ALL VENDORS AND POSITIVE, THEY, THEY ISSUE PERMITS ALL THE TIME.
AS LONG AS THEY'RE ACCORDANCE.
IF THEY THINK IT'S NOT IN ACCORDANCE, THEY TELL 'EM THEY CAN'T DO IT OR THEY SEND IT BACK HERE.
SO WE HAVE TO TRUST OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
WE NEED HAVE SPACE LIKE THIS THAT IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT.
THERE ARE RETAIL APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD FIT IN A C TWO ZONE THAT WOULD REQUIRE MORE PARKING.
THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK HERE.
SO WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW WE'D WANNA, WELL, NO, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE EVER GETTING MORE PARKING ON THIS BIKE.
SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WOULD LIMIT THE USES TO STUFF THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS MANY PARKING SPACES.
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S GONNA HAVE TO, WHOEVER COMES IN NEXT, DECIDE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS LIMITED NOT A BIG SITE.
SO THEN OUR, OUR NEXT, THOSE ARE ISSUES, BUT THEY'RE NOT STUFF THAT WE CAN'T WORK THROUGH.
IS THERE ANY EXTERIOR LIGHTING? THOSE OR SIGNAGE OR NO SIGNAGE? YEAH, NO SIGNAGE.
JUST, JUST SOME, UH, MAYBE IT'S JUST SOME SECURITY LIGHT DOWN LIGHT.
NO DARK SKY COMPLIANT, ALL THAT STUFF.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A LOT, IT'S JUST A, IT'S LIKE A, IT'S JUST A BASIC BIGGER THAN A LARGE GARAGE, BIG GARAGE DISTRICT.
UM, SO WE PUT IT ON FOR A PUBLIC HEARING JULY 15TH.
AND THEN DO YOU, DID YOU IDENTIFY ON THE JULY 20, SORRY, CROSS SECTION? WHAT COLORS? IT'S GONNA BE, UH, I HAVE SWATCHES HERE.
UM, IT, IT'LL BE SIMILAR LIKE A DARKER GRAY.
THE DOORS, ALL THAT WILL BE BLACK, LIKE WINDOWS AND SIDE WINDOWS, DOORS.
DECORATIVE BLACK, JUST SIMPLE
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT DARKER GRAY AND LIGHTER GRAY COMBINATION.
I MEAN I JUST, THERE'S NOT A KEY BUILDING TO MATCH OR ANYTHING, BUT IT'S JUST HELPFUL TO KNOW.
IT COULD MAKE IT BRIGHT BABY BLUE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE'LL GO WITH THE WATER TOWER
I'M GONNA, THE TOWER A HAMBURGER.
[00:25:02]
OKAY, SO I, TO MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR, IS IT FUNK? YES.FOR FUNK ELECTRIC ON JULY 20TH.
NO, WE DON'T NEED TO DO COORDINATED REVIEW ON THIS, RIGHT? NOPE.
THE AGENDA IS CHUCK BOCK REQUESTING PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF A REVISED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN, APPROVAL REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NEW MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS AT 1974 LAKEVIEW ROAD AND 1983 LAKEY ROAD.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE SEEN BEFORE CALLED THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
JENNIFER CONTI FROM LIKE ARCHITECTURE.
AND LET ME JUST STRAIGHTEN OUT WHAT'S IN MY MEMO BECAUSE SARAH AND I TALKED BEFORE THE MEETING.
SHE REMEMBERED THE LAST PROJECT NOT REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SHE WAS CORRECT BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A FULL SCALE BUILDING NOW THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING PUBLIC MINI STORAGE UNITS.
THOSE REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON THEIR ENTRY ZONING.
SO WE WERE BOTH PARTIALLY CORRECT.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING NEW BUILDINGS OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
AND THOSE WILL REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT M TWO ZONE.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADVERTISE THIS.
IT NEEDS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC MINI STORAGE, LIKE THE LIFE STORAGE PROJECT.
THE BUILDING THEY CONVERTED BEFORE DOES NOT, BUT ACTUAL MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS, IF THAT'S PROPOSED, REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THIS PORTION HERE WAS THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT WAS DONE.
DO YOU WANT YOUR DRAWING BACK? CHUCK HAS SINCE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AND HAS ADDED IT TO THIS, THE LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND HE IS PROPOSING TO DO, UH, THE, THE PREFAB STORAGE UNITS.
THEY'D BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.
UH, THIS IS THE, THE BUILDING THAT HE DID THE WORK TO ALREADY.
THIS WOULD BE A NEW BUILDING ALONG THE STREET, WHICH WOULD NEED, UM, IT'S WITHIN THE, THE SETBACK.
SO THAT ONE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT FRONT SETBACK.
AND UH, THIS IS FROM THE SIDE STREET.
UH, YEAH, HIS PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR THE STORAGE UNITS INSIDE THIS EXISTING BUILDING.
AND HE'S LOOKING TO DO BUILDINGS BEHIND IT.
THERE'S ANOTHER EXISTING BUILDING THAT HE WOULD ADD TO AND THEN RUNNING ALONG, BUILDING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE HERE.
AND THEN A NEW ONE TOWARD THE FRONT.
AND THESE ACTUALLY FULL SCALE BUILDINGS OR ARE THEY WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC MINI STORAGE? THEY, THEY'RE PUBLIC MINI STORAGE.
THE BUILDING THAT'S EXISTING BEHIND.
THAT ONE BIGGER THAT HE'D BE ADDING, UM, TO THE SIDE OF.
SO HE'S EXPANDING THE CURRENT BUILDING TOO, RIGHT? UH, THE ONE IN THE BACK, THE CURRENT BUILDING IN THE FRONT STAYS.
BUT THE BUILDING, SO THE ONE IN THE FRONT YOU ALREADY DID IS CURRENTLY OFF.
THIS HERE IS ALL DONE THIS, CORRECT? YEP.
AND THERE WAS A BUILDING, THERE WAS A HOUSE THERE.
AND HE BOUGHT THAT IN FORECLOSURE.
WHICH I THINK HE MENTIONED US RIGHT DOWN TRYING TO, RIGHT.
SO THAT'S BEEN DONE SINCE I THINK 2019 MIGHT BE WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME.
AND THEN HE WAS GOING FOR VARIANCE ON JULY 5TH FOR THIS.
DOES THE REAR NEED OF SARAH? NO, IT DOESN'T.
WE SHOWS HE ONLY NEEDS HE NO, 50 IS THE REQUIRED AND HE, AND HE ALSO HAS TO HAVE A FENCE, WHICH HE ALREADY, YES.
HE'S GOING TO DO A FENCE ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY LINE AND THE SIDE RESIDENTIALS ZONE.
IS THERE ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE? NO.
THEY COULD HAVE OUTDOOR STORAGE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WE GET IN TROUBLE HERE, BUT, UM,
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ISSUE, ESPECIALLY THESE PERMIT FOOT CONDITIONS.
SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC MINI STORAGE VERSUS THE OTHER MINI STORAGE IS BECAUSE THE DOORS ARE EXTERIOR IN EACH OF THEIR OWN ENTRANCE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC VERSUS THE OTHER? RIGHT.
UM, IT'S A FULL SCALE BUILDING.
AND FROM A SIMPLE STANDPOINT, IT'S TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY, A FULL SCALE BUILDING.
IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE FOUNDATIONS.
WE HAVE TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY.
SO ANYTHING IN AN EXISTING BUILDING OR A FULL SCALE BUILDING IS NOT WHAT WE DEFINE AS PUBLICLY HISTORIC.
WE DEFINE OBVIOUSLY THOSE TYPE OF UNITS AS PUBLICLY STORAGE CONTAINER UNITS SET ON.
NOT A MILLIONAIRES IN THE PUBLIC HISTORIC BUSINESS.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT TAXABLE PROPERTY.
[00:30:01]
GONNA HAVE TO MEMORIZE ALL THESE THINGS.SOME PEOPLE BE ASKING YOU
THAT'S A SIMPLE WAY WE DEFINE IT.
IF IT'S A FULL SCALE BUILDING, IT'S, IT'S NOT.
SO THESE OTHER LAST LIKE 1 0 1, 1 0 2, 1 11 AND ONE 12, THOSE ARE JUST LARGER BIGGER UNITS.
THAT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S THERE BUILDING.
WHEN DID WE APPROVE THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS COUPLE YEARS AGO.
MAYBE ONCE WITH MORE OR LESS THIS AND THEN NEVER CAME BACK.
SO, AND I THINK THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN HE CAME IN LAST TIME, AND THIS IS THAT HE ACTUALLY OWNS THAT PROPERTY IN THE FRONT AND, AND ADDED IT TO THIS LARGER PIECE OF PROJECT.
AND I'M GLAD THEY BROUGHT IN AND THEY HAVE AN ARCHITECT ON BOARD BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE ALWAYS GONNA BE CONCERNED ABOUT, THEY DID A GREAT JOB FIXING UP THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING IS WHAT THE LOOKS OF THIS IS GONNA BE FROM, FROM FROM MAIN STREET AND DOWNTOWN.
SO HIS PLAN, DESPITE IT BEING YOUR TYPICAL UH, METAL STORAGE BUILDING, IS TO DO A SIMILAR TREATMENT LIKE HE DID ON THIS BUILDING.
SO IT'LL HAVE THE LOWER, UM, GRAY PANEL AND THEN MATCH FOR THE TOP.
AND I KNOW FAKE ARCHITECTURE IS NOT A THING, BUT I'VE SEEN FAKE WINDOWS AND STUFF JUST TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, BREAK UP THE MONOTONY OF YEP.
I THINK OUR CODE KIND OF GOES, WE DON'T LIKE LONG BLANK WALLS.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO BREAK UP THAT, THAT THAT BLANK WALL THERE FACING MAIN STREET AND DOWNTOWN LAKE VIEW.
I MEAN WE REALIZE WHAT IT WAS IN THE PAST WAS WHOLE CHEMICAL PLANT AND WHATEVER, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT IMPROVE IT.
SO WHERE'S THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THERE? IT'S JUST, YEAH, IT'S BASEBALL.
LIKE LITTLE KIDS PLAY BASEBALL THERE AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT.
AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SOCCER, TENNIS COURTS ARE IS HOUSES.
SO WHAT'S THIS THING? FIREHOUSE PARK FIREHOUSE DOWN THERE.
SHE NOT WANTS THAT, THAT SQUARE THERE.
SO YOU PARK IN THE GRAY, UH, GRAVE AREA A PATCH.
TAKE A PATCH THROUGH THE TREES.
AND I THINK THAT WAS PLAYGROUND, BUT IT'S BEEN LONG TIME.
AND THEN THIS IS STILL, THAT'S NO, THAT'S THE HOUSE THAT HE BOUGHT.
YEAH, THAT'S SO IS THIS, THIS IS ALL ONE SEPARATE OR ONE SINGLE? THE, THE CORNER'S A DIFFERENT PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE ONE UP ABOVE THAT ONE HAS BEEN ADDED.
SO INSTEAD OF IT JOGGING IN IT NOW TALKS DOWN.
SO IS THAT HOUSE ON THERE? YEAH, HOUSE ON RESIDENTIAL OCCUPIED.
IT SAYS IT'S M TWO BUT IT'S GOT A DIFFERENT OWNER.
THE ONE WE DON'T HERE THE CORNER.
WELL IT MAYBE ZONED M TWO BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT OCCUPIED.
I MEAN AS A DIFFERENT OWNER IT'S NOT, BE CAREFUL IF YOU'RE USING THE DATA ON THE ACCOUNTS WEBSITE.
NO, I WAS USING THEIR UM, THEIR PLANS.
SO IT COULD HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN.
BUT I GUESS IT'LL BE IN THE FRONT OF THAT NEW BUILDING DOWN THE CORNER.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT, BUT IT IS NOT.
IT'S ALREADY CLOSED BETWEEN THERE AND THE ADDITIONAL, THIS ONE HERE PROPERTY IF AN, SO I'VE GOT A LOG HERE AND HERE.
I HAVEN'T DONE IT THERE APP, IF IT'S ACTUALLY OCCUPIED OR CENTRAL, IT'S EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON TOO.
HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THAT PROPERTY MEMBER? SO WE PROBABLY WANT TO MORE INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD WANT.
UH, I MEAN IT'S THE FIRST TIME SEEING IT.
SO WHEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND
[00:35:01]
MAKE SOMETHING BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, WE CAN ALWAYS ADD, BUT THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SPECIFY THE COLORS AND IF THEY'RE GONNA MOVE LIKE THAT IN A NOTE SOMEWHERE THAT IT'S GONNA MATCH THE EXISTING TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT.I DUNNO THAT IT ACTUALLY CALLS OUT THAT IT MATCHES, BUT IT IT IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS RIGHT.
I KNOW HAD THE UM, ONCE COMPLAIN.
I KNOW I HAVE THEM FROM THE PREVIOUS, UH, PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
NOTE TO MATCH IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNER VARIANCE.
RIGHT? YOU'RE GETTING THE VARI, YOU'RE GOING IN FRONT THE ZONING BOARD TO THE VARIANCE OR THE FRONT.
SO YEAH, SO, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE CHUCK BCUS TO JULY 20TH SECOND MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
ALL IN FAVOR? SO LEMME COME BACK TO.
NEXT ITEM ON THE WORK SESSION IS DATA DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 156 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR LEASE ON VACANT LAND ON NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, WEST OF ROGERS ROAD.
SO THIS IS, THIS HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF US AND IT WENT TO THE TOWN BOARD WHO VOTED FOR REZONING AS A PUD.
SO THE ZONING, THERE WERE ONLY TWO, I'M SORRY BILL, THERE WERE ONLY TWO LITTLE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT REMEMBER THAT WERE NOT ZONED PUD.
SO THEY HAD A RESULT OF TWO LITTLE PIECES PROPERTY, THE REST OF IT ALL WAS PD EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ALREADY A PD.
NOW THAT IT'S A P, THE ZONING BECAUSE OF THE PLAN.
SO IT'S A PD THAT REPRESENTS THIS PLAN.
SO IN THAT SITUATION FOR US, WE ARE LIMITED A BIT ON WHAT WE CAN TRY AND CHANGE BECAUSE THE ZONING IS THE PLAN FOR THE MOST PART.
WE DID TALK ABOUT, I PUT IN MY EMAIL, I TALKED TO SEAN, I TALKED TO SARAH.
WHEN THE TOWN BOARD DID DO SEEKER, THEY DID SEEKER ON REZONING OF THE SITE.
SO WE WILL HAVE TO, AS AN AGENCY, THAT WAS A SITE THAT WAS SUBJECT TO AN EIS.
I KNOW THAT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY EITHER SAY THIS IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH EIS OR BASED UPON THE NEW INFORMATION THEY SUBMITTED ISSUE A NEG DECK OR IN THE OTHER SCENARIO IS ASKED FOR SOMETHING.
UM, I MEAN EVEN SINCE IT'S A POD, THEY DID THE RE THE REZONING IS THE PLAN.
SO THE AMOUNT OF UNITS AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC SHOULD BE COVERED IN THEIR SECRET DETERMINATION.
SO SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF TO THE A THEY GO DEVELOPMENT, UM, FOLLOWING UP ON THE COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN CLARK AND DREW RILEY DREW IS CORRECT.
SO ULTIMATELY WHEN THE TOWN BOARD AMENDED THE ZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE TO PUD LAST YEAR CONSISTENT WITH THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BOARD, UNFORTUNATELY JUST THE RESOLUTION ITSELF, THE REZONING RESOLUTION OR THE N DECK RESOLUTION REFERRED TO UM, ONLY THE N DECK RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ONLY RE ZONING.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT EVERYTHING WE SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, THE PLANS, ET CETERA, CLEARLY REFERRED TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT.
SO TO ME IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF PUTTING FORMAL OVER FUNCTION.
ULTIMATELY IF IT'S A DECISION'S MADE THAT YOU NEED TO DO A SEEKER AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S FINE.
OR I GUESS I WOULD ASK IS IT COORDINATING AGAIN? DID WE DO A COORDINATOR? YES.
WE GOT COMMENTS FROM THE, I'LL WORK WITH THE TOWN BOARD.
MAYBE IT WAS JUST A ERROR IN THE RESOLUTION BUT THEY ONLY CONSIDER THE REZONING AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S, LOOK, THINK WE'LL LOOK INTO IT FOR OKAY.
THAT I, I MEAN I JUST WANNA KNOW IF IT WAS AN ERROR AND THE ONLY REASON I'M DOING THIS 'CAUSE I THINK OTHERWISE IT'S JUST GONNA BE THE EXACT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DOWN THAT PROCESS.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT ITSELF, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE PRESENTED LAST YEAR AND I THINK IT ACTUALLY GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2020 IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS WE'RE SHOWING FOUR, THREE STORY BUILDINGS, 26 UNITS EACH, TEN ONE STORY BUILDINGS, TWO UNITS EACH AND THEN FOUR TWO STORY BUILDINGS, EIGHT UNITS EACH.
WE ALSO ARE SHOWING A CLUBHOUSE.
THIS IS A LARGE ENOUGH PROJECT THAT WE WARRANTED.
AND ALSO AS YOU MAY RECALL, WE ALSO HAVE THE ADJACENT PEOPLE INC.
PROJECT, WHICH IS HERE, WHICH WILL BE COMING BACK IN FRONT OF THE NEAR FUTURE.
AND THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AS IT ALWAYS WAS, HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE UH, FLOW FROM BOTH OF THOSE SITES.
[00:40:02]
CAMMY WILL NEED REVIEW THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS FOR CONFIRM THAT.SO ULTIMATELY WE'LL BE GRANTING AN EASEMENT TO PEOPLE INC.
TO ALLOW 'EM ACCESS TO A PORTION OF THAT UH, STORE WATER MANAGEMENT POND ON SITE AS I INDICATED.
WELL WE DID PROVIDE A VERY EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, THE CONNECTION OF THE ORIGINAL, UH, REVIEW INCLUDING A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DONE BY SR ASSOCIATES.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THIS SITE.
UH, WE'VE DONE DOWNSTREAM SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY AND CONFIRMED THAT YES SEWER CAPACITY CONFIRMS PER OR EXISTS PER THE DEC IN YOUR COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE'RE HOPING IT'LL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION.
WE DO HAVE A COUPLE NEW MEMBERS ON THE PLANNING BOARD, SO I'D WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR HOPING WE COULD LEAVE THIS EVENING WITH DREW GREEN.
WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THE SEEKER ASPECT OF IT AND SCHEDULING A HEARING IN NEAR FUTURE ON REQUEST FOR SITE.
AND I'M HANDING OUT TO THE PLANNING BOARD JUST TO HELP YOU GUYS.
SOMEBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE ORIGINAL EIS IS TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS AND HOW IT FIT INTO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
JUST FOR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, THIS PROJECT GOES BACK 30 PLUS YEARS, UM, AND A LOT OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
SO IT SHOWS INFORMATION ON THE TOWNS PUD LAW, UM, AND, AND, AND IT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO APPROVE ALL SITE PLANS WITHIN ITS SPEED D AND IT HAS THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF BRIARWOOD AND THIS SITE WAS CALLED OUT FOR SENIOR LIVING CENTER IS WHAT WAS CALLED OUT FOR IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN.
AND THEN THERE'S MORE PLANS HERE SHOWING HOW FIT IN.
AND THEN IN HERE IS THE INFAMOUS FINDING STATEMENT FROM THE, WHICH IS A PAGE AND A HALF FROM THE HUGE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THE NOTICE OF THE FDIS COMPLETION AND SOME PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TO SHOW YOU WHAT WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT.
AND IN THOSE MINUTES THEY TALKED ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS AND WHAT WAS PLANNED FOR THOSE AREAS.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU, FOR THOSE OF YOU GUYS THAT HAVEN'T DEALT WITH OR WILL BE DEALING WITH, 'CAUSE WE HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS IN BRIARWOOD, KIND OF A LITTLE TINY BIT OF HISTORIC BACKGROUND.
