* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:28]
          SO ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING? DENNIS? YES. 
          YEAH, I, I SAW YOUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND AT THE LAST MEETING YOU TOLD ME THAT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE, UH, THAT YOU COULDN'T GO FORWARD WITHOUT IT. 
          THAT I NOTICED ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THERE WAS NO MENTION AT ALL OF OUTDOOR STORAGE. 
          YEAH, THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAD TRADITIONAL DRIVE UP UNITS ON OUR ORIGINAL PLAN. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WHEN WE WERE, WHEN WE WERE TOLD BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THE OUTDOOR DRIVE UP UNITS WERE NOT ALLOWED, WE HAD TO SUPPLEMENT THAT REVENUE. 
          AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THE OUTDOOR PARKING WAS AN APPROVED USE WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT. 
          SO YOU HAD NO IDEA THAT YOU WERE GONNA PUT IN OUTDOOR STORAGE WHEN YOU FIRST APPLIED BECAUSE WE WANTED A SINGLE STORY DRIVE UP UNITS THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS OFFICIALLY, HAS OFFICIALLY ISSUED A LETTER. 
          THIS IS ALLOWED USED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CODE ENFORCE LAW JUST FOR THE FUTURE. 
          WHEN YOU GET A, WHEN YOU GET A, UH, INPUT FROM A CODE ENFORCE TO GET IT IN WRITING. 
          SO WE HAVE A RECORD HERE. 
          WE HAD A GUY RETIRE AND EITHER LONGER EXISTS, SO WE HAD TO GET THE NEW CODE ENFORCE LAW. 
          BUT SO ON THE RECORD, YOU HAVE TO DO SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 
          THERE'S A STANDARD CRITERIA AND THERE ARE TWO, JOSH READ THEM THE TWO ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR GETTING OUTDOOR STORAGE RECESSION. 
          AGAIN, GETTING BACK DOWN. 
          CAN YOU LET JOSH FINISH THE TWO CRITERIA? JUST FOR THE FIRST ONE IS THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA MUST BE AT LEAST 200 FEET FROM THE ROAD, RIGHT OF AWAY. 
          UH, INCLUDE LANDSCAPING PROPERLY SCREENED FROM THE ROAD. 
          THE SECOND ONE IS LAWYER IS A MONEY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR USES, UH, SHALL BE SCREENED FROM THEM BY LANDSCAPE FIRM. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE TWO SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE GONNA, SO THEN THERE'S THE GENERAL SPECIAL USE FIRM ABOUT COMMUNITY, CHARACTER, ET CETERA. 
          MAR THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT YOU ASKED ME ABOUT. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE I WAS DIGGING INTO THEM EARLIER TODAY. 
          AND UM, ON YOUR DRAWING YOU HAVE BURKE PARKWAY APPEARING TO BE A PARKWAY AND RUNNING ALONG THE TOTALITY OF THE PARCEL. 
          BUT BURKE PARKWAY IS A, A PAPER STREET. 
          NO, THAT ENDS BEFORE THIS PARCEL STARTS. 
          SO ARE YOU EXTENDING THIS, THIS ROAD? 'CAUSE BURKE PARCEL ON GOOGLE MAPS KIND OF LIKE ENDS AT THE CORNER OF THIS PARCEL OR PARKWAY. 
          BUR PARKWAY CONTINUES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO PAPER STREET TO EAST. 
          THE ACTUAL STREET IS NOT. 
          SO THEN THEY'RE NOT NEAR A ROADWAY. 
          LIKE BUR PARKWAY IS NOT A ROADWAY. 
          CAMMY HAS AN ANSWER. 
          SO THERE, THERE'S A RIGHT WAY THERE. 
          RESERVED, OR, YOU KNOW, SHOULD YOU WANNA EXTEND BURKE PARKWAY. 
          SO IT IS A TOWN RIGHT AWAY THAT, THAT A BUS, THE PROPERTY. 