THERE ARE BOXES AND BOXES AND BOXES FULL OF INFORMATION ON IT.
I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A GENERIC BACKGROUND OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE BROADER
YEAH AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE FINDING STATEMENT THAT WAS DONE WAY BACK THEN IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE WAY IT WOULD BE DONE TODAY, BUT WE'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH IT.
IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT IT.
I THINK YOU HAVE A, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE WHOLE HISTORY.
BUT WE, WE DISCUSSED THAT HISTORY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND ULTIMATELY THIS BOARD BELIEVED THAT THE LAND USE WAS CONSISTENT.
THE TOWN BOARD AGREED WITH YOU AND THAT DID FORM THE BASIS OF REZONING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SITE FROM COMMERCIAL ACUITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE SHOWING.
AND BY THE WAY, IT'S SHOWN ON THE PLAN, SOME OF THE PLANS VERY LIGHTLY IS WE'RE GONNA HAVE ON NEXT MONTH THE PEOPLE INC PROJECT, WHICH IS RIGHT AD JOINING THIS PROJECT.
SO IT WAS NICE THAT THEY SHOW HOW IT FITS IN WITH THE PEOPLE INC PROJECT.
SO THOSE TWO PROJECTS ARE GONNA KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND.
THE OTHER ONE'S GONNA BE IN NEXT MONTH.
THAT ALSO WENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF AMENDING THE PUD THAT THE TOWN BOARD DID BECAUSE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR A PLAZA AND A GASOLINE STATION.
I THINK THE TOWN BOARD WAS HAPPY TO CHANGE THAT, THAT PLAN FOR THAT.
AND THEY HAVE APPROVED THAT PEOPLE IN MODIFICATION OF THE PUD THAT'S NO LONGER A RETAIL PLAZA AND GASOLINE STATION WHERE UH, GLEN EAGLE DRIVE.
CAN YOU SHOW WHERE THAT IS RELATIVE TO WHAT WE HAVE? IS THAT OFF THE MAP OR IS THAT IT'S OFF THE MAP.
SO WE ARE FULLY IN FRONT OF YEAH, THANK YOU.
ALL THIS TRAFFIC IS GOING ON THE SOUTHWESTERN, THAT'S WHY THEY SUBMITTED A TRAFFIC STUDY ON EXISTING ROAD.
THERE'LL BE NO CONNECTION TO THE PEOPLE INC PROJECT, WHICH WE'LL COME OUT ON THE SIDESHOW.
RIGHT? REMEMBER ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE PEOPLE INC.
THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE IS THERE'S ONLY ONE ACCESS ON THE ROGERS
AND THEN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT'S COME UP PREVIOUSLY FOR THIS BOARD IS, OKAY, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH THIS REMAINDER? AND THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DEFINITE OR CONCRETE PLANS FOR THAT ONE THOUGHT BECAUSE I JUST WANNA DISCLOSE THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT AS WELL AS THE CODE WOULD ACCOMMODATE IF YOU THINK THAT STRIP WOULD PROBABLY BE A, A NICE EXAMPLE OF WHERE YOU PROBABLY COULD DO COOL, YOU KNOW, COOL LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE PROJECT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL THINK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE AS WE PROCEED, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THIS AND THEN THIS ASPECT OF THIS SITE, WHICH HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES WOULD BE FINISHED OFF AT LEAST IN THIS QUARTER, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE GOOD.
UM, SEAN, DO YOU HAVE, DO WE HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN? WE DO.
SO WE HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG WITH THE FULLY INTERIOR PLANS DONE BY CARINA WOOD DESIGN.
UM, IT SHOWS APPROXIMATELY 140 TREES, SEVEN 19 DIFFERENT TYPES, VARIOUS DESIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES.
AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'LL NEED TO BE CONFIRMATION THAT COMPLIES WITH THE TOWN'S LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, BOTH IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PLANTINGS AND THEN
[00:45:01]
OBVIOUSLY THE SELECTION.BUT YOU CAN SEE WE'RE REALLY PLANTING A TON OF LANDSCAPING HERE AND THIS PARTICULAR SITE TODAY REALLY DOES NOT HAVE MUCH VEGETATION.
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? IT'S PRETTY, I DUNNO IF WE CAN PULL IT UP, BUT PLEASE.
UM, THE SITE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ALL THIS.
IS THAT THIS LOT? IT'S GOING FURTHER.
YEAH, GOING IT GOES THIS DIRECTION.
IS THAT, THERE YOU GO THIS LOT.
THIS IS ROGERS SOUTH, RIGHT? BUT YOU SEE WHERE THAT AREA'S CLEARED, IT INCLUDES ALL THAT FROM THERE CURSOR HERE, NO CROSS CROSSING ACROSS ROGERS.
SO THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FORESTED.
YEAH, BUT IF YOU GO ON THE SITE, ANY OF YOU CAN DRIVE BY IT.
IT'S NOT REAL DENSE VEGETATION THERE.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN OUT THERE.
SO WHEN YOU THAT'S IT, THAT'S THE SITE.
SO THIS IS THE SPOT RIGHT HERE.
MM-HMM
CAN YOU COME UP HERE AND POINT EXACTLY WHERE THE PEOPLE IN PROJECT IS EMERGED DO MIND OR CAN THEY ALSO SUBMIT LIKE A VERSION OF LIKE THE BOUNDARY MAP? SO THIS WOULD BE THE FUTURE, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE NUMBER.
THERE WERE THE HOMES THAT NEEDED TO BE REZONED, THEY WERE ZONED COMMERCIAL.
THIS IS THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IF YOU DRIVE BY THIS SITE, I KNOW WHEN YOU LOOK AT ARIEL, THERE'S NOT THAT HOUSES WHERE PEOPLE INCS GONNA BE.
AND ALL THOSE HOUSES WERE ALREADY OWNED BY THE BROOK RENTAL.
WHAT I'LL DO FOR FUTURE, FOR THE PLAN BOARD MEETING ON PEOPLE INC, WHICH IS COMING UP, WE'LL PUT OUT AN AERIAL.
THE THE THREE SITES BE HELPFUL JUST FOR US TO CUMULATIVELY UNDERSTAND
WELL I'LL SEE IF THEY CAN ACTUALLY COMBINE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS BOTH THESE PROJECTS NOT, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT CONTEMPLATING ANY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE YET.
AS WE MENTIONED WILL MENTION THE LAYOUT IS, HAS BEEN APPROVED, DOING THE TWEAKING OF MAKING SURE IT ALL WORKS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
ENGINEERING OF IT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S, I MEAN ULTIMATELY IF THERE'S A NEED TO LOOK AT SECRET HERE, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THE PLANNING BOARD MIGHT WANNA CONTEMPLATE A RESOLUTION, WHICH I THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT ONE ALREADY AGREES THAT IT IS GENERALLY DON'T HAVE THAT PREFERENCE.
WAS IT? YEAH, I SUBMITTED FOUR COPIES DID GO AND IT ALSO YES, DAVE BURS ALSO.
HEY DAVE, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO I, I NOTE ON THE PLANS IT DOES SAY THAT THIS WILL BE TWO PHASES, BUT THE ACTUAL SEGMENT DOESN'T SHOW THE PHASE.
YOU JUST POINT OUT WHAT YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING TERMS OF THE PHASES.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE ANTICIPATING, UH, UTILITIES COMING HERE, WATER.
SO WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THOSE WILL BE PHASE, UH, INCLUDING THIS CLUBHOUSE WILL BE PHASE ONE A, ONE B WILL BE THE REMAINDER OF THIS TWO A WILL BE THESE 2 26 UNIT BUILDINGS.
AND TWO B WOULD BE THE ONCE ACROSS THE, UH, GOALS.
HOW MANY, WHAT'S THE SPAN OF TIME THAT YOU THINK THEY'LL BE DEVELOPED OVER? IS THIS LIKE ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS? UM, OPTIMISTICALLY I'D LIKE TO HAVE ABOUT 18 MONTHS FOR STRUCTURE.
DOES THAT INCLUDE LIKE WINTER SHUTDOWNS? I MEAN YOU'LL BE DOING INDOOR WORK OR, UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A WINTER SHUTDOWN.
IS THIS CONNECTING TO THE MUNICIPAL OUTDOOR? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE CONFIRMATION THAT ADEQUATE DOWNSTREAM SANITARY CAPACITY EXISTS DURING WET WEATHER CONDITIONS PER THE DC STANDARD.
WE DID THAT DUE DILIGENCE IN CONNECTION WITH REONE.
I I MOSTLY ASKED 1 0 1, THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR HAS A LITTLE CIRCLE THAT SAYS SEPTIC AREA.
SO JUST CURIOUS IF IT WAS STILL, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S, NO, IT HAS ACCESS.
DAVE, THE OTHER THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS WE'RE NOT THERE YET, IS WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED FOR THE SURVEY SITE IS MAYBE SOME MIXED USE.
WE'LL BRING THAT BACK IN FRONT.
YEAH, WE, WE, UH, HAVE PLANS TO BRING PROPOSAL TO YOU FOR, FOR THIS AND
[00:50:01]
YEAH, THE PEOPLE, RIGHT.THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE NEXT, NEXT, NEXT AGENDA.
WHAT CALIN ASKED, CAN WE UPDATE ONE PLAN AND SHOW THE PEOPLE IN CANVAS PROJECT AND WE WILL HAVE AND PUT IT ON AN AERIAL AND PUT IT ON A, SO WE CAN VISUALLY, SOME OF THE PLANS HAVE IT ON THERE, BUT WE'LL PUT IT ON AN AERIAL TOO, ON THIS PLAN SHOWING THE SITE.
SO JUST HELPFUL TO ORIENTATE WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSES ARE, WHERE LIKE THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ASKING.
IS THERE, IT'S HARD TO SEE THE SCALE RELATIVE TO THAT LET GO ROAD.
CAN YOU POINT WHERE THAT IS SAFE? APPROXIMATELY? RIGHT HERE.
IS THERE ANY OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT? UH, WELL WE HAVE A, A CLUBHOUSE WITH A SWIMMING POOL.
MATTER OF FACT I HAVE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE 4.3 ACRES RIGHT HERE.
AND I SHOULD CLOSE THAT PRIOR TO UM, THE START OF THIS.
THAT'S NOT PART, THAT'S NOT ON THIS.
AND WHAT ARE YOU CONTEMPLATE WITH? UH, RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST GONNA BE RECREATION, UH, DOG PARK, THAT KIND OF THING.
AND AS FAR AS RECREATION GOES, THERE'S AN 18 HOLE CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF FORCE.
YEAH, IT WELL IT DOES NOT BUT YOU CAN GET TO THAT.
YEAH, BECAUSE SINCE THIS, AND I'LL WORK WITH JENNIFER ON THAT, SINCE THIS WAS APPROVED AS A PUD OBVIOUSLY HAS RECREATIONAL COMPONENTS SINCE THAT TIME.
THE TOWN, IT'S PASSED A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING LAW THAT REQUIRES A, UM, THAT YOU HAVE RECREATION SPACE OR PAY MONEY IN LIEU OF TO THE TOWN OR WHATEVER.
AND WE ALSO HAVE THAT LAW ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT 10% OR WHATEVER HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO THAT I'LL WORK WITH JENNIFER ON.
DOES THAT IMPACT AN APPROVED PUD? I'LL WORK WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY ALSO WITH JENNIFER ON DO THOSE LAWS APPLY TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD? I CAN'T GIVE LEGAL ADVICE.
UM, IS THERE ANY PLANS FOR LIKE AN OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND OR INTERCONNECTIVITY TO LIKE MORE CHILD-FRIENDLY RECREATIONAL SPACE? I'M ASSUMING THE CLUBHOUSE IS MORE OF LIKE A GYM, A POOL.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S ROOM TO DO SOMETHING HERE.
THERE'S ALSO A CHILD DAYCARE CENTER WITH A PLAYGROUND.
AND IS THAT PLAYGROUND ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR JUST NO.
WELL THAT'S, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.
I COULD DE THE OTHER ONE LOOKING AT THE HEART TRAIL, HOW TO THE HEART TRAIL.
THAT WAS A MAJOR PASSIVE RECREATION COMPONENT OF, OF THE PRIOR THE ACTIVE, THE GOLF AND THEN ALSO TRAIL.
SO WE HAVE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP ITEMS. WHERE IS THE, WHERE IS THE HEART TRAIL ON THAT? CAN IT EVEN BE SEEN ON THAT? NO.
DAVE, WHERE WOULD YOU, IF YOU HAD TO POINT TO WHERE IT WOULD BE CLOSEST POINT, WHERE WOULD IT BE? THE, IT GOES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE OVERALL THAT WAS APPROVED 30, 30 PLUS AGO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YEAH, WE HAVE THE MAP OUT THAT SHOWS WHERE THE
WE'LL WHERE IS AND AND WE, WE COULD CERTAINLY PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY THAT.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT QUITE A FEW THINGS GOING ON RIGHT NOW THAT ARE NEAR THAT.
SO IT'LL BE HELPFUL TO SEE AN OVERALL MAP OF THE WHOLE TRAIL.
19 WHAT I THINK I'M GONNA HAVE THEM DO, BECAUSE THERE ARE NUMEROUS PROJECTS, IT'S A BIG SITE WITH A LENGTHY HISTORY.
I'M GONNA SEE IF I CAN HAVE CARINA WOODMORE ALSO PLUGGED THIS PROJECT, THE PEOPLE AND PROJECT INTO THE OVERALL P.
A LOT OF THIS IS SCREENED BY THE GOLF COURSE, WHATEVER DIRECTLY IMPACT A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS.
I DO THINK I, AGAIN, UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING REALLY SUBSTANTIVE AND GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS, I THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE WE COULD AT LEAST CONSIDER SCHEDULING A HEARING KNOWING AGAIN THAT LET'S REVIEW OF THE FULL ENGINEER PLANS.
AND WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THE, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE, BUT NONE OF THEM REQUIRE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THE LAYOUT, WHICH OF COURSE WE'RE STUCK WITH ANYWAY.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
GIVEN THAT IT'S A PD THAT THE BOARD APPROVED, WE COULD, WE COULD DO A PUBLIC HEARING JULY 20TH WITH THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING
[00:55:01]
ON DATE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR JULY 20TH.DO YOU HAVE A, THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OR THIS, IS THERE A COPY OF THE MINISTER TO MORE MEETING OR OF THE COMMENTS OR? I DON'T IF YOU DID A COMMENT RESPONSE FROM ANY COMMENTS.
OH NO, I MEAN WE TALKED, I TALKED, A COUPLE NEIGHBORS CALLED ME AND I SPOKE TO 'EM AND ONCE WE EXPLAINED WHAT IT WAS, THEY DIDN'T, THERE WERE NO, THERE WERE NO FORMAL, NO COMMENTS, NO LETTERS OR, OR COMMENTS.
ALRIGHT, WE WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THE ITEMS THAT YOU, WE DISCUSSED IN ADVANCE THAT MEETING.
ALRIGHT, SO IT'S UH, ALREADY SEVEN O'CLOCK SO WE CAN GO RIGHT INTO THE REGULAR MEETING.
UH, WELCOME TO THE JUNE 15TH MEETING AT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD OVER PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY JUSTICE FOR STARTED IT.
I DIDN'T HEAR YOU SO I TRYING TO SLOW DOWN THE YOU JUST NEED TO PIECE OF COLOR GUARD OF THE HE USUALLY DOES IT BUT IT WAS, I WAITED LIKE AT LEAST HALF A SECOND.
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2000 SQUARE FOOT NEW BUILDING IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND A ROOF EXTENSION, RECOVERED PARKING AT 2 3 3 0 LAKEVIEW ROAD.
CAN WE HEAR ALL RIGHT, SO THE, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES.
SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING CAN JUST GIVE A VERY SHORT BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING TO DO.
YEAH, BASICALLY LOOKING TO UH, AS YOU MENTIONED IN THE SUMMARY, EXTEND PART OF THE CURRENT BUILDING AS WELL AS PUT UP A 2000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITIONAL BUILDING.
UH, MAINLY TO SUPPORT GROWTH THAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST, UH, COUPLE YEARS IN BUSINESS.
AS WELL AS TO ADD CAPABILITIES TO OUR, UM, TO OUR BUILDING.
UH, MAINLY WE'RE GONNA ADD SPACE WAREHOUSE SPACE IN INSIDE FOR STORAGE AS WELL AS THE CAPABILITY TO PAINT OUR OWN, UH, GOLF CARTS.
SO WE'RE GONNA GET A FULLY APPROVED, UH, PAINT BOOTH IN THERE THAT I HAVE, YOU KNOW, DOCUMENTATION FROM
DO WE HAVE THAT? YES, I FORWARDED SO FROM CLARK.
FORWARDED ALL OF THAT ON SO THE, BEFORE THE PLANNING MEETING, SO.
UM, JUST IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT ALL THE DOCUMENTATION ON THAT.
SO IT'S BASICALLY A SUMMARY, JUST EXPANSION TO SUPPORT GROWTH AND FURTHER CAPABILITIES OF OUR, OF OUR BUSINESS.
I DO HAVE SARAH PUT TOGETHER RESOLUTIONS AT YOUR REQUEST.
THE THREE RESOLUTION SINKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A SITE PLAN.
I DID JOB TO SARAH, I ADDED, SHE KNEW ABOUT IT.
SHE REFERRED TO THE ONE SECTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT LAW.
BUT I PUT, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE, THE SEVEN CRITERIA, SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR THIS SAME MEET.
I MEAN I CAN QUICKLY, THE CRITERIA ARE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS GONNA DO INSPECTIONS.
THAT'S JUST PART OF THE SPECIALTY NEWS PERMIT.
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN OUR DISTRICT FOUNDRY.
WE MEASURED IT EVEN WITH THE ONE PROPERTY AROUND THE CORNER.
UH, WE MEASURE THEY'RE WITHIN AND THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A SCHOOL CHURCH PLAYGROUND OR PARK.
THERE IS A CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET, UH, BUT THE ACTUAL USE IS MORE THAN 300 FEET FROM THAT CHURCH.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S UH, THE REST OF 'EM ARE ABOUT GASOLINE PUMPS, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE GASOLINE PUMPS.
UH, THREE OF THEM, FOUR OF THEM ARE ABOUT GASOLINE PUMPS.
THEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, IF ANY LOT A BUTS IN OUR DISTRICT ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AT LEAST 20 FEET OF LANDSCAPING SCREENING.
AGAIN WE DON'T BUT A, OUR DISTRICT BOUNDARY.
AND THEN LAST ONE IS ALL PORTION OF THE LOTS ENCLOSED THE RESERVOIR SPACE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU PARK VEHICLES, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF A AUTOMOTIVE USE AREA, WHICH MEANS IT'S LANDSCAPED AND SCREEN AT AUTOMOTIVE ABUSE AREA.
BUT YOU'RE NOT PARKING LOTS OF VEHICLES.
WE DEFINE AN AUTO AUTOMOTIVE USE AREA OF PARKING MORE THAN, I CAN'T REMEMBER WITH 10 VEHICLES OR FIVE VEHICLES OR WHATEVER.
SO ANYWAY, THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE.
[01:00:01]
DON'T UP THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BUT THEY STILL MEET THAT 30 FEET REQUIREMENT.SO THIS WILL HELP YOU WITH WHAT WORKING THROUGH, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO, WHEN YOU ISSUE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE CRITERIA ON THE RECORD THAT THEY MET THE CRITERIA.
THE OTHER CRITERIA IS A GENERAL CRITERIA THAT ARE FOR ALL SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
AND THOSE ARE, THE PROJECT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH PURPOSE OF INTENT OF THE LAW.
UH, THE PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A HAZARD TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.
THE PROJECT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE PROJECT WILL NOT OTHERWISE BE JUDGEMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC AND BEING SOME WELFARE.
SO THAT'LL HELP YOU IN YOUR DISCUSSION THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS QUITE SPECIFIC ON THOSE CRITERIA FOR ISSUING SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I AM MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT ITEM TWO, WHEN IT'S REFERRING TO A DISTRICT BOUNDARY OR A PERSONAL BOUNDARY, IT SAYS POUND BOUNDARY.
SO WE CAN PRESUME THAT WHEN IT SAYS 300 FEET OF ANY SCHOOL, CHURCH, PLAYGROUND OR PARK THAT RIGHT, THAT MEANS THE CHURCH BUILDING NOT THE PARKING LOT.
THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DISTANCE AWAY.
SO THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING, RIGHT? YEP.
YEAH, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WHEN I WENT TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE WALL.
HOW FAR ARE THEY FROM THE CHURCH WAS, UH, THE CHURCHES ACROSS THE STREET.
BUT THE CHURCH LUCKILY SET BACK FROM THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT THERE.
BUT HOW MANY FEET'S THAT? UH, IT'S A HUGE PARK FOOTBALL FIELD.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A HUGE PARKING LOT.
I MEASURED, I THINK IT WAS 300 PLUS FEET BETWEEN WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE THE, THE THE, REMEMBER THE ONLY THING THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON THIS SITE IS THE, IS THE PAINTING THE EQUIPMENT FOR THE PAINTING OF VEHICLES.
SO YEAH, I MEASURED THAT ARE PAINTING ANYTHING BESIDES THEY'RE, WE, WE'LL DO CARS.
THAT'S WHY THEY NEED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE A FULL AUTO BODY COLLISION.
IT'S GONNA BE MINOR FENDER BENDER TYPE WORK.
BASICALLY WE'RE GONNA TAKE ON TO HELP PAY FOR THE COST OF THE PAINT ROOF, WHICH IS QUITE EXPENSIVE.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEY FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR.
THEY'RE DOING AS A SIDE BUSINESS DOING MINOR.
BUT I UNDERSTAND A PAINT SPRAY GROUP IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO MEET ALL THE STANDARDS AND WHATEVER.
THAT'S WHY THE ISSUES OF, YOU KNOW, YEARS AGO WHEN PEOPLE PUT IN THE PAINTING OF VEHICLES, ALL YOU COULD DO IS SMELL, SMELL PAINT FOR MILES.
WELL IF YOU HAVE A PAINT SPA ROOF THAT MEETS DEC STANDARDS, IT HAS ALL THE FILTERS AND WHATEVER TO KEEP THOSE SMELLS DOWN.
WE DO HAVE MINE, WERE APPROVED OF PAINT SPA ROOF AT THAT FACILITY ON CAMP ROAD THERE.
REMEMBER WE HAD THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNED AND THAT'S WHERE, AND WE MADE SURE THAT THEY HAD WHAT'S THAT? NOBODY WAS ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME, SO NEITHER DOUG, DOUG MAY HAVE BEEN, BUT ANYWAY, UM, WE'VE HAD THESE IN THE PAST BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING CARS, IF THEY DIDN'T DO THE CARS WOULDN'T BE DOING SPECIAL FOR, BUT IT'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR.
SO I WENT OUT RANDOM PERSON WALKING AND YOU'RE PARKING LOT AND LEFT IN YOUR WALK.
SO RELATIVE TO WHERE WHEN YOU WALK IN, YOU WALK IN THE PROPERTY, YOU PARK IN THE PARKING LOT, I WALKED OVER, THERE'S LIKE AN AREA THAT HAS LIKE DOWN TREES AND YEP.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS WHERE RIGHT.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WAS, IS THERE A REQUIREMENT ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS IN THIS AREA ON THE ROAD? DO YOU REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.
AND YOU WERE GONNA LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT ON SPACING.
THERE'S A STANDARD IN YOUR SITE PLAN REGULATIONS.
THEY TALK ABOUT THE SPEED OF THE ROAD.
I'LL PULL IT OUT HERE SHORTLY AND NEEDED IT TO YOU ABOUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS.
WE DIDN'T GET A COMMENT THAT IS WHICH ROOMS? THAT ROAD THERE, WHO'S THE SIDE
THAT'S A TOWN THAT'S A TOWN ROAD.
SO THE TOWN HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT HAS TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR A CURB CUT ON THERE.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT ARGUED THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT A MAJOR GENERATOR OF TRAFFIC.
SO THE STATE STATE SHOULD NOT BE USUALLY ONE OF THE SPACE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THOSE CONFLICT WITH ATTORNEY MOVEMENTS.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE'RE ADDING THAT ADDITIONAL LOT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WORK AROUND A SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT'S IN THERE.
SO IT THAT, THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT INTENDED FOR ANY PUBLIC USE OTHER THAN UM, YOU KNOW, US DRIVING IN AND OUT PARKING EMPLOYEE CARS THERE, ALL OF THE BUSINESS IS HANDLED RIGHT THROUGH OUR FRONT LOT IN THAT BUILDING.
SO SO TO YOUR POINT IT'S NOT CORRECT.
IF YOU TALK TO THE COUNTY, YOU'RE PUTTING A NEW CURB CUT OUTTA COUNTY ROAD, HOPEFULLY THEY WILL GIVE YOU THAT CURB CUT ROAD.
IT'S IF THEY, IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, THEN THAT DOESN'T, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND CHANGE IT.
THEY HAVE TO AMEND THE PLAN AND REMEMBER THE COUNTIES ONLY THE FACT THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE ANOTHER COUNTY, COUNTY TO MINIMIZE THEIR CURB.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY YOUR ENGINEER, SO, SO WENT TO THE STATE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT YOU COULD GET THAT CURB CUT'S NOT THERE ROAD.
COUNTY ROAD IS A COUNTY CURB TRUCK.
[01:05:01]
SO WE ADD THAT AS A CONDITION SOMEWHERE ON HERE THAT THE, THAT PRIOR TO INITIATING CONSTRUCTION LAB TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE DRIVEWAY, YOU COULD ADD THAT CONDITION UNDER SITE PLAN.THAT'S A SITE PLAN COULD IT'S WHETHER WE ADD IT OR NOT, IT'S A CONDITION.
I WOULD JUST PREFER TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.
SO EITHER WAY WE HAVE TO GET THE PERMIT TO DO THAT.
THEY JUST RATHER HAVE BETTER THAT YOU GET THAT BUILDING UP AND THEN CONNECT IT.
BUT YEAH,
I MEAN, APPROVAL IS ALWAYS, IF YOU DON'T GET THAT COUNTY CURB CUT PERMIT, YOU'LL NOT GET A BUILDING PERMIT.
THEY, THEY HAVE, THEY LIKE TO MINIMIZE CURB CUT.
ALRIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, I SAW THE MEMO FROM THE CAB.
THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
I I HAD HEARD MORE DETAILS FROM MARK.
HE RA I DON'T THINK IT'S APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE OR RELEVANT TO DECISION, BUT YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT YOUR DOWNSPOUTS NOT BEING PROPERLY CONNECTED.
SO YOU MAY THEY'LL BE I HAVE THAT.
AND BECAUSE AS FAR AS ENGINEERING IS CONCERNED, THE FIRST PROJECT IS NOT COMPLET BECAUSE THE DOWNSPOUTS WERE NOT COMPLETED.
SO I WON'T GIVE FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL WITHOUT FINISHING THE, THE PRIOR PROJECT.
AND TAMMY, THAT'S YOUR UM, COMMENT NUMBER ONE YES.
IN YOUR ENGINEERING LETTER, RIGHT? YES.
SO WHEN, WHEN WE WENT TO DO THAT THIS SPRING, OUR CONTRACTOR, WE WERE ALSO GETTING A NEW BUILDING QUOTED.
SO HE SAID WHY DON'T YOU WRAP THAT ALL TOGETHER 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA HAVE HIS EQUIPMENT THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S NOT COMPLETE YET.
IF WE HAVE TO DO THAT TO GET THAT APPROVED, THEN I'LL HAVE HIM BRING IT IN, DO IT AND THEN YOU, YOU KNOW, SO WHATEVER IT IS, IT IS, THE ISSUE IS WE DON'T LIKE TO APPROVE A SECOND PROJECT ON THE SAME CYCLE WHEN THE FIRST PROJECT IS TECHNICALLY
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S A DRAINAGE ITEM, YOU KNOW, IT IT, IF WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW ADDITION YEP.
IS NOT CAUSING A DRAINAGE PROBLEM BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE GONNA ADD ALL THIS ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACE MM-HMM
THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE FOR THAT TOO.
SO WE JUST, WE DON'T WANT COM COM COMPOUNDED ISSUES.
SO CAN IT, CAN IT BE A, A CONDITION FOR THE NEW BUILDING TO WELL WORK IT OUT WITH ENGINEERING? YEAH, I THINK IT HAS TO.
I I, SO THE CAB SENT ME PICTURES OF SOME DRAINAGE STUFF.
I FORWARDED THOSE PICTURES TO YOU CAMMY JUST NOW.
SO MARK SENT ME THE PICTURES AND YOU GOT, SO I'M FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THE CAB WE, AND THEN THEIR SECOND COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE PAINT FUM EXHAUST FUMES.
UM, THE GOLF CARTS ONLY, BUT THAT'S, WE, WE ADDRESSED THAT.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO THERE, THERE WILL BE CARS, BUT UH, THERE WON'T BE CAR SALES SPECIAL USE.
THEY WOULD NEED A DIFFERENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THEY'D WANNA AND IT'S NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE CERTAIN ZONE THAT CORRECT.
BUT EVEN IF IT WAS, THEY'D NEED A DIFFERENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH THEY'RE NOT GAY.
NOT THAT THEY'RE PROPOSED TO DO IT, BUT THAT COULD BE A INTERESTING CONDITION, SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE, NOT GONNA HAVE 10 CARDS SITTING OUTSIDE WAITING, WHATEVER LIMIT SO THAT ALL THE CARS THAT THEY SAID IN THE FIRST, THE INSIDE BUILDING IS NOT GONNA TURN INTO A, YOU KNOW, WHOLE BUNCH OF JUNK CARS WAITING TO GET THEIR PAYMENT.
SO THAT'S INTRIGUING BECAUSE IT UM, IT KIND OF ADDRESSES A CONCERN GIVEN THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE ISSUING THIS PERMIT BASED ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING THIS CAPABILITY, BUT THE PERMIT IS BROADER THAN, THAN WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE I THINK AN APPEALING CONDITION.
IT WOULD BE REASONABLE CONDITION, SAY ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS THAT YOU'RE GONNA STORE VEHICLES OUTSIDE AND BE SCREENED TO BUFFER.
THEY HAVE SAID THEY'RE NOT STORING OKAY.
THERE WAS A TYPICAL USE, I MEAN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY TO HAVE CARS ALL STACKED OUTSIDE AND WE NEED TO BE PREPARED.
THEY'RE DOING THIS ON THE KIND OF AS A, OUR MAIN BUSINESS IS STORAGE, WHICH YOU WOULD'VE NO OBJECTION THEN TO THAT CONDITION BECAUSE IT JUST DESCRIBES WHAT ALREADY YEAH, IT JUST, YEAH, IT WOULD JUST BE, SO THE CONDITION IS STORAGE OUTSIDE.
THAT'S, THAT'S GIVEN WHAT YOU HAD SAID AND WHAT YOU HAVE, UM, SUBMITTED.
[01:10:01]
AIR.IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE PER THE CAB'S COMMENT.
UM, BUT THERE'S ANY PAIN EXHAUST FUMES BECAUSE THESE ARE REGULATED BY THE DEC, WHICH THEN GETS US BACK TO THE CRITERIA OF PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A HAZARD TO HEALTH SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PAINT FUMES SHOULD BE ALL CONTAINED AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY NOXIOUS.
IT'S OUR, IT'S PRETTY STRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE ROOF, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S ALL ON THE RECORD SO YEAH.
WHEN YOU SAY MINOR BODY WORK, WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE CONDITION THAT SOMETIMES IT'S REPAIRED
D YEAH, I MEAN, SCRATCH DENT FILLER, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET A, UM, A MACHINE TO STRAIGHTEN FRAMES AND, YOU KNOW, RIP A APART, APART MAJOR.
LIKE IF THERE'S A FENDER VENDOR ON A QUARTER PANEL THAT NEEDS TO BE RE YOU KNOW, REPAIRED OR TAKE THAT OFF, PUT IT ON OR PAINT IT, YOU KNOW, UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE SO, SO IF I, IF THE CONDITION WAS NO VEHICLE SERVICE OR REPAIRS, UH, THAT, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME REPAIRS, BUT I WOULD JUST, I WOULD SAY SUPERFICIAL REPAIRS ONLY.
NO VEHICLES, NO VEHICLE SERVICES BEYOND, BEYOND SUPERFICIAL REPAIRS.
AND WHEN I SAY OKAY, I MEAN, DOES THAT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE WHAT YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT A FULL COLLISION.
WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FITS INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
I KNOW WE, I KNOW I DIDN'T MISS IT.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'M SORRY? OH, HEARING, ARE YOU GONNA NEED TO PUT IN A CULVERT OVER THE DITCH OF, AS PART OF THE DRIVEWAY? AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAM USE AS PART OF A WHOLE ENGINEERING CLASS? IT'S A BIG DITCH THAT RUNS ALONG THE ROAD THERE.
YOU'D HAVE TO PUT A CULVERT DOWN THE DRIVEWAY ATE YOU WOULD REVIEW THAT AS PART YOUR FINAL ENGINEER? YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT MY COMMENTS, ANY COMMENT TOO IS, IS SO CULVERT SIZING FALLS UNDER THAT.
THEY EITHER HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THE GRADING WORKS WITHOUT THAT.
OR THEY HAVE, I PROBABLY SENT IT THE DAY AFTER THE LAST
I KNOW, I JUST, I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN YOU'RE UP THERE.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME, SO WHEN ALL THE PEOPLE START RAISING THEIR HANDS, I CAN'T SEE THEM.
ALL, UH, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 2 3 3 0 LAKEVIEW ROAD, PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 15TH, 2022 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL.
AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ANYONE HERE THAT HAS ANY COMMENTS ON GOLF CARTS? UNLIMITED.
AND THE SECOND TIME, ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED? YES.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RECORD PLEASE.
UH, KIM LANSKY 6 5 5 PHELPS ROAD.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT AS THIS IS GOING FROM BEING A GOLF CART PLACE, NOW IT'S TRANSITIONED TO MORE AUTOMOTIVE AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S JUST A SMALL LEVEL THAT MY CONCERN IS THAT IT WILL TRANSITION OVER TIME INTO SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE I LIVE THROUGH THE WOODS BEHIND THIS.
[01:15:01]
RIGHT.SO I, THAT THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT THAT IT ISN'T GONNA TRANSITION INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
WELL, IT'S STILL PRIMARILY GONNA BE A GOLF CART THING AND MOST OF THE PAINTINGS GONNA BE, WELL, I KNOW MOST TOO.
AND THAT'S THE, LIKE I SAID, THE BEAUTY OF A SPECIAL NEWS PROGRAM, WE CAN BE VERY SPECIFIC ON THE TYPE OF USE THAT'S ALLOWED.
SO WE CAN'T EXPAND THE USE WITHOUT COMING BACK.
NOT THAT THEY COULD SELL THE FUTURE, SOMEONE COULD COME BACK, BUT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME APPROVAL PROCESS.
WE'RE VERY SPECIFIC ON WHAT WE'RE GONNA ALLOW.
FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME, ANY COMMENTS ON GOLF CARTS? UNLIMITED BEING NO MORE COMMENT.
THE ONLY COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK PAGE DOES NOT APPEAR RELEVANT IS TO THIS PROJECT.
IT WAS FROM LIKE 55 MINUTES AGO.
UM, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, WE TALKED ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL CONDITIONS TO ADD TO THOSE RESOLUTIONS.
ANY OBJECTIONS WITH GOING INTO THE RESOLUTIONS? ALRIGHT, ONE AT A TIME HERE.
UH, NUMBER ONE, SEEKER IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW.
THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE GOLF CART'S UNLIMITED PROJECT, WHICH INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH A 15 BY 26 FOOT PAINT BOOTH IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND A ROOF EXTENSION FOR A COVERED PARKING AT 2 3 3 0 LAKEVIEW ROAD AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 15TH, 2022.
BASED ON THIS REVIEW, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUE.
SO IT'S A MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
BILL, I WOULD LIKE TO, WE ON THE RECORD THAT IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION, BUT THE TOWN, THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD ERROR ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE AND DID AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
IT COULD BE CONSIDERED OR TYPE TWO ACTION, RIGHT.
WHEREAS, AND THIS ONE WE'VE MADE SOME CHANGES, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE YOUR CHANGES ARE IN THERE.
UH, WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT BY 26 FOOT PAINT BOOTH TO BE LOCATED IN A NEW 2000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 2000 AT 2 3 3 0 LAKEVIEW ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON JUNE 15TH, 2022 AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD IN REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT HAS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 8 0 DASH THREE 12 AND 2 8 0 DASH 3 24, THAT ONE THE PROJECT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF SECTION TWO EIGHT DASH THREE 12 SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
THE PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A HAZARD TO HEALTH, SAFETY, OR GENERAL WELFARE.
THE PROJECT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOR WILL IT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ITS RESIDENCE.
THE PROJECT WILL NOT OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE AND ONE, THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR SLASH CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHALL MAKE PERIODIC INSPECTIONS OF EACH OPERATING FACILITY TO ENSURE THE PROPER STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE OF ALL STRUCTURES AND ADEQUATE CLEANUP OF LITTER.
TWO, NO PART OF ANY BUILDING USED AS A FILLING STATION, GASOLINE SERVICE STATION OR TOWING RECOVERY IMPOUND AREA AND NO FILLING PUMP LIFT OR OTHER SERVICE APPLIANCE SHALL BE ERECTED WITHIN 200 FEET OF ANY R DISTRICT BOUNDARY OR WITH ANY 300 FEET OF ANY SCHOOL, CHURCH PLAYGROUND PARK OR PARK LOCATED IN OUR DISTRICT.
THREE, NO GASOLINE OR OIL PUMP OR OILING OR GREASING MECHANISM.
AND NO OTHER SERVICE APPLIANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FILLING STATION, GASOLINE SERVICE STATION OR TOWING AND RECOVERY IMPOUND AREA WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY STREAMLINE.
FOUR, TWO RESERVOIR SPACES FOR EACH GASOLINE PUMP SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE LOT FOR WAITING.
[01:20:01]
SUCH AS RES, SUCH RESERVOIR SPACE SHALL NOT INCLUDE SPACE AT THE PUMP OR REQUIRED PARKING SPACE.STORAGE OF GASOLINE SHALL BE IN UNDERGROUND TANKS APPROVED BY THE AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
THERE SHALL BE NO USE OF THE LOT EXCEPT FOR LANDSCAPING OR SCREENING WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY R DISTRICT BOUNDARY.
ALL PORTIONS OF THE LOT NOT ENCLOSED IN A BUILDING AND USED FOR, UH, RESERVOIR SPACE OR FOR THE STORAGE, PARKING, OR SERVICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 8 0 2 6 6 OF THE TOWN CODE.
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
AND THEREFORE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS HEREBY ISSUED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE, THE PAINT BOOTH FILTRATION WILL MEET ALL NEW YORK STATE REQUIREMENTS.
TWO, NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES.
THREE, NO VEHICLE SERVICE BEYOND SUPERFICIAL COSMETIC REPAIRS.