          SO DO THEY HAVE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A PHYSICAL ROAD, THE PROPERTY THERE IS STILL RIGHT AWAY. 
          SO WHAT IF THAT IS WHAT'S ABUTTING THE OUTDOOR STORAGE? DOES THE OUTDOOR STORAGE HAVE TO BE 200 FEET FROM IT? BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S RIGHT AWAY. 
          IF I'M, IF I HEARD THAT THE CORRECT, IT SAYS 200 FEET FROM A RIGHT WAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT IS A RIGHT OF WAY ROAD. 
          IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT THE, UH, BUDDING PARCELS ON, UM, THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS. 
          SO I WAS TRYING TO JUST CLARIFY THAT IN BETWEEN THIS PARCEL, THERE ARE TWO OTHER COMMERCIALLY ZONED PARCELS, UM, THAT ARE NOT BECOMING PART OF THIS PROJECT. 
          CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          SO THOSE ARE GONNA REMAIN SEPARATE PARCELS? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THOSE ARE YOUR BUFFER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. 
          SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THOSE, THEN YOU'RE NOT AING A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 
          OKAY. 
          MOST OF THOSE AREA C TWO, THESE PARCELS HERE ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL. 
          IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE DOWN. 
          YEAH, THERE'S TWO PARCELS RIGHT THERE. 
          AND THEN DORCHESTER IS THE DORCHESTER IS THE BREAK BEFORE IT BECOMES RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT EXPANDING THOSE PARCELS, YOU'RE NOT BUTTING IT. 
          BUT I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 200 FEET ON THE ROADWAY. 
          I'M LOOKING AT YOU QUESTION. 
          I'M JUST HEARING THIS SECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME SO I DON'T ROAD. 
          YEAH, I THINK IT SAYS ROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          I BELIEVE OPEN. 
          I HAVE TO LOOK, SEE IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION. 
          BUT I BELIEVE A PAPER STREET IS STILL A ROAD, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T STAY FROM THE ROAD, IT SAYS FROM THE RIGHT. 
          THAT SHOULD BE A QUESTION FOR OUR LAWYER. 
          WELL, YEAH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO TO CONFIRM BECAUSE YEAH, THAT'S, I'M JUST SHARING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME I, AND I'M MAKING IT WELL, RIGHT, AND WHETHER AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PAPER STREET'S CONSIDERED A ROAD RIGHT OF AWAY PROBABLY ISN'T AN ENGINEERING QUESTION ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH, SO IT'S MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION. 
          SO YEAH. 
          CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED PURCHASE RIGHT AWAYS 
          [00:05:01]
AND THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL ROAD HAVE USUALLY GONE THAT NO, IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY. 
          YOU CANNOT PURCHASE IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO YEAH, THERE, THERE ARE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR IT SAYS AWAY. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL, 2 83 26. 
          WE'LL, YOU'LL GIVE JENNIFER SOME TIME TO ANSWER THAT AND WE'LL EXPECT HER TO GIVE US A GOOD ANSWER TYPE. 
          I DON'T THINK OUR COACH FINDS RIGHT AWAY, SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO WORK INTO THAT. 
          RIGHT? I MEAN I THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY ESTABLISHED PRETTY WELL SOMEWHERE. 
          YOU'D BE SURPRISED IT'S, UH, 2 83 26 0.1. 
          IT'S THE TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE UNDER THE, UM, SPECIAL USE PERMIT SECTION. 
          YES. 
          IT'S LETTER A STORAGE FROM THE ROAD RIGHT AWAY AND INCLUDE LANDSCAPING TO PROPERLY SCREEN IT. 
          IF THAT'S, WELL, I'LL TELL YOU, WE'RE DEFINITELY 200 FEET FROM MCKINLEY PARKWAY. 
          WE'RE 211 FEET BACK. 
          IT IS GONNA BE SCREENED, IT'S GONNA HAVE PRIVACY FENCING. 