THERE WILL BE NO FILLING STATION GASOLINE SERVICE STATION OR TOWING AND RECOVERY IMPOUND AREA, AND NO FILLING PUMP LIFT OR OTHER SERVICE APPLIANCES SHALL BE ERECTED ON THE SITE.
THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OF GASOLINE ON THE SITE.
THREE SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE GOLF CART'S UNLIMITED PROJECT MATERIALS.
AND HAVING COMPLETED THE SECRET PROCESS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY APPROVES THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS.
APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JUNE 10TH, 2022 TO THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED AS THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS IN THIS AREA.
THREE LANDSCAPING PLANS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THE COUNTY MUST PERMIT THE CURVE CUT AS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS HENDERSON DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 9,150 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A 2,250 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE SHOP WITH A DRIVE THROUGH TO BE LOCATED AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AT.
WE'RE NOT GONNA HAND THE DRAWINGS OUT, IT'S GONNA HAVE THOSE DISPLAYED.
JAMES RIO DEVELOPMENT NEW YORK.
WE WERE HERE THE LAST FEW MEETINGS AS WE ADDRESSED ALL THE COMMENTS.
WE SOUND SUPERVISOR, WE REGARDING THE, UM, GATEWAY CHANGES THAT COMING DOWN AND AGREED TO WORK WITH THEM WHEN THEY WERE SETTLED ON.
AND I THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AT THIS POINT.
DO WE HAVE RESOLUTIONS? I HAVE RIGHT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? YES.
THE FORMER FRIENDLIES, THE FORMER FRIENDLIES DOWN BEFORE YOU KNOW IT.
UH, APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT, 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE TOWN HAMBURG.
ONE SEEKER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW.
THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHICH INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 9,150 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A 2,250 SQUARE FOOT CAUCUS SHOP WITH DRIVE-THROUGH AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 1ST, 2022.
BASED ON THIS REVIEW, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL.
AND IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESOLVE IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
[01:25:01]
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HERE BY ISSUE.SO BEFORE I READ THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ONE, THE THREE CONDITIONS THAT WERE THERE WERE THE ENGINEERING COMMENT LETTER, THE WAIVING OF SIDEWALKS AS THERE'S ALREADY SIDEWALKS THERE AND THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.
DO WE NEED TO ADD A NOTE ABOUT DARK SKY COMPLIANT LIGHTING? WELL, IT'S IN THE CODE, SO I DON'T THINK WE, EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE IT, WHETHER IT'S OR NOT.
EVERYTHING I QUESTION TODAY IT'S IN KIM'S ON THE, WE WEREN'T GONNA MAKE A CONDITION, BUT ON THE RECORD, BENDERSON HAS, HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH THE TOWN WHEN THEY DID THEIR PICKUP.
UM, MOTION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MATERIALS AND HAVING COMPLETED THE SECRET PROCESS, THE HAMMER PLANNING BOARD HEREBY APPROVES THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JUNE 10TH, 2022.
THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED AS SIDEWALKS ALREADY EXIST IN THE AREA.
THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO MOTION BY THIS IS MCCORMICK.
DID NOTICE THE FRIEND WAS COMING DOWN? WAS IT? I DID NOT NOTICE.
COME DOWN BEFORE YOU
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A, EXCUSE ME, COFFEE SHOP TO BE LOCATED AT 3 6 7 0 MCKINLEY PARKWAY.
DID WE FIGURE OUT IF MCKINLEY IS A STATE OR COUNTY ROAD? IT'S COUNTY.
IS THIS PARK STATE OR IS THIS PARK COUNTY? THIS PART IS A COUNTY PARK STATE.
WHAT ABOUT THIS PART? WHAT ABOUT THIS PART? I THOUGHT THIS PART WAS STATE AND THEN COUNTY FURTHER DOWN.
I THINK ONCE YOU GET WELL I JUST, I MEAN THE REASON I I'M BRINGING IT UP IS TO MEET, WE GOT ANOTHER LETTER FROM MR. UH, STAT WHO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.
AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS A LOT.
I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO, IF IT'S A COUNTY ROAD, WE SHOULD UH, PUT TOGETHER SOME TYPE OF MEMO, SEE IF WE CAN GET THE TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE IT, TO SEND TO OUR COUNTY LEGISLATOR AND SAY, HEY, WE'D REALLY LIKE SOME SIDEWALKS IN THIS AREA.
CAN WE GET ON IT? 'CAUSE JUST PUTTING SIDEWALKS ON THIS ONE SMALL PORTION ISN'T GONNA SOLVE THE CONCERNS THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT ACROSS MILES OR PATH.
IT'S ABOUT THE WALKABILITY IN THAT AREA.
SO, AND IT, IT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE TIME 'CAUSE THE COUNTY AND THE TOWN ARE WORKING TOGETHER WHERE THE COUNTY HAS NOW FINANCED A SIDEWALK PROJECT.
I WON'T GET INTO THE SPECIFICS, BUT, UH, DOWN BY THE, UH, THE FAIRGROUND THEN THE TOWN IS GONNA IMPLEMENT THAT, THAT FOR THEM.
SO, UH, THE COUNTY HAS MONEY AND THEY KNOW THAT WALKABILITY IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING.
UH, SO IT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE TIME.
IN THE MEANTIME,
LIKE THEY DO WHAT WAS IN UA RIGHT.
THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO, UH, PARTICIPATE IN WHEN THE SIDEWALKS ARE.
WE JUST DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE RECORD TO PUT THEM IN NOW BECAUSE THEY COULD BE SIDEWALKS DUMPING PEOPLE OUT IN A POOR LOCATION ALONG, ALONG MCKINLEY.
SO THEY'VE AGREED THE FUTURE WHEN WE HAVE THE PLAN IN PLACE AND WITH THIS WORK, HOPEFULLY WITH THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE, WHERE WE CAN BEGIN TO TIE INTO THE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE NORTH AT MILES TRIP OF MCKINLEY.
THERE ARE SIDEWALKS BRING 'EM DOWN PROBABLY THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD IS BIG DITCH AND, AND AND BURN AREA, UH, UP PUTTING UP NEXT TO THE BALL.
SO THE SIDEWALKS PROBABLY GO ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOF.
SO I DIDN'T, AS YOU CAN SEE ON MY, I JUST PUT SIDEWALKS.
RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO DECIDE.
DID YOU MAKE ITS WAY TO YOU ABOUT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE FUTURE CONDITION? YEAH, SO I ACTUALLY TALKED TO KAITLYN ABOUT THIS OVER THE WEEKEND AND I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT AT ALL BECAUSE THAT FUTURE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO COME HERE.
SO EITHER WAY IT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER.
IS THE ISSUE OF SIDEWALKS AND GIVEN BILL'S RECENT COMMENT ABOUT A POTENTIAL LETTER, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS NOT THE END OF THIS ISSUE, IT'S JUST THE BEGINNING.
SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE
[01:30:01]
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.WELL, EVEN IN A FUTURE PROJECT THOUGH, LIKE, THE PERSON NEXT DOOR BUILDS SIDEWALKS.
IT, MY MY QUESTION IS JUST LIKE I'M, I'M DOWN FOR THE CONDITION.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF A FUTURE ACTION.
'CAUSE THEY'RE LIKE SOMETIMES GREAT, WE COULD INCLUDE SOMETHING IF YOU WERE OPEN TO THIS ABOUT IF THERE WERE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD INVOLVE
OR DID WE GET WRITTEN, DID YOU SEND WRITTEN LANGUAGE WITH THE CONDITION? I DID NOT SEND WRITTEN LANGUAGE.
UM, DANIEL TASK IS THE MANAGER TWO OR THREE TIMES A TIME.
IF THEY'RE GONNA DO APPROVAL TONIGHT PROVEN ON A CONDITION.
I THINK THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT, AGAIN, I CAN'T GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, BUT HAVE SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT WITH, WITH BEON OF SOME LEVEL JUST TO SAY THEY'RE COMMITTED TO, TO THE SIDEWALK PROJECT AND ALLOWING A SIDEWALK AND PARTICIPATING.
SO NOW PARTICIPATING, WE DON'T WANT IT LATER TO SAY, HEY, NO, WE DON'T WANT A SIDEWALK THERE.
WELL, I MEAN IN GENERAL I THINK IT'S A GOOD, UM, SOLUTION BECAUSE I KNOW JEFF, YOU'RE ALWAYS THINKING LIKE, BUT IF WE BUILD IT NOW, WE'LL BUILD MORE LATER.
BUT JUST THIS PARCEL, IT STILL FEELS A LITTLE TOO DANGEROUS FOR ME.
'CAUSE YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO A STREET CROSSING AT THE WEGMAN'S PARKING LOT AND A LIKE AUTO CROSSING AT THE OTHER ENTRANCE.
SO NOT ONLY IS THERE NOWHERE TO GO, BUT YOU'RE ENDING IN LIKE TWO VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS AND ONE OF ACROSS MCKINLEY NO CROSSWALK.
AND ALSO WHEN SIDEWALKS, SIDEWALKS, YOU GO IN, WE'LL HAVE SIDEWALKS UP HERE AND SIDEWALKS.
THAT'S WHY I OFFERED THE CONDITION BECAUSE RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE'S THERE'S A BIG ENOUGH RIGHT WAY THE SIDEWALKS GO IN, YOU STILL PUT THE CONDITION DOWN.
WE GOTTA BRING OUR SIDEWALK DOWN AND MEET.
AND WELL WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
I MEAN WE, WE'LL TAKE THE CONDITION.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONDITION AND MY OPINION IS THAT IF WE DIDN'T ABIDE BY THE CONDITION, WE VIOLATION OF OUR APPROVAL.
BECAUSE YOU A RULE ON THE CONDITION THAT IF YOU WRITE US A LETTER SAYING PUT THE SIDEWALKS IN, WE HAVE TO PUT THEM IN.
IF WE DON'T DO THAT, WE'RE VIOLATING OUR SEGMENT.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHY IT'S ENFORCEABLE.
IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER ENVIRONMENT.
MAKE SURE THAT MAKES IT WORK FOR WORD IN THE MINUTES.
SO AS YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, WE GET THE LANDSCAPING NOW AND THE SIDEWALK WAY THE SAFER WITH YOU TELL PEOPLE INTO THIS NOT A GOOD THING.
TELL PEOPLE INTO THE
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING OF PROBLEM, THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW, IF YOU'RE WALKING UP ON MILES AND COMING ACROSS BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SIDEWALKS, YOU HAVE TO WALK THROUGH THE PARKING LOT NOT WALKING OUT
YES, I'M FINE, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
UM, I JUST WANT THE LANGUAGE TO BE ENFORCEABLE.
SO FOR NOW THEY'RE GONNA PUT THE LANDSCAPING IN WITH, IN THE FUTURE ON THE SIDEWALK.
SO IT COULD BE UNFORTUNATELY HERE BEFORE THE SIDEWALK VIOLATION.
BUT HE ALSO SAID THAT YOU DIRECT WE WHO'S SENDING HIM THE LETTER? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHICH, WHICH ENTITY IS HE WORKING WITH? SO IT'S US.
SO WHAT I HAVE IS THE, DO WE CALL IT THE APPLICANT OR THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER? PROBABLY IT'S MORE CONCRETE.
RIGHT? THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL INSTALL SIDEWALKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALTERNATE SITE PLAN.
IF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD REQUESTS THEM IN THE FUTURE PLANNING TOWN OF, I WAS GONNA SAY TOWN OF TAM.
SO, SO THEN THAT COULD BE US OR CODE ENFORCEMENT OR THE TOWN BOARD, ANYBODY.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CONVINCE THE COUNTY TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS AND THEY COULD, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS SO WIDE ON THAT SIDE.
THEY COULD GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO FIVE GUYS.
ADD THE CONDITION JUST SO YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALSO CONNECT TO ANY FUTURE SIDEWALK.
BECAUSE IF WE PUT THEM IN, PRESUME THE VAN, THEY DON'T CONNECT TO THE SIDEWALK.
SO THE ALTERNATE IS THAT WE'LL CONNECT TO SIDEWALK.
THEY'LL ADD A SIDEWALK THAT CONNECT IF THOSE SIDEWALKS ARE INSTALLED AND ADJACENT PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THAT'D BE A DIFFERENT PLAN.
THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT PLAN.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SOLUTION.
I CAN'T HOLD THIS ADJACENT IS NOT WELL DEFINED IN THE LAW.
UM, THIS IS ALL, WOULDN'T THE CONDITION BE AGREE TO CONNECT? I COULD USE ANOTHER LAWYER THERE.
THREE OF THEM AGREE THE SIDEWALK TO ANY SIDEWALK.
[01:35:02]
ADJACENT TO THE, THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWYERS IN THE CIRCLE.WE'LL CONNECT TO ANY SIDEWALK INSTALLED ON, ON THE ROADWAY ALONG KINLEY.
ANY SIDEWALK ALONG THE KINLEY PARALLEL TO THIS SITE? ON THE SIDE? YEAH.
WELL YEAH, BECAUSE HE'S NOT, IF THEY PUT IT ACROSS THE STREET, SAY BUILD A BRIDGE ON THE WEST, WEST SIDE ON OUR SIDE OF THE ROAD.
I KNOW IF IT FITS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SPACE FOR ACTUALLY COVERED BY
WOULD YOU LIKE US TO HAVE THAT SOLAR PANELS ON TOP OF THE CHARGER E-BIKE WHILE YOU THROUGH? UM, ALRIGHT, SO I THINK WE GOT IT.
IS THAT OKAY? ANY OTHER ATTORNEYS LIKE TO READ THIS CONDITION? WELL YOU'RE GONNA READ IT AGAIN, RIGHT? I'LL READ.
SHE'S GONNA READ IT WHEN SHE DOESN'T YOU CAN'T READ IT, THAT'S FINE.
SEE SHE HAS, I MEAN YOU CAN COME SEE MY OTHER CHILDREN, UM, THIS SIDE TO BE LOCATED ALONG THIS SIDE.
OH, THERE'S NO ONE I ANY OTHER, I'M JOKING.
NO, I DO THINK YOU NEED TO SPECIFY WHERE YEAH, THAT'S, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE WORD.
UM, I DON'T LIKE THE UNKNOWN OF THIS.
I ALONG BETWEEN REPEATED BETWEEN THIS PARCEL AND WE CAN LEAVE PARKWAY.
RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S BETWEEN THERE AND WE THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, ARE WE GOOD? CAN I READ THIS ONE? YEAH.
DID WE DO THE SECRET YET? NO, THERE'S NO SECRET.
IS THAT TYPE TWO OH THAT'S RIGHT.
APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT COFFEE SHOP LOCATED AT 36 70 MCKINLEY PARKWAY.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHICH INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, A NEW COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU TO BE LOCATED AT 36 70 MCKINLEY PARKWAY AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 4TH, 2022.
THE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIRED CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE SEEKER LAW AS A TYPE TWO ACTION SECTION SIX, 17.5 C SEVEN, AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE COMPLETION OF THE SECRET PROCESS.
MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JUNE 10TH, 2022.
ANY NEW LIGHTING WILL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL INSTALL SIDEWALKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALTERNATE SITE PLAN IF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG REQUESTS THEM IN THE FUTURE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL INSTALL SIDEWALKS TO CONNECT TO ANY FUTURE SIDEWALKS LOCATED BETWEEN THIS PARCEL AND MCKINLEY PARKWAY.
YEAH, BUT THERE'S, I DID IT IN SEPARATE CONDITIONS.
SEPARATE WORKS FOR ME BUT THEY CAN'T, THEY COULDN'T BOTH BE EXECUTED.
WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO EXECUTE THEM? NO, IT'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR, OR THERE'S SEPARATE COMMISSIONS ANYHOW TO PUT WITH ALL THE REST OF THE TOO THOUGH MORE THERE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS SECTION? OKAY.
OH, OPPOSED? SO LET'S, UH, I OPPOSED.
ALRIGHT, SO MOTION TO CHAIR OFF.
UM, AS FAR AS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE COUNTY OF THE SIDEWALKS, SHOULD WE DO A MEMO OR WOULD THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PREFER IF I JUST CALLED OUR LIAISON KAREN
[01:40:01]
ASKED HER TO DO IT, OR I PLANNING BOARD SHOULD SET THE LETTER? I DON'T THINK THE BOARD CAN'T SEND A LETTER ITSELF.WE SHOULD LET THE TOWN KNOW DOING IT.
SO IF ANYBODY WELL, YEAH, I WOULDN'T DO, I WOULDN'T GO TO THE COUNTY WITHOUT GONNA TOWN BOARD FIRST.
SO WE'D SEND A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD SAYING WE WANTED TO ASK THE COUNTY THIS.
WE SEND A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH OR PROPOSED LETTER TO THE COUNTY ATTACHED.
NOW WHO WANTS TO WRITE THESE LETTERS? I WRITE THAT LETTER.
NEXT ITEM IN THE AGENDA IS ESSEX HOMES OF WESTERN NEW YORK INCORPORATED REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 20 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT ON WHAT'S THE ACREAGE? 13.8.
13.8 ACRES OF VACANT LAND NORTH SIDE OF PLEASANT AVENUE.
MY NEW 14 POINT 12 WAS REMOVED.
SORRY, BEFORE WE KICK THIS OFF, CAN WE ALSO, WHEN WE SEND THAT LETTER AFTER THE FINAL LETTER, GO BACK TO CC THAT RESIDENT WATER.
CHAIRMAN CLARK AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS OF HOPKINS SURGEON MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE TON ESSEX HOMES OF WEST NEWARK.
ALSO WITH ME ONCE AGAIN OUR PHIL MANA PRESIDENT, CEO OF ESSEX HOMES, AS WELL AS KEVIN CURRY.
AS YOU RECALL, WE MOST RECENTLY PRESENTED THIS SUBDIVISION DURING YOUR MEETING ON JUNE 1ST.
UH, THAT'S AS A RESULT OF NUMEROUS MEETINGS.
PREVIOUSLY AT THAT MEETING, WHERE WE LEFT OFF WAS THERE WERE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP ITEMS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND YOU DIRECTED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WENDELL SPECIFICALLY TO PREPARE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FRAUD REVIEW ACT AND ALSO GRANTING PRELIMINARY CO RULE.
I THINK WE PRESENTED VERY EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION THAT PROVIDES VERY STRONG SUPPORT FOR BOTH OF THOSE DECISIONS.
IF WE WANNA GO BACK AND REVIEW ANY OF THAT, I WILL.
OTHERWISE, WHAT I'M GONNA FOCUS ON THIS EVENING IS WHAT'S NEW, THE FOLLOW-UP ITEMS PURSUANT TO THE DISCUSSION TWO WEEKS AGO.
SO THE MAIN TOPIC THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS SOME CLARIFICATION AND SOME ADDITIONAL REQUESTS TO ADD SOME, UM, BENEFITS IN TERMS OF TREE PRESERVATION AND TREE REMOVAL.
UM, WE DID, I BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING AND THAT SUMMARIZED THE LETTER THAT I SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD ON JUNE 9TH.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THAT LANGUAGE THAT WE SUGGESTED, WHICH IS BROKEN DOWN INTO SIX DISTINCT PARAGRAPHS, HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ADDED TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE DISC PRELIMINARY PLAT MAT DATED JUNE 10TH, 2022.
I ALSO PROVIDED SARAH WITH THREE COPIES IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN READ THROUGH EACH OF THOSE SIX STATEMENTS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION OR I CAN ON THE FACT THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALREADY DONE THAT AND SEE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS.
BUT I GLADLY GO THROUGH 'EM IF YOU'D LIKE.
WELL, LET'S READ 'EM FOR THE RECORD.
OKAY, SO LET'S, IT'S THE THREE, IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF THE 44 TREE.
SO NUMBER ONE, AND THIS IS RIGHT FROM PAGE TWO OF MY LETTER PLANT.
44 STREET TREES, TWO TREES PER HOME SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THE TOWN, INCLUDING THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TREE LIST.
THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS REQUIRED.
NUMBER TWO, PLANT 44 ADDITIONAL TREES, TWO TREES PER HOME SITE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TREES SHALL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TREE LIST AND SHALL BE BOTH REQUIRED BY AND REGULATED BY THE APPLICANT FORM AND STATE ACCEPTED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TO BE RECORDED AT THE RE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
KEEP IN MIND WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF THAT IS MR. NOLA CONFIRMED THAT OFTENTIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE BUILD THE HOMES, THEY COME BACK A LITTLE BIT LATER IN TERMS OF PATIOS, DECKS AND SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPING.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS PART OF THAT EFFORT, 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A C OF O2 ADDITIONAL TREES FROM THE TOWNS TREE LIST WILL BE PLANTED.
NUMBER THREE, PRESERVE EXISTING TREES WITHIN 25 FOOT PRESERVATION AREA TO BE PROVIDED ON THE REAR OF THE LOTS.
AS YOU RECALL, WE ORIGINALLY STARTED WAY BACK WHEN IN JANUARY WITH ZERO FEET IN TERMS OF PRESERVATION AREA.
THEN WE WENT TO 20 FEET AND THEN ACTUALLY IN EARLY MAY WE WENT ALL THE WAY TO 25 FEET.
SO ALONG THE REAR OF EACH AND EVERY SINGLE LOT, THERE'S 25 FEET THAT ARROW REMAIN.
DREW, I THINK WHEN YOU AND I HAD A DISCUSSION RECENTLY, YOU JUST ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION, THE REAR YARD DRAINAGE WILL BE ON THE INSIDE OF THAT BOUNDARY AND YES INDEED IT WILL BE.
SO WE'LL STILL COMPLY WITH THAT AS WELL.
NUMBER FOUR, PRESERVE EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE 2.7
[01:45:01]
ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT.AS YOU RECALL, ORIGINALLY THIS WAS A 28 LOT SUBDIVISION.
WE SCALED IT BACK TO 22 LOTS BASED ON, UM, CONSULTATIONS WITH SCOTT LIVINGSTON, THE WETLAND CONSULTANT IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE WETLAND IMPACTS.
SO ALL THE VEGETATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN WORDED THAT WAY AND WE PRESERVED THERE AS WELL.
NUMBER FIVE, PRESERVE A MINIMUM OF 44 SUPPLEMENTAL TREES CALCULATED AS 22 HOME SITES TIMES TWO EQUALS 44 OF TWO AND A HALF INCHES IN CALIBER GREATER ON THE PROJECT SITE.
THESE SUPPLEMENTAL 44 TREES SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE 44 STREET TREES, THE 44 ADDITIONAL TREES ON THE HOME SITES AND THE TREES TO BE PRESERVED WITHIN BOTH THE 25 FOOT FOOT PRESERVATION AREA IN THE REAR OF EACH LOT AS WELL AS THE 2.7 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
AND THEN FINALLY, NUMBER SIX, THE PLANTING AND PRESERVATION OF ALL TREES LISTED ABOVE SHALL BE MONITORED AND REGULATED BY THE HOA.
SO I THINK WE'VE DONE EXACTLY WHAT WAS ASKED IN TERMS OF TREE PRESERVATION AND TREE PLANTING.
AS YOU RECALL, WHEN MR. OLA SPOKE TWO WEEKS AGO, HE EMPHASIZES THAT A HOME BUILDER, VERY REPUTABLE HOME BUILDER, TREES ARE IMPORTANT TO HIM AS WELL.
SO I THINK YOU HAVE HIS COMMITMENT, HE'S GONNA MAKE AN EFFORT TO SELL LOTS THAT ARE TREE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY'RE REALLY WORTH MORE.
SO I THINK WITH THOSE SIX CONDITIONS, UM, EVERYONE'S WELL PROTECTED AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR AS DAY WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE.
THE OTHER TOPIC WAS DISCUSSED.
THERE'S ONE CHANGE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ALL OKAY.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO QUANTIFY SOMEWHERE IN THOSE TYPES OF CONDITIONS THAT THERE ARE TREES THAT ARE AT LEAST TWO AND A HALF INCHES OF CAER SIZE, WHICH IS IN THE RIGHT, WHICH IS THE SIZE THAT'S SPECIFIED.
I BELIEVE IN BOTH THE STREET TREE IT IS IS AND THE TREE MITIGATION.
BUT THAT SHOULD APPLY AS WELL TO THE PRESERVATION.
SO SOMEHOW IF WE COULD PUT THE CALIPER SIZE, IT'S SUGGEST YEAH, LINE TWO.
BUT THAT APPLIES THEN TO THE OTHER TWO AS WELL.
BY THE WAY, THAT, THAT CONDITION WAS THE ONLY ONE I DIDN'T INCLUDE IN THE RESOLUTION YET.
WE WERE TRYING TO UPDATE IT BECAUSE I JUST WANNA CUT THAT CLARIFY WITH YOU AND IT MET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OVER, KEEP THAT IN MIND.
WHEN YOU PASS THIS RESOLUTION, THAT CONDITION IS NOT IN THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING, JUST GONNA CLARIFICATION OF THE SAVING OF TWO TREES OF TWO AND A HALF INCH CALIBER PER LOT, A MINIMUM OF TWO TREES PER LOT.
AND THE REASON WE DID THAT, CAN'T REMEMBER WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE WERE HERE, IS LIKE, YOU DIDN'T WANT US TO SAY, OKAY, WELL HERE'S SOME SAPLINGS.
NUMBER ONE, WE WOULDN'T DO THAT, BUT THE TWO AND A HALF INCH CALIBER IS PULLED FROM THE CODE.
AND I LIKE THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE AGAIN, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS PUSHING BACK.
IT'S, THEY'RE NOT THEIR JOB, THEY'RE GONNA BE OUT THERE DOING THAT.
SO WE'RE HAVE TO COUNT ON THE HOMEOWNERS OR IF YOU WANNA CAVEAT UP THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
SO WHAT WE WOULD DO, I I I TALKED TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
IF WE COULD IDENTIFY THE 44 TREES THAT ARE GONNA BE PRESERVED, MARK THEM WITH A RIBBON OKAY.
SO SHAKING AND SAID NO
IF THAT'S, WE DO IT ONCE BEFORE WE START.
I THOUGHT YOU MEANT YEAH, NO, NO, NO, NO.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS HEAD.
AT SOME 0.0 YOU MEAN AS WE'RE, UH, AS WE'RE DOING THE TREE CLEARANCE? YEAH.
OH, WE'LL TAG WE ALWAYS THE SO, SO I'M SORRY.
SO, SO YOU TAG THE ONES YOU'RE GONNA KEEP, SEND US A LIST, SEND THE CAB LIST, THAT'S FINE.
AND THAT'S HOW WE'LL ENFORCE IT.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? WE DO NOT HAVE A CONDITION IN THERE THAT, AND THAT'S FOR THE 20 FOOT, 25 FOOT AREA AND THE WETLANDS AREA IN THE BACK.
YOU GO OUT AND MARK THOSE CONSERVATION BOARD'S GONNA GO OUT THERE AND CONFIRM THAT THAT IS THE LOCATION MARK THE CLEARING, RIGHT? OH YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
THAT'LL, THAT'S TYPICALLY PART OF THE SW, RIGHT? YEAH.
IT'S ACTUALLY, I MISUNDERSTOOD.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TALKS ABOUT THE CLEARING OF THE TREES EASE.
AND THIS MIGHT BE A, A QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT MAYBE SURE.
UM, WHEN DOES THAT HAPPEN? LIKE, ARE YOU GONNA COME INTO THIS PARCEL? BECAUSE LAST TIME WE TALKED TO YOU, YOU HAD SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE DEPENDENT ON THE HOME AND THE SPACE AND THE SHAPE AND WHAT TREES MAKE THE MOST SENSE THAT AREN'T GONNA BE IN THE WAY.
SO DO YOU GO THROUGH AND LIKE REMOVE ALL THE TREES FIRST, LIKE BILL SUGGESTING THAT YOU CAN TAG THEM? OR IS IT LIKE ONCE YOU HAVE A PLOT YOU DETERMINE THE BEST LAYOUT? WE, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LA WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK WAS WE DO TREE CLEARING MEETINGS WITH THE CUSTOMER ON A
IF THERE'S A SUNROOM IN THE REAR OF THE HOME, WHATEVER'S THE DESIGN, THEN WE DO THE TREE CLEARING MEETING.
BASED ON THAT YOU HAVE TO CLEAR TREES SO MANY FEET FROM THE HOUSE TO PERFORM THE PITCH FOR
[01:50:01]
THE DRAINAGE AND, AND OTHER UH, BUILT, BUILT D ROOTS WOULD BE, UH, NOT COMPROMISE THE HOME.BUT YOU'RE DOING IT ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BY PARCEL.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE CONDITION MATCHES THE, THE PRACTICE.
SO IT'S NOT AS IF YOU CAN GO OUT THERE AND TAG ALL THESE TREES.
NOW IT WOULD BE LIKE BEFORE EVERY, HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY, ITS WHAT I WAS TREE CLEARING MEETING BEFORE LOT IS BUILT UPON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S GONNA WORK BETTER THAT WAY.
BUT AT SOME POINT IF YOU DO EIGHT LOTS MM-HMM
AND YOU SAVE 44 TREES ACROSS THOSE EIGHT LOTS BASED ON YOUR PLAN, YOU CAN BE DONE AND WE CAN GET THERE.
YOU CAN, YOU CAN OPT OUT OF IT.
WE'RE DONE WITH THAT SPECIFIC THIS, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T, WE WILL NOT CONTINUE TO SAVE.
IT JUST MEANS YOU DON'T CONDITION.
WE'RE NOT GONNA THE MINIMUM CONDITION.
SO HOW DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD PHRASE IT? BUT UH, UM, SO IT'LL BE IDENTIFIED.
SO WELL THE CONDITION IN THE LETTER IS MISSING IN THE RESOLUTION.
BECAUSE I WANT YOU GUYS TO ADJUST IT, WHICH IS NOT SO YOU'RE SAYING TRUE.
WHICH CONDITION'S MISSING? THAT ONE.
AND SO I THINK WE CAN USE SOME OF THIS LETTER LANGUAGE YES.
UM, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T SUGGEST A, WHEN IT JUST SAYS THAT THEY WILL SAVE SO MANY TREES PER LOCKED.
AND SO AT LEAVES THE ONE UP TO THEM.
SO I THINK THE CONDITION AS WRITTEN IS ACTUALLY PRETTY APPLICABLE.
AND, BUT AND AND IT'S ALSO FOR THOSE IT'S ACROSS THE HOMES, IT'S ACROSS THE PROJECT SITE.
AND I THINK THAT YOU WERE GOING TO CLEARING OUT THE PROJECT OPEN SPACE, BUT WE SHOULD PUT THE PART ABOUT MARKETING WITH THE RIBBON AND SENDING THE LIST TO US IN THE CAB.
AND THAT'S FINE, BUT DON'T YEAH.
LEAVE THE TIMEFRAME THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
I DON'T DUNNO THE, THE SPEED AT WHICH THESE THINGS ARE BUILT.
IF YOU'RE BUILDING 10 LOTS AT ONCE, SO IT'S A LIST OF 20 TREES OR IT'S LIKE TWO LOTS AND THEN FIVE LOTS IN THAT IT'S GONNA VARY.
BUT THEN THE OTHER THING, SO THERE'S TWO THINGS I WANTED JUST DISCUSS REAL QUICK.
SO OBVIOUSLY IN SHERMAN PARK, THIS GOES BACK TO YOUR DISCUSSION OR COMMENT DURING THE INITIAL WORK SESSION WAS PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE PARK, RIGHT.
AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED WHEN WE WERE HERE TWO WEEKS AGO WAS RUNNING IT ALONG LOT 19 AND 20, WE LOOKED AT IT CLOSER AND UNFORTUNATELY IF IT WAS JUST ON BOTH OF THOSE, IT WOULD ACTUALLY CONNECT TO SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.
SO WE'VE MOVED IT SO IT'S ENTIRELY ON WA 19.
SO THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CONDITION.
ONLY ONE HOMEOWNER NOW HAS THAT ON THEIR PROPERTY.
JUST MOVE TWO AND A HALF FEET.
SO WE DON'T WANT IT TO END ON A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE FIVE FOOT WIDE POSSESSION CROSSING ON EDGE ON, ON THE BOUNDARY OF HOME SITE NUMBER 19.
AND WE DID, WE GOT A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR, RIGHT.
SAYING THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONNECTED APART.
AND THEN THE FI AND THEN THE FINAL THING IS IT'S THE SECOND TIME WE'VE DONE IT.
WE DID IN OUR LETTER JUNE 9TH, I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE FOR THE RECORD, RESPOND TO EACH OF THE 17 COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF THE CONSERVATION BOARD, UM, DATED MAY 26TH THAT WE RECEIVED ON SATURDAY MAY 20TH.
UM, OUR LAST, UM, JENNIFER AND I WERE TALKING, SORRY, DURING THE LAST, THE LAST THING, THE LAST UM, CONDITION WE HAVE IS ABOUT UH, THE CONSERVATION AREA.
SO YOU HAVE THE AREA, THE WETLAND AREA, THE BACK OF THE SITE, AND YOU HAVE THE 25 FOOT AREA AT THE BACK OF THE LOT.
THOSE ARE NOT TO BE OWNED BY THE TOWN.
WE'RE JUST GONNA ASK FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN THE NAME OF THE TOWN SO THE TOWN CAN ENFORCE IT.
THE TOWN IS NOT OWNING ANY OF THOSE PIECES OF PROPERTY.
THE TOWN WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO FORCE IT, BUT NOT GAGE.
I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE GONNA WANT.
AND BECAUSE, AND AGAIN, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS ABOUT THE TOWN SUBDIVISION WALL REQUIRES, UH, THE LOOK AT THE DEDICATION OF RECREATION SPACE TO THE TOWN.
THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT, BUT THERE'S, THIS PROPERTY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THAT.
SO THE TOWN WILL BE TAKING THE MONEY IN DUO USING THAT TO FIX UP ANY, ANY PARK
SO THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW.
SO THAT BUILDING PERMIT TIME, EVERY TIME THEY GET A BUILDING PERMIT, I THINK TO FEE IS A THOUSAND DOLLARS.
ALL LOT THEY PAY IN A, UH, IN A RECREATION PHASE.
YOU GUYS HAVE TO ADD THAT OTHER CONDITION THAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.
YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE FROM SEAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ANY OTHER CONDITIONS AREAS IN THE FIELD? UM, THAT'S PART OF, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TREE MANAGEMENT STUFF.
UH, SIDEWALKS ARE BEING WAIVED.
THERE'S NO SIDEWALK BEING PROPOSED ON SIDEWALKS ARE WAIVED, UNPLEASANT.
THEY'RE GONNA BE SIDEWALKS INSIDE.
THERE SIDEWALKS IN, IN THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO WA THOSE THAT THEY WEREN'T PUTTING SIDEWALKS IN AT THE,
[01:55:01]
SO THE LAST ISSUE THAT I THINK THAT'S, THAT HAS NOT COME TO THAT IS I BELIEVE THAT'S LOT 13.THERE'S SEVERAL LOTS THAT HAVE WETLANDS ON 'EM AND THE WETLAND PRESENCE AND THE QUESTION OF MANAGEMENT OF THE IMPACTS UNDER SEEKER, RECOGNIZING THAT THE ARMY CORPS IS GONNA REGULATE THAT SEPARATELY, BUT RIGHT UNDER THEY'RE DOING, I SEE THIS LETTER, THEY'RE DOING DUCKS UNLIMITED, SO THEY'RE GONNA BUY CREDITS.
AND AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THEIR CURRENT HIERARCHY, THAT'S ACTUALLY THEIR PREFERENCE.
THEY ACTUALLY NOW PREFER THE PURCHASE VERSUS MITIGATION.
SO, BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA CONSIDER THAT A MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT.
AND THE PRESUMPTION, I'M ASSUMING THEN IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ON BOARD WITH THAT.
BUT THE SEEKER CLARIFICATIONS ON THE SHORT, UH, ON THE EAF WORKBOOK DO PROVIDE THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER MODERATE TO LARGE, UM, FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER.
I'M GONNA CHANGE TO THE PART THREE ANALYSIS WHERE WE SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACTS ARE SMALL AND THEY WILL BE MITIGATED THROUGH, UH, THE PURCHASE OF CREDITS FROM DUCKS ON THE, AND THEN AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND ULTIMATELY WE ARE FAIRLY CONFIDENT WE'LL GET THAT PERMIT FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BASED ON THE CONSULTATIONS WE'VE HAD BASED ON SCALING BACK THE SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
BUT IF WE SOMEHOW DON'T, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT THAT WELL REMAINS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
PART OF THE COMMENT HERE IS THAT THE SECRET GUIDE NOTES THAT PROJECTS THAT FRAGMENT OF PARTICULAR HABITATS SUCH AS CLEARING LAND MARCH 4TH BATCHES, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BUT, OR THAT SEVER CONNECTIONS SUCH AS DIVERTING A STREAM OR ALTERING DOWNSTREAM WETLANDS MAY BE A MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT.
AND THE QUESTION IS, IS ARE WE CONSIDERING THAT IN THE, DOES THE MITIGATION PROPOSED OFFSET THAT I, I GUESS OUR, I THINK THIS IS A DOWNSTREAM NO, THEY ARE UPSTREAM, BUT THEY MAY AFFECT DOWNSTREAM.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE FEEDING THE DOWNSTREAM.
SO WE DID CHECK AND THE PART TWO WE DID CHECK POTENTIALLY MOD LARGE IMPACT AND PART THREE, UNDER THE ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THAT IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, WHAT YOU'RE READING IS WE BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE AMOUNT OF WEAPONS THAT THEY'RE FILLING IN AND THE DUCKS UNLIMITED PURCHASE OF CREDITS, THAT THAT IMPACT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE WE'RE AGREEING THAT IT'S A MATTER TO LARGE IMPACT, THEY'RE IMPACTING WEAPONS AND ALSO, AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY, IT'S ONLY 10% OF THE WETLANDS ON SITE, WHICH I DO THINK IS RELEVANT.
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE ORIGINALLY HAD 28 WATTS.
THAT'S WHAT PHIL WAS HOPING FOR, BUT WE SCALED BACK TO, WE THOUGHT WAS A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE.
I KNOW WE KEEP ASKING YOU ABOUT LOT 13, I KNOW I'M CONSISTENT.
IF NOTHING ELSE, SEEKER SHOULD KIND OF CHANGE THE WAY IT DOES IT.
INSTEAD OF SAYING NO IMPACT, WE, THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE CATEGORY FOR MITIGATED.
NO, DON'T, DON'T YOU JUST SET OFF DREW AND SEAN, I'M SAYING SHOULD NOT WHAT DECLARATION YOU ARE BECAUSE OF PROJECT CHANGES AND WHATEVER, YOU'RE REDUCING THAT IMPACT AND NOT SIGNIFICANT.
YOU DON'T MITIGATE UNDER, UNDER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
MODIFICATIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF DELIVERY REVIEW PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF WETLANDS AND THE PERMIT WILL REQUIRE, UH, PURCHASE OF CREDITS FROM DUCKS ON.
AND IT'S A VERY MINOR, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE FILLING IN ACRES AND ACRES OF S AND IT'S THE EDGE OF THE ALLY FRUSTRATING IS THAT NARROW APPLICABILITY OF SEEKER LAW BECAUSE THE ENTIRE WEST SIDE OF THE TOWN HAS BEEN FILLED IN BY ITS ONLY 10% OF A WETLAND.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE SOME OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS WETLANDS FILL IN, IN THE WEST SIDE OF THIS TOWN IN THE WHOLE STATE.