          UM, THIS ONE IS, THIS COMMENT'S NEW TO US ABOUT THE PARKWAY? I I JUST DISCOVERED IT THIS AFTERNOON, OTHERWISE I WOULD'VE RAISED IT EARLIER. 
          BUT I WAS THINKING WELL WE, WE KNEW THE COMMENT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE, OUR 211 FEEDBACK MM-HMM . 
          WE WERE AWARE ABOUT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PAPER STREET, WHICH WHICH MAY BE REQUIREMENT, MAY, MAY NOT BE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT OUR OWN LAWYER. 
          I'LL TELL YOU. 
          I I DON'T THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S, NO, I DON'T, I DON'T EXPECT ANYBODY ELSE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          ME EITHER. 
          YEP. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, I WROTE DOWN SIDEWALKS QUESTION MARKS. 
          SO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH SIDEWALKS? WE HAVE, BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS FROM THE LAST MEETING, WE HAVE ADDED THE SIDEWALK ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT EDGE AS REQUESTED. 
          WE'VE ALSO ADDRESSED COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ERIE COUNTY DSM. 
          WE ADDRESSED THE MINOR COMMENTS THAT CANDY HAD FOR HER FIRST PRELIMINARY REVIEW. 
          UM, MAINLY STRAIGHTENING OUT A STORM PIPE THAT LEADS UP TO HIGHLAND. 
          DSM HAD VERY MINOR COMMENTS, UM, ADJUSTING THE LOCATION OF THE SEWER LATERAL COMING OUT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND ER, COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY. 
          ACTUALLY AT THIS POINT, SINCE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY NEW CONNECTIONS AT THIS TIME, THEY HAVE GIVEN A, A PRELIMINARY QUICK REVIEW AND SAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SEND WE UTILIZING ONSITE UTILITIES. 
          DENNIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE YOU WANTED TO ADD BEFORE WE START OVER? HEARING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I JUST DON'T THINK, UH, STORAGE UNIT FITS IN WITH, UH, ALL THE RETAIL THAT'S THERE. 
          AND I WAS HOPING SOMETHING WOULD GO IN THERE THAT WOULD DRAW PEOPLE NOT ONLY TO THAT SITE, BUT TO THE OTHER RETAIL STORES AROUND IT. 
          SO RETAIL IS NOT, UM, TO MY MIND A GREAT ADDITION TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WELL, THAT'S YOUR OPINION. 
          I'M GIVING YOU MY, I I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THERE. 
          THERE'S NOBODY GONNA COME TO VISIT THIS AND THEN SPEND MONEY IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND THE OTHER THING IS, I WAS A LITTLE DISMAYED WHEN, WHEN I WENT THROUGH AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT OUTDOOR STORAGE ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. 
          UH, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU HAD TO CHANGE, BUT THEN I, I DON'T KNOW IF I, AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T THINK A COURT OF FORCE ER HAS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE A LAW. 
          BUT THAT'S BEEN SETTLED. 
          THAT'S A DEAD ISSUE. 
          UH, BUT I JUST, I GO BY THERE A LOT AND I LOOK AND I SAY, ALRIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW IT'S, AND PEOPLE ARE SPENDING MONEY AT THIS FACILITY BECAUSE IT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT'S GONNA BE STORING HERE. 
          UM, TYPICALLY WHEN A THREE OR FIVE MILE RADIUS IS OUR MARKET BASE, SO IT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT'S GONNA BE PUTTING MONEY BACK INTO THE, UM, AND IT'S AN APPROVED USE. 
          IT'S APPROVED USE IN THE ZONE. 
          SO IF IT DIDN'T FIGURE, IT WOULDN'T BE AN APPROVED USE IN THE ZONE. 
          WHEN THEY RUN A UNIT, DO THEY PAY TAX ON THAT? SURE THEY DO. 
          OKAY. 
          NOT ONLY THAT, BUT BASED ON YOUR MARKETING OUTLET FOR THE AREA, YOU'RE ALREADY FULL. 