BUT I'LL GET OFF THE SOAPBOX, UM, BECAUSE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROJECT, IT'S A QUARTER OF AN ACRE AND WE'LL MEET IT THERE.
BUT CAMIE, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, YOUR LETTER FOR NUMBER FOUR SAYS A COPY OF THE WETLAND DETERMINATION AND IF NECESSARY THE PERMIT WOULD BE PROVIDED.
WHAT WOULD NECESSITATE YOU ASKING FOR A COPY OF THE WETLAND PERMIT IS, THAT'S NOT A STANDARD PRACTICE IT SOUNDS LIKE.
YEAH, IT WAS PROBABLY JUST EARLY ON AND I DIDN'T CHANGE THE LANGUAGE SINCE IT'S BEEN DETERMINED A WETLAND PERMIT IS NECESSARY, THEREFORE OH, GOT IT.
I I WOULD SEE THAT THEY HAVE IT BEFORE.
SO YOU ALWAYS GET THE COPY OF IT AND SHE DOES I THAT ALSO GOES IN SWIFT TOO, RIGHT? FEDERAL APPROVALS.
SO THE, YEAH, SO OR NOT, I MEAN WHAT THE STATE THING, YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THAT IT'S WETLANDS IN THIS WAY, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY SPECIFY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COPY OF YOUR PERMIT UNDER YOUR SWEAT.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR EYES IN YOUR CLAIM.
AND I ALWAYS TRY TO IDENTIFY OTHER AGENCY LETTERS AS I SEND CALL OR PERMITS OR APPROVALS SO THAT WE CAN ALWAYS SAY THAT WE CHECKED ALL THE BOX BOX LAST AND THEN WE
[02:00:01]
SIGNED UP.SO PRESUMABLY I DON'T HAVE THE DRAFT RESOLUTION.
PRESUMABLY THERE'S THE TYPICAL REFERENCE TO AN ENGINEERING
SO IF THAT REFERENCES THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE WETLAND PERMIT, YOU'RE FINE.
OTHERWISE IF YOU GUYS WANNA PUT IT IN YOUR LIST THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THE WETLAND PERMIT BEFORE WE IMPACT ANY OF THOSE AREAS, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT.
REMEMBER YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT ELIMINATED PLA APPROVAL.
THIS FINAL PLAN APPROVAL IS ALL THROUGH ALL, WE KNOW ALL THESE THINGS.
SO I DON'T HAVE TO LIST THEM ALL BECAUSE ALL THOSE THINGS AREN'T THE SUBDIVISION.
I'M JUST SAYING IF IT MAKES YOU MORE COMFORTABLE, YOU'RE GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THEN THERE'S PIPS AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE.
SO, SO THE TOWN LAW IS THIS, THE RECORD TOWN LAW IS VERY INTERESTING FOR FINAL PILOT DOES NOT COME BACK TO YOU.
AND UNLESS THEY MAKE SUBSTATIVE CHANGES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THAT WETLAND PERMIT AND HAD TO CHANGE SOMETHING, THEY WOULD COME BACK TO YOU FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL.
OTHERWISE YOU DO NOT SEE THE FINAL PLAT AS LONG AS THEY'RE IMPORTANCE AND MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS, DESIGN IT, GET ALL APPROVALS, GET ALL PERMITS AND APPROVALS, THEN IT PROCEEDS THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
AGAIN, THE FINAL PLAT DOESN'T EVEN GET SIGNED UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE P IP PROCESS AND BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO LOOP BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED BEFORE I JUST PUT THE, DID DREW'S ANSWER ACTUALLY ASK OR DID DREW'S ANSWER EFFICIENTLY ANSWER, I HAD EATEN NOTHING AND I'M NOT FREIGHT TRADES.
NOW SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERED YOUR INITIAL QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE, I WAS ASKING UNLIMITED DID YOU WANT US TO DISCUSS IT? I'M ASKING THE REST OF THE, IF THEY'RE WITH IT, I GUESS IT THERE WE'VE JUSTIFIED A NUMBER OF TIMES ABOUT I HAVE AND OTHER PEOPLE, A COUPLE PEOPLE DO WE ABOUT LOT THREE TREAT THAT IN MY MIND IS THE ONE THING THAT HAS NOT NECESSARILY BEEN RESOLVED TO MY SATISFACTION, BUT I AM ONE PERSON.
SO, BUT I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE REVIEW PROCESS AND OF COURSE MR. NRO IS WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THIS BOARD, UNDERSTANDING THE FACT THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WOULD FURTHER NOT BE A WEAPON TO BACK.
WE GET THAT, BUT I THINK PRAGMATICALLY IT'S CERTAINLY DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND AGAIN, IF WE CAN'T GET THE PERMIT FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BUT A COUPLE OF YOU KNOW, THAT'S A VERY STRENUOUS REVIEW PROCESS.
WE UNDERSTAND WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL, I MEAN WE CAN EITHER TALK ABOUT IT OR WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
THE PEOPLE THAT, I MEAN, I JUST, I WAS GONNA SAY IT'S ENOUGH.
YES, I HAVE PUSHED ON A LOT OF THINGS AND HAVE HAD SOME SUCCESSES SO FAR, BUT IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE THAT FEELS LIKE THAT, THAT PEOPLE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THAT'S BEEN MITIGATED, I WILL THAT AND THAT'S SO CURIOUS ISSUE YOU'RE DOWN TO, AND I APOLOGIZE, YOU'RE DOWN TO THE PART THREE ANALYSIS.
YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FACT DETERMINANT, POTENTIALLY MILD, LARGE IMPACT THAT THEY, THEY'RE FILLING IN WETLANDS.
HAVE THEY GROUP YOU THAT THAT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING.
THAT, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE ELSE DOING IS SO FILLING IN A2 EIGHT ACRES OF WETLANDS, UNDERSTANDING MARGO'S AND WITH THE, WITH THE CHANGE OF THE PROJECT WHERE THEY'RE GONNA GET WETLANDS CREDIT THROUGH, UH, IS THAT NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT? OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANTS ARE ARGUMENTS THEY'VE MINIMIZED THAT IMPACT IN, IN ADDITION TO THE CREDITS, THEY ARE EASING THE BIG WETLAND.
SO THAT I THINK ALSO NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE THAT WILL THEN BE KIND OF PRESERVED FOREVER BY THE RIGHT.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FOR IS A COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF THE ARMY CORPS OF THERE IS GONNA BE THAT WE DERESTRICT THAT AREA FOR NO DEVELOPMENT, MEANING REGARDLESS OF THE TOWN'S APPROVALS, WE'RE ALSO GONNA HAVE AN AGREEMENT THE ARMY CORPS FRONT UP AS WELL, I BELIEVE.
I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S THE, I THINK WETLANDS CREDITS, IT'S UP HUNDRED THOUSAND AN AC 20,001 20 AN ACRE.
SO FOR THIS QUARTER ACRES THEY'LL BE PAYING $30,000 OF DUCKS UNLIMITED TO, TO SAVE OTHER WETLANDS OR WETLANDS THAT THEY'VE CREATED.
SO UNDERSTANDING THE PHILOSOPHY OF THAT IS THAT YES, THEY'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN 0.1 ACRES IS A NATIONWIDE PERMIT BETWEEN, WHAT IS IT, 0.1 NO LESS THAN BETWEEN 0.1 AND AND 0.49 IS THE NATION, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MITIGATE UNDER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MITIGATE IF IT'S UNDER 0.1 AND THEN YOU CAN DO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT.
SO YOU LETTER PERMISSION RIGHT BETWEEN ONE AND FOUR NINE NATIONWIDE PERMIT MITIGATION REQUIREMENT.
YEAH, THAT'S NOT LETTER PERMISSION, NOT INDIVIDUAL PERMIT.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE WEIGH WANNA WEIGH IN? UM, I I DON'T THINK WE COULD FORCE ANYONE TO WEIGH IN.
WE CAN ONLY FORCE THEM TO VOTE.
SO I, PEOPLE FEEL IT LIKE IT'S ADEQUATE AND THAT'S ENOUGH.
DOUG WANTS TO SAY IT'S ADEQUATE AND THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER VOICE AND THAT, I MEAN THAT'S, WELL I THINK WE COULD DO A REAL, I I
[02:05:01]
GREW UP RIGHT NEAR THAT PLACE.SO YOU, THIS IS ALL KIND OF WEIRD
WE PRESENTED ALL THAT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T, AND IT'S, WE BAG THERE, BUT BUT THERE THE THINGS IN THE WHOLE TOWN THERE WE'LL FIND WET SPOTS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DECIDE ALL OF A SUDDEN IT 40, 50 YEARS AGO IT WASN'T REALLY WE BACK THERE, BUT NOW THEY GO IN AND LOOK AND YEP.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHAT, IT'S A MATTER OF VEGETATION.
IT'S IT'S THREE HAPPY WETLAND.
WE, I THINK WE'VE MADE MINIMUM.
I WOULD ALSO LOVE IF THE WETLAND LAW IS NOT THERE, BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT DIRECTABLE GONE TO MINIMIZATION WITHOUT REMOVING, REMOVING THAT LOT, WHICH THEY DID.
I KNOW WE CAN'T CONSIDER THE COST BUT THEY DID SAY WAS A NECESSITY FOR THE PROJECT.
SO ALL WE CAN DO IS TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORDS ON THAT.
BUT I ALSO WISH THE WETLAND LOT WAS NOT BEING DEVELOPED.
YOU'VE BOTH BEEN CLEAR ON THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE AT IS THE LOUDEST ENVIRONMENTAL WEAPON VOICE.
SO MS, YOU SAID THERE'S A DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A DECK.
GET THROUGH TO FIND OUT WHETHER YOU WANNA OR DISCUSS ON THE RECORD.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT AND, AND AND LIGHT OF ALL THAT.
WE WOULD STILL ASK, OF COURSE WE ACKNOWLEDGE ACCOUNT, WE WOULD STILL HOPE THAT BOTH OF YOU WOULD SUPPORT THAT GUY.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION TOO? SURE.
UH, WHERE DID I MISS MISS WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? WHERE THE UH, SIDEWALK OR WHERE ARE WE GONNA HAVE THE
COULD WE HAVE AN ACCESS DURING THE LAST MEETING PHIL EXPLAINED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE PROVIDING IT.
IT'S NO LONGER SHARED ON JUST LOT 19 AND 20.
SO IT DOESN'T END ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.
IT ACTUALLY IS THE PERFECT POINT.
IS STATE GONNA BE A SIDEWALK? NO, JUST GRASS IT BE PATH.
JUST BECAUSE I KIND OF AGREE THAT THIS, IT'S NOT A GOOD NO, I WOULDN'T WANT THAT ONE.
IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S NOT GRASS.
OUR MOLDS WE'RE NOT ENVISIONING.
NO, I THINK WE WANNA MINIMIZE IT, MAKE SURE IT'S ONLY FOR RESIDENTS.
IF IT'S JUST SOMEBODY'S LAWN THAT'S NOT MARKED, IS THAT REALLY ACCESS? WELL THERE'LL BE SOME KIND OF DEMARCATION.
THERE'S PROJECT JUST LIKE THAT.
MY BROTHER WAS IN SUBDIVISION AMHERST.
THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE DEFENSE PROBABLY.
RIGHT? OR NO? NO, NO, JUST THAT.
DC TRAILS AND THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT WILL BE OBJECT TO IT BUT WHAT'S THAT? SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY IT'S FINE AND WE ACTUALLY LIKE NOW THAT IT'S ONLY ON ONE LOT BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR LOT OWNER WILL HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH IT BE THEY'LL BE OKAY.
YEAH, IT'S IT'S PERCENT I WAS GONNA I DON'T THINK HAVE LOT.
OH YEAH, IT'LL BE ON THE SURVEY.
WE GIVE OUR CUSTOMERS COPIES OF ALL THE UH, EASEMENTS AND MAIL COVER LOCATION AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE 30 YEARS A LOT QUESTIONS NEW THE ONE CONDITION, DIDN'T YOU, SEAN WROTE THE CONDITION AND I UH, AND I ADDED A SECOND SENTENCE.
CAN WE HEAR HER WITH THE SENTENCE? OH YEAH.
SO I ADDED UM, TWO NUMBER FIVE.
I ADDED A SECOND SENTENCE THAT SAYS TREES TO BE PRESERVED SHALL BE MARKED WITH A RIBBON AND THE NUMBER OF TREES, SPECIES AND CALIBER SHALL BE PROVIDED TO.
WHO DID WE WANT THAT PROVIDED TO? CAB CONSERV.
TO THE, YEAH, TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
AND THEN I GOT STUCK ON EACH PARCEL OR ARE WE GOOD AT THE END? I LIKE EACH PARCEL, RIGHT? I THINK EACH PARCEL ON EACH PARCEL ON I'D SAY EACH SLOT USE THE WORD LOCKED.
SO I CAN WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT CONDITION.
SO IT'S THIS JUST THE MEMO OR WHEN YOU SAY PROVIDE YOU THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY EVEN, WHAT'S THE FORMAT OF THAT? I WOULD THINK YOU COULD EVEN EMAIL IT AS LONG AS IT'S IN WRITING.
YEAH, I THINK THE BEST THING WOULD BE WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.
THERE'S A RECTANGLE WITH X IS WHERE THE TREES ARE GONNA BE.
I THINK THAT'D BE THE EASIEST, BUT WE'LL, YEAH.
SO WE CAN JUST SAY SHELBY MARKED.
THEY DON'T NEED TO BE A RIBBON, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE MARKED.
SO NO, I CAN'T ASKED FOR A RIBBON.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S CUSTOMER.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WANT ME TO ASK
UH, WELL YOU DON'T WANT BE BLUE PINK FOR WE LINES.
[02:10:01]
COLOR, WE USE ALL THE STREET TREES.IS THE SIZE OF THE STREET TREES SPECIFIED IN THE CODE? IT, IT'S, THAT'S WHY WE REFERENCE THE CODE.
BUT THE, THE 2.5 CAL IS ALREADY IN FOR THOSE OTHER TWO, RIGHT? BECAUSE ELSEWHERE IT'S ALREADY SPEC IT SPECIFIED THE CODE.
YOU GONNA READ THE RESIGNATION RESOLUTION? WELL HERE, HOLD ON, I'LL PULL IT UP.
WELL MEMBER, WE GOTTA START WITH THE SECRET DETERMIN SHEET.
YES, WE GOT DO YOU WANT THE THAT'S GONNA HAVE OH YEAH, I I SENT IT EARLIER IN THE WEEK.
DID YOU? VERY MUCH EARLIER IN THE WEEK.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THAT CHANGES.
WELL YOU, YOU WROTE DOWN PLEASANT WOODS TOO, SO I HAD TROUBLE FINDING IT WAS, YEAH, THE NAMES CHANGE A LOT AND SUBJECT LINES AND IT FINDING A PROJECT VERY DIFFICULT.
YEAH 'CAUSE I WAS LOOKING THORASIC.
SO IN ADDITION, SO IN, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SECRET DECISION DOESN'T HAVE THE CONDITIONS, THE CONDITIONS GO ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OR DO THEY GO BOTH? CORRECT.
DOES NOT, WE'RE NOT DOING A CONDITION LIKE THAT.
I'LL READ THE SECRET WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT OR WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET, OKAY.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM SEAN HOPKINS OF HOPKINS SOGI AND MCCARTHY PLLC, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON AN APPROXIMATELY 13.8 ACRE PARCEL AT ZERO PLEASANT AVENUE.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED THE SEEKER COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES AND PROFESSIONAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 2ND, 2022.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE EAF SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, RECEIVED INPUT, INPUT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, RECEIVED WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE TOWN OF HAM'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REVIEWED THE TOWN CODE AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF H PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE FEAF AND HAS COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE FEAF AND REVIEWED THE CRITERIA DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDING TO SECTION 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE THE NATURAL, NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEREFORE ISSUES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FEAF PARTS ONE, TWO AND THREE, WHICH WHICH WILL ACT AS THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO THAT IS A MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. SHAW? WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL AND YOU GUYS ARE STILL WORKING ON US.
WELL I SECOND SO SOMETIMES SHE JUST WANTS SOMETHING TO GO ON THE FLOOR.
ALRIGHT, SO IT WAS THANK YOU UNANIMOUS ON SEAGER.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M MAKING A SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO PART THREE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE WETLANDS WITH YOUR DISCUSSION, RIGHT? SECOND.
YEAH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE FOR A SECOND.
IT SLOWER, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE I DIDN'T REALIZE IT UNTIL I GOT CLOSER TO THE END.
YEAH, YOU HAVE TO CREATE A BRAND NEW CONDITION AFTER NUMBER FIVE.
BE THAT CONDITION ABOUT THE TWO.
IT'S A BRAND NEW ONE AFTER FIVE.
WE, UH, YOU WANT 'EM, WE PUT 'EM AT THE END.
WE END WE'RE AT IN, UM, ALL UH, THE CONDITIONS FROM, UM, THE LETTER.
DO YOU WANT THE ACTUAL THAT IS THE I, YEAH.
[02:15:07]
GONNA CHANGE THE STUDENTS HERE TONIGHT.SEE HOW IT, IF YOU WANNA AS PART OF THAT ON THE FLY AS DATE OF THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT, THAT LANGUAGE ON THERE.
YOU SHOULD REFERENCE JUNE 10TH, 2022 PRELIMINARY CLASS DRAWING C WITH THAT, WITH THAT DRAWING.
HE ACTUALLY HAS ALL THAT STUFF ON THERE.
IS THERE A WE'RE JUST SHOWING YOU GUYS, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
ACTUALLY THOSE ARE ALL, OH, WE ALREADY COPIED AND PASTED THEM IN
I I JUST WANNA KNOW WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE'RE PUTTING DOCUMENT I'M FOLLOWING AND FOLLOWING IN IN ACCORD.
CODE ENFORCEMENT LIKES IT THAT WAY, NOT THE PLAN.
SO ON THE PLAN, RIGHT? JUROR I'M SORRY, CAN YOU READ ME WHAT YOU SAID AGAIN? IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLA PREPARED BY CARINA WOOD MORRIS DATED JUNE 10TH, 2022.
AND THEN I ALWAYS PUT DRAWING C 100 JUNE 10TH, 2022, DRAWING C 100.
AND I'M SORRY FOR SAYING DREW, I'M JUST ASKING FOR QUESTION JUST CAME OUT MY MOUTH.
THERE ARE A LOT OF CONDITIONS THAT I, THERE CAN YOU MONITOR THESE TWO? YEAH.
THAT'S WHY I HAVE AN EXAMPLE AND I'LL EMAIL THIS SARAH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
ANYTHING BEFORE I READ THIS? NOPE.
I NEVER READ ANYTHING AND I NEVER SECONDED ANYTHING.
I JUST SIT HERE AND ASK QUESTIONS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TELL? NO, LET'S GO FOR IT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY MY FIRST NAME.
UM, OKAY, SO, UH, ESSEX HOME 22 LOT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION FROM JUNE.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM SEAN HOPKINS OF HOPKINS OREE AND MCCARTHY, PLLC.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 14.12 ACRE PARCEL ON PLEASANT AVENUE.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED THE SEEKER COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES AS SEEKER LEAD AGENCY AND ISSUED A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 2ND, 2022 AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, ERIE COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES AND PROFESSIONAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS IN IMPORTANCE WITH THE TOWN'S ZONING SUBDIVISION AND OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW SECTION 2 39 7 M NNN AND IT IS NNN NNN OH N YEAH.
NNN, UH, AJO ADJO MUNICIPALITY.
WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW SECTION 2 39 NN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG GAVE NOTICE TO THE VILLAGE OF HAMBURG TO ENCOURAGE THE COORDINATION OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT IT OCCURS IN A MANNER WHICH IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE GENERAL AREA.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD GRANTS CONDITIONAL PRELIMINARY FLAT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION TWO 30 DASH 14 OF THE HAMBURG SUBDIVISION CODE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE IN THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS ALONG PLEASANT AVENUE IS WADE TWO IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 3 0 DASH 21 OF THE TOWN SUBDIVISION CODE.
THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT AN APPROPRIATE AREA FOR REQUIRED RECREATION LAND CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED.
THEREFORE, A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICATION OF RECREATIONAL LAND SHALL BE MADE TO THE TOWN.
THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL A PERMANENT FIVE FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EASEMENT ON THE BOUNDARIES OF HOME SITES 19 AND 20.
WE JUST HOMESITE 19 HOME SITE 1919.
ALRIGHT, INSTALL A FIVE FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EASEMENT ON THE BOUNDARY OF HOME SITE 19 FOR ACCESS TO THE PARK FOR RESIDENCE OF THE SUBDIVISION.
FOUR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN'S SUBDIVISION LAW, THE APPLICANT SHALL PLANT 44 STREET TREES, TWO TREES PER HOME SITE, MEETING THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THE TOWN, INCLUDING THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TREE LIST FIVE.
IN ACCORDANCE THE TREE MANAGEMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PLANT 44 ADDITIONAL TREES, TWO TREES PER HOME SITE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO ARE WE SUBBING OUT 10 THROUGH FIVE
[02:20:01]
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY? NO TREES SHALL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TREE LIST AND SHALL BE BOTH REQUIRED BY AND REGULATED BY THE APPLICANT.FORMED AND STATE ACCEPTED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TO BE RECORDED AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
SO THEN IT'LL BE SIX PLANT 44, NO WAIT, WHERE ARE WE AT? SIX.
PRESERVE EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE 2.7 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IT ALL MOVED.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
IT'S UP HERE IN ACCORDANCE OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
PROBABLY GET, YEAH, WE'RE GOOD.
SO SIX IS PRESERVING EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE 25 FOOT PRESERVATION AREA TO BE PROVIDED ON THE REAR OF LOCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAQUE.
PRESERVE EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE 2.7 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
PRESERVE A MINIMUM OF 44 SUPPLEMENTAL TREES CALCULATED AS 22 HOME SITES TIMES TWO EQUALS 44.
TREES OF TWO AND ONE HALF INCH CALIBER OR GREATER ON THE PROJECT SITE.
THESE 44 SUPPLEMENTAL PRESERVED TREES ARE IN ADDITION TO THE 44 STREET TREES, THE 44 ADDITIONAL TREES ON HOMES SITE AND THE TREES TO BE PRESERVED WITHIN BOTH THE 25 FOOT WIDE PRESERVATION AREA ON THE REAR OF EACH OF THE LOTS AND ALSO WITHIN THE 2.7 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE.
SO I'M GONNA SWITCH THESE AROUND TREES TO BE PRESERVED UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOW FOUR THROUGH NINE SHALL BE MARKED WITH A RIBBON AND THE NUMBER OF TREE SPECIES AND CALIPER.
THE NUMBER OF TREES THE SPECIES AND THE CALIPER SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AND PLANNING BOARDS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION ON EACH LOT, THE PLANTING AND PRESERVATION OF ALL TREES LISTED ABOVE SHALL BE MONITORED AND REGULATED BY THE HOA.
I'M NEVER READING A RESOLUTION.
YOU PICKED A TOUGH ONE TO START.
OKAY, SO THEN 11 APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON COMMENTS IN THE TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
MEMO DATED JUNE 15TH, 2022 12.
THE WETLANDS AREA AND OTHER CONSERVATION AREAS WILL BE DEMARCATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE TOWN OF HAMBURG WILL REVIEW THESE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION TO START AND WILL ENFORCE ANY VIOLATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN LAW.
I HOPE ALL CONSERVATION AREAS WILL NOT BE OWNED BY THE TOWN.
ALL CONSERVA, ALL CONSERVATION AREAS NOT, WILL NOT BE OWNED BY THE TOWN, WILL NOT BE OWNED BY THE TOWN, WILL INCLUDE A DEED RESTRICTION ABOUT DISTURBANCE AND WILL INCLUDE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN THE NAME OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG WITH THE FORM AND CONTENT OF THIS EASEMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
I CAN FIX THAT MAR, SHOULDN'T IT BE ALL CONSERVATION AREAS NOT OWNED BY THE TOWN WILL INCLUDE A DE RESTRICTION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT OWNING ANY OF THE CONSERVATION AREAS.
THEY'LL INCLUDE A DE RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT AND THE WETLAND PERMIT IS IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER.
YES, IT'S AND DO YOU WANNA HAVE ANY ABOUT PURCHASING THE WETLAND CREDITS? WE HAVE ONE.
I DON'T THINK, NO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BECAUSE THEY, YEAH, WE HAVE TO.
NO, THIS ACTUALLY GOES UP ON THE TREES.
I'M CONSIDERING ADD THE LANGUAGE.
AND I, BEFORE THE TREE LANGUAGE, I'M GONNA ADD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
JUNE 10TH, 2022 DRAWING C 100.
WE JUST COULDN'T WRITE ALL THOSE THINGS IN ONE PLACE TOGETHER.
SO IT'S TYPED UP, WE'LL EMAIL IT TO YOU.
ALRIGHT, COULD YOU READ IT AGAIN NOW IT'S ALL TYPED UP.
OPPOSED TO THE APPROVAL TO GRANT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU KNEW WHAT IT WAS.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT,
[02:25:02]
EXCUSE ME, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE BROADWAY GROUP IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 6 5 0 5 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.OH, AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS AND I DO HAVE A HANDOUT TONIGHT.
SOME, AS YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU DID A DE THE, THE APPLICANT PRODUCED A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
WE ACCEPTED THAT DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT AFTER SOME REVISIONS.
WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT.
WE THEN CLOSED THE, THE COMMENT PERIOD ON THAT PUBLIC ON ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND AGENCY COMMENT.
THEN THE PLANNING BOARD GOT TOGETHER.
WE HAD THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND AGENCIES.
THEN YOU GOT TOGETHER AND SPENT A MONTH DETERMINING WHAT, WHAT THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS WERE AND YOU ADDED YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
IN FACT, I NOTE ON THE RECORD, AND MARGO'S COMMENTS CAME IN IN PLENTY OF TIME.
THAT WAS NOT, THEY WERE, THEY WERE FINE.
THAT WAS AFTER THE ORIGINAL CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT WE HAD TO PUT ALL THE SUBSTANCE COMMENTS TOGETHER.
THE APPLICANT THEN APPLICANT'S HERE REPRESENTATIVE.
UM, THE APPLICANT THEN AGREED TO WHICH CAN, YOU CAN HAPPEN A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THE, WHEN THE COMMENTS ARE A LOT OF 'EM DIRECTED TO THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT AGREED TO DO A DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
YSH DRAFT IS YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT.
THE LAW BASICALLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN HAVE ANYBODY PREPARE IT, BUT YOU AS THE LEAD AGENCY MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I TOOK A FIRST RUN AT, BASED UPON SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS AT AMENDING WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
WHAT YOU WILL NOTICE IN HERE IS THAT A LOT OF THE STUFF I SAID TO RESOLVE THAT PROBLEM WHERE THEY WERE MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT THEIR, THEIR CONCLUSIONS, I CHANGED TO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THESE CONCLUSIONS.
THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE SPOTS IN HERE OR MORE THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR KIND OF DECISION ON HA HAVE THESE THINGS.
AND THAT WILL ALSO DIRECT ME IN PREPARING THE DI THE FINDING STATEMENT, WHICH YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO ISSUE FINDINGS.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS THOSE AREAS THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON TO ME TO FINALIZE THIS FDIS FOR YOU TO ACCEPT IT AS COMPLETE.
AND THEN WE WAIT AT MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS TO ALLOW AGENCIES TO COMMENT.
THERE'S NO MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS, BUT THE DOCUMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC REVIEW.
YOU CAN SUBMIT COMMENTS, WHAT IT SAYS IN THE SECRET HANDBOOK.
YOU CAN SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE AGENCY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, ADD TO THEM.
BUT THERE'S NO FORMAL REVIEW FROM A PUBLIC STANDPOINT.
BUT YOU CAN SUBMIT COMMENTS SAYING, HEY, I DISAGREE WITH THIS OR WHATEVER.
THE AGENCIES HAVE A CHANCE TO ALSO COMMENT TO YOU THAT THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE.
BECAUSE REMEMBER YOU'RE MAKING THE SECRET DECISION FOR ALL THOSE OTHER AGENCIES.
SO IT'S THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU, HEY, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
WE'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE OUR PERMANENT APPROVAL 'CAUSE YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA HAND THIS OUT.
I'M ALSO GONNA SEND IT TO YOU.
I WANTED TO HAND IT OUT FIRST.
ELECTRONICALLY TOMORROW MORNING, JOSH, REMEMBER WE'LL SEND IT TO YOU IN A WORD VERSION.
I KNOW A LOT OF YOU LIKE WORKING THAT WAY AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND START, START MARKING IT UP.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAPPEN IS THAT FOR YOU, I'LL GET YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT FOR YOU TO SEND ME YOUR COMMENTS IN THE NEXT WEEK.
THEN I WOULD GET A SECOND DRAFT OUT, WHICH IF I SEND OUT TO EVERYBODY WILL BE PUBLIC INFORMATION.
OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT WILL GET A COPY OF IT.
THE PUBLIC WILL BE MADE AWARE IF THEY WANT TO AND SAY, AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL REACH THE POINT THAT WE CAN ACT ON IT AT THE JULY 6TH MEETING.
THE SECRET LAW SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ACT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE WAY BEYOND THE 60 DAYS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT WE'RE GOING FROM THE DATE, AND AGAIN, THEY'RE DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY.
WE'RE GOING FROM THE DATE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE DRAFT TO US.
THEY SUBMITTED THE DRAFT TO US, I BELIEVE ON MAY 25TH OR 26TH.
WE SHOULD REASONABLY FOLLOW THAT LAW WITHIN 60 DAYS ISSUE THAT FDIS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO, IF I CAN GET YOUR INPUT, THEY GIVE US TILL LIKE THE JULY 20TH MEETING, CORRECT? WHAT'S THAT? THEY GIVES US TILL THE JULY 20TH MEETING.
WELL, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S JULY 6TH OR JULY 20TH.
YOU LET ME KNOW THAT'S YOUR DECISION OR WHEN YOU'RE TABLE TO, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO BE REASONABLE WITHIN THE SECRET WALL, THE DIRECTORY, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THOSE TIME FRAMES OF THE SECRET WALL.
SO I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS LOOKING AT, AND I TALKED TO JENNIFER A BIT ABOUT THIS, BUT BASICALLY WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE STEPPING THROUGH THE SEEKER PROCESS, ONE OF THE THINGS IT HAS UNDER THINGS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FBIS IS THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.
BUT THEN IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR REVISIONS TO THE DER REVISIONS AND SUPPLEMENTS, THE DEIS, WHICH IN MY MIND WOULD'VE INCLUDED NOT JUST RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS, BUT
[02:30:01]
ARE WE NOT ABLE TO AMEND THE DRAFT? WHAT, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO AMEND IF YOU'RE AMENDING, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO AMEND WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THE APPLICANT AND MAKE CHANGES THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY'VE ACTUALLY ADDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THEIR ATTACHMENT TO THE FDIS.SO THEY HAVE DONE QUOTE UNQUOTE REVISIONS TO THE DEIS BY ADDING ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
WELL, I JUST, WHAT WERE YOU ASKING? THE CHANGE IN THE DISI DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE NUMBER OF THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD REACHED IN THE DOCUMENT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CHANGING.
AND THE
WELL THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN THOSE FIVE PLACES WHERE YOU'RE GONNA SAY, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW WHEN IT SOMEBODY'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND LIKE AMENDMENTS.
I'M USED TO DEALING WITH NEPA UNDER THE FEDERAL PROCESS.
IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT PROCESS.
SO THIS PROCESS UNDER THE STATE PROCESS IS VERY CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE THE FINAL EIS IS NOT A FINAL OF A DOCUMENT.
IT'S MORE OF A PACKET RESPONSE TO WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT, AND I THINK YOU LOOKED AT THE SAME THING IN THE CODE, IT SAID THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE REVISION REVISIONS AND I DON'T, WHY CAN'T IT BE THE WHOLE THING SHOWN IN CHANGES? LIKE WHY IS REVISIONS JUST THESE COMMENTS? YOU REALLY, WHAT YOU WANNA DO IS TAKE THE DRAFT EIS AND MAKE A FINAL EIS WHOLE DOCUMENT TRACK CHANGES TO IT.
TO, I WANNA MAKE, I WANNA MAKE IT A CONSOLIDATED FINAL DOCUMENT THAT REFLECTS WHAT WE THINK AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY READING THE DRAFT EIS AND THEN LOOKING SPOT BACK BY BACK.
IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO BACK LINE BY LINE AND HALF OF IT'S DIFFERENT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK LINE BECAUSE SO, SO WHAT DREW HAS, IF I INTERPRET THIS CORRECTLY, WHICH MAYBE I DON'T, SO YOU'LL SEE THERE'S THINGS THAT HE ADDED IN RED AND THINGS THAT HE CROSSED OUT THAT ARE LINED OUT.
AND THEN THERE'S ONES, I THINK THE FIRST ONE MIGHT BE ON PAGE SEVEN WHERE IT'S GOT LIKE DOT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, WE FILL IN OUR COMMENTS IN THAT SECTION.
SO WHAT IT DOES IS, SO IT, SO IT'S GOT THE COMMENT, IT'S GOT THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT AND THEN IF PLANNING BOARD, BUT IF INTO HOLISTICALLY, LOOK AT THE WHOLE RECORD AND REVIEW IT, IT'S NOT, THERE'S LIKE THE COMMENT, THIS IS ONLY TO THE COMMENTS.
THIS IS JUST THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS.
I HAD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON STUFF BECAUSE I, I HAD FAR MORE COMMENTS THAN WHAT WE DEEMED AS SUBSTATIVE TO GO BACK WHEN I DID MY ORIGINAL MARKUP.
AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE REFLECTED IN THIS, IN THIS MECHANISM THEN BE HELPFUL IF, LIKE IS IT A COMPROMISE TO INCLUDE KAITLYN'S OTHER COMMENTS AS AS SUBSTANTIVE? BECAUSE I DO, I MEAN I DO KIND OF, WELL THE OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THAT, I'M GONNA SAY IT ON THE RECORD.
THEY'RE KAITLYN COMMENTS, RIGHT? NOT THE LEAD AGENCY'S COMMENTS.
UH, WE SPENT TWO MONTHS, WELL THAT TAKING ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS AND PUTTING TOGETHER WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
WELL, BUT THAT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD THAT I THINK OUR DECEMBER MEETING WAS, I HAD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH AS A GROUP AS TO HOW DO WE TAKE THESE, DID THEY FIT INTO THE SEC LIKE SO MM-HMM
SO SECTION 4, 2, 3, 2 NOISE IN.
BUT THERE'S ONLY A SUBSET OF THE SECTION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE REFLECTED EVERY SINGLE SECTION WHERE I'VE HAD COMMENTS IN HERE.
HOW ABOUT YOU? I MEAN, I JUST GO THROUGH THE CATEGORIES OF ILLUSTRATED THAT I'M GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS MANUALLY AGAIN.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ALL WELL, YEAH, WELL YES, BECAUSE IF I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CATEGORIES, THERE'S OTHER STUFF, I'M GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH ALL MY COMMENTS AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS ADEQUATELY INCORPORATES FULLY THE PICTURE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE STATE DOES IT THIS WAY, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION.
AND WHEN I LOOKED AT, AT THIS WHOLE PROCESS AND I LOOKED AT THE PREPARATION OF THE FINAL EIS, IT SAYS THAT THE DRAFT EIS INCLUDING ANY REVISIONS, NECESSARY REVISIONS OR SUPPLEMENTS.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, IT'S MISUNDERSTOOD.
WHAT, AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CASE LAW.
YOU CAN'T GO BACK IN AND CHANGE THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THE A REMEMBER IT'S A BALANCE PRO.
IT'S DIFFERENT PROCESS SEEKER.
WHAT SHE'S DEIS IS THE, THAT'S I'M NOT SAYING IS THE OPINIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
YOU CAN MAKE THAT, YOU COULD ADD IN PAGES AND PAGES OF STUFF IF YOU WANT IN THERE.
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU WANNA WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL THINGS, IT'S GOTTA BE ON THE RECORD.
YOU COULD ADD WHERE I HAVE DOT, DOT DOT.
IT COULD BE PAGES OF INFORMATION THAT YOU BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR DECISION, YOU'RE, WHAT
[02:35:01]
YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH IS, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE REFERRING TO THE DEIS BY REFERENCE.I COULD ATTACH IT TO THE BACK OF THE DOCUMENT.
IT'S STILL, BUT IT'S STILL CUMBERSOME.
IF SOMEBODY'S REVIEWING THIS, YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE THE DEIS AND GO BACK AND FORTH.
BUT THAT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN REALLY DO IT IS BY ADDING IT AS AN APPENDIX.
SO I MEAN, I'M JUST GONNA BE
YOU CAN ADD SUPPLEMENTS AND SAY, WELL A LOT OF TIMES I SEE REVISIONS IS THE APPLICANT.
NO, WE NOTED THAT THEY STATED SOMETHING WRONG OR WHATEVER.
THERE WAS A WRONG ROAD NAME OR SOMETHING OR OTHER.
IT'S USUALLY SUPPLEMENTS BECAUSE IT'S SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE ASKED IN, IN SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'VE SUBMITTED SOME SUB ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU HAD COMMENTS SAYING, HEY, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY ADDRESSED HERE.
WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY PUBLICLY TRANSPARENT.
I MEAN, I'M NOT GONNA, WHY IS IT NOT PUBLICLY? THE DEIS IS AVAILABLE? WELL, NO, THE FBIS IS AVAILABLE.
I MEAN THAT'S A, IT'S NOT USER FRIENDLY.
IT'S NOT USER FRIENDLY IN LIKE THE NEPA CASE LAW.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT ON MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE.
BUT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, AND THAT'S WHERE VERY DIFFERENT, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT STATE LAW.
WHEN THEY SAY ACCESSIBLE, THEY LITERALLY MEAN CAN YOU ACCESS IT.
AND, AND THAT'S THEY CAN, SO THEY CAN, IT'S LITERAL, JUST LIKE MY COMMENT ABOUT THE OTHER CHECKBOX THAT THE STATE WOULD NEVER DO BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE THING, IT'S WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER PRACTICAL IF THEY DID IT THAT WAY.
I, I GET, I CAN'T HEAR CAN, I'LL SAY IT ON THE RECORD.
I'M SUPPOSED TO POST THIS FEIS ON THE E AND UH, SEND A COPY TO ALBANY.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DO WITH IT? THEY THROW IT IN THE GARBAGE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO STORE IT.
SO SIR, I'M SORRY, DENNIS HAS A QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK.
ON, ON ON THE DRIVEWAY LIGHTS.
NOW THEY SAY THEY MITIGATED IT.
AND THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A.DOT.IN THERE.
YOU HAVE TO SAY, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION I SAID, THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, YOU HAVE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE NOW.
YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ME THOSE DIRECTIONS.
I WANNA KNOW WHERE WE AND, AND CAITLIN IS.
RIGHT? I MEAN, IT IS DIFFICULT.
SO YOU'RE GONNA REFER BACK TO THE DEIS, HOPEFULLY YOU ALL CUT THE COPY OF IT AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THEY ANSWERED AND THEN SAY, HEY, BASED UPON WHAT I REVIEWED AND WHATEVER, THIS IS MY OPINION OF, HAVE THEY MITIGATED TO THE, AND KEEP IN MIND MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL.
LET'S GO TO THE ONE TOUGH ISSUE AND TALK ABOUT IT.
I, I'M, I'M, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE TOUGH ISSUE.
I I'M, ONE OF THE TOUGH ISSUES IS PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY.
THE APPLICANT IS STATING THAT THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO MITIGATE THAT PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S, IT'S NOT MITIGATED.
THEY CAN'T GET THE STATE TO AGREE TO PUT ACCESS ACROSS THE ROAD.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA MOVE THE BUSINESS ACROSS THE ROAD.
HAVE THEY DONE EVERYTHING TO SAY, HAVE THEY MITIGATED THE ISSUE OF, OF PEDESTRIAN AND, AND WE'RE TALKING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY DIFFICULT ISSUE.
THAT ONE'S NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE.
WE CAN TALK WITH CAM ABOUT, ABOUT DRAINAGE ISSUES.
THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE LIGHTING ISSUE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE NOISE ISSUE.
HAVE THEY DONE EVERYTHING? AGAIN, WE KNOW IT'S A PROBLEM.
HERE AGAIN, IT'S A PROBLEM THEY'VE ADMIT IT'S A PROBLEM.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET, PEOPLE ARE, IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS FROM THE SUBDIVISIONS ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT UNLESS YOU MAKE PEOPLE WALK ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LIGHT THAT'S WAY DOWN THERE AND THEN WALK ALONG THE EDGE OF, OF SOUTHWEST, UH, OF SOUTHWEST AND BOULEVARD.
IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT TO ACCESS YOUR TOUGH DECISION IS HAVE THEY DONE MITIGATED THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEY DONE THAT AND HAS IT RISEN TO THE CASE THAT, THAT WE CANNOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
AT WHAT POINT IS IT, IS IT, OR WAS IT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO HIRE A CONSULTANTS IF WE WANTED AN OPINION ON THE RECORD RELATED TO ONE OF THESE TOPICS? IS NOW THE TIME TO DO IT WOULD'VE BEEN TWO MONTHS AGO.
BUT, BUT, UM, WHAT DO YOU WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON? THEY'VE SUBMITTED TRAFFIC.
DO YOU WANT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC YOU WANT? I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST, I'M I'M JUST ASKING CONCEPTUALLY WHEN WAS AND WHEN IS OR WAS BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK THAT, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE NEEDED ONE.
AT WHAT POINT WAS THAT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OR IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE TIME? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT AT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, JENNIFER, BILL AND I BRIEFLY SPOKE HIGH LEVEL NOT IN DETAIL.
AND THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT YEAH, I THINK WE DECIDED WE DIDN'T NEED A TRAFFIC WOUND.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OTHER KINDS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU ACCOUNT CAN ADDRESS? THAT WOULD BEEN THE TIME OF THE DEISS.
SO, SO THE PEDESTRIAN ACT, A BIG ISSUE.
UM, A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WOULDN'T ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN THE WAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
I GUESS, AND CAITLIN, I'M NOT, WE DID, WHEN
[02:40:01]
WE WENT THROUGH THE SUBSTANENT COMMENTS, WE DID ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AT THE TIME, TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE COMMENTS, THERE WAS A DIS THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT HIRING AN INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC.AND GUESS I, YOU KNOW, AND I, AND I ADMITTED WE JUST HAD MISSED A COUPLE MEETINGS THIS YEAR.
RIGHT? SO I'M JUST CLARIFYING AND MAYBE I, I MISSED THAT WINDOW, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE HAD HAD THAT CONVERSATION AT SOMETHING.
I MEAN, WE DID DETERMINE GOOD, BETTER AND DIFFERENT.
WE SAID WE DIDN'T NEED A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND IT WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THERE'S, THERE'S, I'M SAY ON THE RECORD, GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE.
THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ISSUES HERE.
I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT A LARGE GENERATOR OF TRAFFIC.
THERE'S NO TRAFFIC VOLUME ISSUES DO ISSUES.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL.
THERE'S LIKE NOT TRAFFIC VOLUME OF FACE ISSUES CONCERNS.
WELL, FROM A, FROM A TIS STANDPOINT, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DONE TO THE STANDARDS OF DOT.
THEY FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
IT, IT, IT SAYS THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WHETHER YOU'RE DOUBLING TRAFFIC OR NOT, IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE ROADWAYS OF THE TOWN, OF THE TOWN, COUNTY, AND STATE.
IT'S NOT A SEPARATE THAN TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE IN THE AREA.
YOU DOUBLE THE TRAFFIC OR WHATEVER.
IT'S GONNA BE A CHANGE FROM, FROM A TIS STANDPOINT.
WANNA BE HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR THOUGH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, THE CON THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THIS PLANNING BOARD, AND I WANT THIS ON THE RECORD, NOT ABOUT THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, BUT WERE ABOUT THE TURNING ANGLES AND SEVERAL OF THE RADIUSES AND THE, THE ACCESS IN AND OUT FROM THE INTERSECTION.
THAT IS NOT A CORNER LOT, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S TYPICALLY ADDRESSED UNDER THE STANDARD PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
IT'S NOT THAT THERE ARE NONE
WHAT THE, WHAT THE TIS SAID THAT THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THAT, TO THAT INTERSECTION.
THAT IS YOUR JOB TO PLANNING OR DO WE NOT AGREE WITH THIS C AGREE WITH IT.
COMMUNITY CARE, COMMUNITY CHARACTER ABOUT THE ZONING.
SO THAT, THOSE WERE SOME OTHER ISSUES.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE PREDOMINANTLY A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE AND THAT WERE SOMEWHAT RAISED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY EVERY INSTANCE FROM THEMSELVES.
AND THIS IS YOUR TIME TO EXPLAIN IT AS THOROUGHLY.
SO IF I WANNA ADD ANOTHER SECTION REFERENCE INTO THIS DOCUMENT WITH A COMMENT THAT WE DISAGREE WITH, RIGHT.
AND PROPOSE THAT FOR THE BOARD TO COMMENT ON THIS IS WHERE I MANUALLY NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF MY COMMENTS AND NOTE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS AND FORM THAT FITS INTO THIS.
JUST MAKING SURE ANY DO OUT THERE.
IF IF THEY, IF IF OKAY WITH THE TRAFFIC, YEP.
YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING MORE, BUT I, I STILL DON'T THINK IT'S A SAFE SITUATION.
SO THEN WHAT, WHAT ARE MY ALTERNATIVES? YOU EXPLAIN WHY.
YOU'D HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY IN THAT SECTION AND THEN WHAT THEN WHERE DOES IT GO? AND THEN YOU WOULD, AND, AND AGAIN, EACH OF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE YOUR OWN.
THAT'S THE HARD PART ABOUT THIS.
EACH OF YOU ARE ARE GONNA DO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA SPEND THE NEXT THREE HOURS RESOLVING THIS
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GIMME YOUR COMMENTS.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO CONSOLIDATE THEM LIKE I DID BEFORE.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REVIEW THEM AND THEN BE PREPARED TO SAY ALL FOUR, AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU AGREE WITH THAT DECISION.
IF THE DECISION IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRAFFIC DECISION THAT YOU, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION, STILL BELIEVE THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT'S GONNA BE PUT IN THERE.
AND GUESS WHAT? I'M GONNA HAVE TO MAKE A NEGATIVE FINDINGS AND BASICALLY SAY THE PROJECT CANNOT MOVE FORWARD.
THEY EITHER POSITIVE FINDINGS, THE PROJECT CAN MOVE FORWARD.
YOU MITIGATE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE.
THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE OR THEY HAVE NOT.
AND YOU ISSUE NEGATIVE FINDINGS.
THE PROJECT'S OVER THE PROJECT'S DONE, THERE'S NO SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THERE'S NO PROCEEDING.
THE ONLY THING THEY CAN DO, AND I'LL SAY IT ON THE RECORD, IS THEY, THEY CAN TAKE IT OUT ON ARTICLE 78.
YOU'VE MADE A DECISION THAT THE PROJECT AND BASICALLY THE PROJECT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN THE TIMELINE ON THAT IS CORRECT.
IT CAN'T BE, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 10 DAYS AFTER WE COMPLETE THE FBIS BUT NO MORE THAN 30 DAYS.
AND THAT'S A, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT A SHOW THAT'S A MUST.
THAT'S THE MONTH FROM THE STANDPOINT WHEN YOU ISSUE THE FBIS.
SO IF WE ISSUE IT JULY 20TH, YOU HAVE ONE MONTH TO ISSUE YOUR FINDINGS, YOU SAY A MUST OR A MONTH A MUST.
SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE, AND BY THE WAY, THE APPLICANT'S I'M GONNA KNOW AND THE APPLICANT'S GONNA KNOW BECAUSE I CAN CONSTRUCT THE FINDINGS BASED UPON YOUR FBIS.
OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE MAKING CONCLUSIONS IN THERE THAT THINGS ARE STILL A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN MITIGATED, I'M DRAWING UP THE FINDINGS TO SAY THAT IT'S A, IT'S A NEGATIVE FINDINGS.
SO FOR KAITLYN'S COMMENTS, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, THAT WERE NOT
[02:45:01]
CONSIDERED TO BE SUBSTANTIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THIS DOCUMENT.CALY, YOU'RE SUGGESTING YOU WANNA ADD THOSE BACK IN US TO WELL, NO.
EVERYONE HAS TO MAKE THEIR OWN AND THEN DREW WILL COMPILE THEM.
SO YOU ALL NEED TO MAKE YOUR OWN, WE HAVE TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON EACH.
AND I, LET'S COME TO AGREEMENT ON IT.
THERE'S, THERE'S A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS WHERE WE HAVE TO GIVE SOME INPUT.
UH, SO EVERYBODY PUT THE INPUT IN ON THE SECTIONS THAT YOU WANT HAVE INPUT.
IF THE INPUT'S SIMILAR, IT'S VERY EASY TASK.
THEY'LL JUST WORK THE RIGHT WRITING.
IT WILL HAVE IT IF SOME PEOPLE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS OF WHAT TO GO THERE, THE NEXT MEETING ON THE SIXTH, 6TH OF JULY, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE ONES WHERE WE HAVE DIFFERENCES AND, AND, AND THEN TRY AND HASH THOSE OUT.
AND IN, IN GENERAL, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE, THE QUESTION AND RESPONSE AS YOU'RE SORT OF RIGHT.
BECAUSE YOU'RE JUMPING OFF POINT FOR THE NEXT POINT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEIS.
LIKE WE SHOULD NOT BE GOING BACK TO THE D-I-D-E-I-S THEORETICALLY.
WELL YOU SHOULD BE IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS MM-HMM
IN HERE, YOU NEED TO, OR THE FEIS YOU NEED TO ADD THEM IN HERE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, I, ONE THING I WILL DO IS, THERE WAS SOME CONCLUSIONS THAT I QUESTIONED AND THERE WAS, THERE WAS A SUMMARY COMMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY INSTANCE WHERE I HAD A CONCERN MM-HMM
ABOUT COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND HOW THAT WAS REPRESENTED.
THAT I HAVE CALLED THAT OUT EVERY SINGLE SECTION.
AND THAT'S, I GUESS WHERE I THINK, I THINK I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, LIKE OUTLINE VERSUS THE REGULAR, BECAUSE I DID PUT IN ALL MY COMMENTS AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN THIS DOCUMENT ALREADY, RIGHT? AND SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOUR, SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS ARE MISSING.
WHERE WE MISS, WHERE WE MISS WITH CAITLIN IS, AND, AND I AGREE CAITLIN, I I LOOKED AT YOUR DOCUMENT.
CAITLIN HAD SOME VERY SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF IT, BUT WE TRY TO CATEGORIZE THEM.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NOISE PROBLEM.
YOU HAD LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE, ON THE NOISE.
I LIKE, I WOULD LIKE PROPOSE SOME OF THE CHA LIKE THERE'S CHANGES, THERE'S A NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO RURAL VERSUS WHAT COUNTS AS CHARACTER.
AND THEY'RE IN SEVERAL PLACES.
AND WHEN WE TRIED, WE TRIED TO COMPILE THEM.
BUT I'VE GOING THROUGH AND TRACK CHANGED SENTENCE LINE BY ONE MY LINE LIKE MARK UP.
AND YOU CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT IN THERE, KATE.
AND FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT THE APPLICANT CONTEND, UH, IN THESE SECTIONS OF THE DEIS THAT THIS THIS MEETS RURAL CHARACTER OR WHATEVER MY, UNDER MY, YOU KNOW, BASED UPON THE TOWN'S, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT AND WHATEVER THIS IS, THIS IS OUR OPINION.
THEY HAD NOT PRESENTED IN ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SAY WHY THIS IS NOT.
SO AGAIN, YOU'RE BUILDING YOUR CASE AND IT'S GOTTA BE BUILT ON WHAT'S ON THE RECORD.
AND ON THE RECORD IS THE OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.
ALL THOSE THINGS ARE PART OF THE RECORD.
SO AGAIN, YOU'RE, I'M HELPING YOU BUILD YOUR CASE.
IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS YOUR PROBLEM OR IF NOISE IS A PROBLEM, ZONING, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING AS THE RESIDENTS WOULD SAY.
AS THEY MADE THAT POINT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THAT WHILE THE ZONING WAS NOT RESIDENTIAL, THERE WERE PEOPLE LIVING IN, IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND MAKING SURE
AND BY THE WAY, I DID PUT A CLARIFICATION IN THERE.
I'M GONNA GET, I'M GONNA GET YELLED AT FOR THIS ONE.
UM, THE REQUEST TO DO A SITE PLAN SHOWING MEETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
IF THE PROPERTY WAS RESIDENTIAL, YOU REALIZE THERE'S NO SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR AN AIR CONDITIONING AND IT CAN GO ANYWHERE.
WHETHER THERE'S RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, FIVE FEET, THE PROPERTY YOU CAN PUT THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS AN ACCESSORY, THAT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE HAS TO BE CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY.
BUT AN CHECK THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AN AC UNIT CAN BE FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY, BUT IT'S NOT STRUCTURED.
SO DREW, CAN I, CAN I, IT'S AN ACCESSORY, BUT THE WHAT ABOUT THE FENCE? WHAT'S THAT? THE FENCE CAN NEXT MEETING WE'RE GOING TO BE, AGAIN, BE DISCUSSING.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE READY TO ISSUE FINDINGS.
SO HERE, HERE, HERE'S THE, THE TIMELINE THAT I, THAT I, SO NEXT MEETING JULY 6TH, WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS, OKAY, JULY 20TH, WE CAN DO THE FINDINGS.
NO, FIS FS, SORRY, FEIS SO THEN THERE'S 10 DAYS MORE THAN 10 DAYS LESS THAN 30.
BRINGS US BACK ON AUGUST 17TH FOR THE FINDINGS.
SO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAD A QUESTION OR STATEMENT 28 DAYS.
AND THEN YOU HAD I THINK MOST OF WHAT SAY THIS LAST COUPLE MINUTES, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WEND CONSOLIDATED ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN COMMENTS FROM THE, FROM SOME OF THE
THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT WE USED TO, TO, YEAH.
YOU DID WHAT WE TOLD YOU TO DO.
YEAH, I MEAN WE, WE DIDN'T START PICKING OTHER COMMENTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IN OTHER
[02:50:01]
AREAS.WE TOOK THAT AND WE TRY TO CONSOLIDATE BASIS FOR THIS DRAFT.
AND SO AFTER YOU TAKE A TRACK AT IT, IF YOU STILL, WELL, EVERYONE ELSE NEEDS SIMULTANEOUSLY TAKE A CRACK.
BUT THE, IF THE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW IT FITS ARE STILL THERE, HOPEFULLY ON JULY 6TH WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIT BETTER.
OR, OR MAYBE FOUR PEOPLE SAY THEY DON'T WANT IT IN AT ALL.
AND I'M GONNA PUT CAM ON THE SPOT BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, SAY I GET TO A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT THAT'S RELATED TO DRAINAGE AND MOUNDS AND HOW THINGS ARE GONNA WORK.
I REALIZE THAT DO NOT HAVE FINAL PLANS, BUT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SOMEHOW SAY THAT YES, IN GENERAL THE DRAINAGE IS NOT GONNA CAUSE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
SO THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE RELATED TO DRAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SITE.
I'M GONNA LOOK TO CAMMY FOR THAT.
THERE WAS ISSUES ABOUT, I MEAN IF YOU CONSOLIDATE ALL THE ISSUES GUYS, IT'S ABOUT NOISE, COMMUNITY, CHARACTER, NOISE, AND LAKE, UH, LIGHTS, SORRY.
AND, AND, UH, TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE OTHERS YOU'LL SEE IN THERE.
THAT'S WHERE ALL.DOT DOTS FALLEN.
THEY'VE FALL INTO SEVERAL PRIMARY CATEGORIES, RIGHT? THEY KIND OF FALL IN THE BIG PICTURE CATEGORIES.
I KNOW YOU HAVE, AND CADEN HAD A LOT OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT THEY FALL INTO THOSE CATEGORIES THAT, YOU KNOW, WILL THIS CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACT LIGHTING IMPACT CHARACTER COMMUNITY.
THERE MAY BE SOME SCHOOL BUS COMMENTS.
WE MAKE SURE THAT ADDRESS APPROPRIATELY.
THEY, THEY, THEY ANSWERED THE QUESTION ON THE SCHOOL BUS ALSO.
WHAT'S THAT? MY FIRST NAME IS SPELLED UH OH.
SO, UH, I'LL, SO WITH ALL THAT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE DOLLAR GENERAL TO JULY 6TH, SECOND.
I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK AND YES, JAKE TAKE THIS UNDERSTANDING.
WHEN YOU DO A POSITIVE DAY, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A LOT OF WORK.
I'M JUST GONNA, I NEED YOUR COMMENTS BY JOSH AND I TO GET SOMETHING OUT TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME.
BY NEXT WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, WE, NO, THAT'S RIGHT.
WE HAVE THREE WEEKS IN BETWEEN THE NEXT MEETING.
SO I'M ALSO ON VACATION, UM, END OF NEXT WEEK.
NO, I, I CAN'T OKAY, TWO WEEKS.
I DO THE BEST I CAN, BUT I'M ON AND YOU CAN GET THEM ANY WAY YOU WANT TO ME.
YOU CAN MARK, I'LL SEND THE, THE WORD DOCUMENT.
YOU CAN MARK IT UP THAT WAY YOU CAN JUST SEND ME, HEY, HERE ARE MY COMMENTS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT.
MORE COMFORTABLE FOR WEDNESDAY THE 29TH.
I'LL SEND IT ALL WORD TO YOU GUYS.
I'M GONNA SEND THAT IN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH.
AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, IT WOULD HELP IF YOU DID IT IN TRACK CHANGES.
I'LL, I'LL KNOW IF IT COMES FROM YOU ONCE YOU CHANGE, RIGHT? YOU GAVE US THE FINE PRINT.
WHERE'S THE DOCUMENT? I'M GONNA SEND YOU THE DOCUMENT.
I'LL CHANGE THE FONT SIZE, BUT ALSO PRINTS SMALLER BECAUSE OF I, WE'LL DO HAVE BIGGER FOX FOR THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.
YOU DO? AND THERE WAS, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE IT FOR THIS MINUTES, RIGHT? OR, OH NO, THAT ONE WASN'T OKAY.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 18TH.
I THOUGHT WE ALREADY APPROVED THE MAY 18 FIRST.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JUNE 1ST.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE JUNE 1ST.
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY MR. SECOND.