          CORRECT. 
          OUR CLOSEST FACILITY IS OVER 99% OCCUPIED. 
          THERE IS A GIANT NEED FOR THIS IN, IN THIS. 
          I JUST LIKE THE OUTDOOR PART WAY. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES OF WHY THE TOWN BOARD CHANGE THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW FULL SCALE BUILDINGS BECAUSE FULLY TAXED BUILDINGS THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME, SOME EMPLOYMENT CASE TO INSTEAD OF THE NORMAL PUBLISHING STORAGE, WHICH IS ONLY ALLOWED TO DOUBLE. 
          SO, UM, GOOD CONVERSATION, UH, JENNIFER, WE WILL GET INPUT AGAIN FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TWO OH FOOT SETBACK FROM A ROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          THAT IS A DECISION BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. 
          UM, WE KNOW THAT IT HAS TO BE SCREENED. 
          IS IT? I DON'T THINK THAT'S A, I THINK THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. 
          I THINK THAT YEAH, 
          [00:10:01]
HE'S NOT IN OUR CODE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE IF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND SHE, HE OR SHE CAN WORK WITH YEAH. 
          THE ATTORNEY OR ANYBODY THEY WANT TO, BUT THEY CAN ONLY PROVIDE YOU INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE. 
          I SHOULD GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DEFINITIONS. 
          I CAN'T GIVE YOU INTERPRETATION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          NO, IT'S NOT DEFINED. 
          IT STREET IS DEFINED. 
          STREET IS, WELL, IT'S NOT RIGHT, RIGHT AWAY. 
          IT'S RIGHT AWAY. 
          UM, BUT RIGHT AWAY IT'S ALSO NOT MINE. 
          SO IN NEW YORK IT'S, BUT THAT'S, WE'LL HAVE TO GET THAT DEALT WITH. 
          WHY DON'T WE JUST GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. 
          SORRY. 
          TO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF AMBROSE PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY LIFE STORAGE TO CONSTRUCT A SELF STORAGE FACILITY WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE AT 3 9 5 0 MCKINLEY PARKWAY. 
          THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 6TH, 2022 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF HAMPER TOWN HALL. 
          ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'M GONNA OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LIFE STORAGE. 
          UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROJECT? CAN WE TURN THE DRAWING AROUND? YEP. 
          RENDERING, OR WOULD YOU LIKE THE DRAWINGS FERENCE, THE COLOR PICTURE YOU GOT RIGHT THERE. 
          ALRIGHT SIR, WHY DON'T YOU COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. 
          UH, MY NAME IS RICHARD PAMAN. 
          MY ADDRESS IS 4 5 5 9 BUCKINGHAM LANE. 
          OUR VIDEO WENT DOWN, THE VIDEO WENT DOWN. 
          SARAH, CAN YOU FIND OUR IT HELP? ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, UH, I WORK, I LIVE AT 4 5 5 9 BUCKINGHAM LANE, HAMBURG, NEW YORK. 
          UM, I'M NOT OBJECT TO THE PROJECT IN, IN, IN A HOLE. 
          UM, WHAT I DO OBJECT TO IS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. 
          UM, I WOULDN'T OBJECT TO DRIVE UP UNITS, BUT THE PARKING, UM, I'VE SEEN IT, IT CAN BECOME A LITERAL JUNKYARD. 
          NOW I KNOW THEY WILL TELL YOU IN THEIR, UM, LEASES THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE FLAT TIRES. 
          THEY HAVE TO OPERATE, THEY HAVE TO BE REGISTERED. 
          HOWEVER, GO TO THE ONE ON LAKE AVENUE AND SEE IF EVERYTHING THERE IS REGISTERED. 
          SEE IF EVERYTHING THERE DOESN'T HAVE FLAT TIRES. 
          THEY DO. 
          AND THAT WILL HAPPEN HERE. 
          AND THIS IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO COME AND BECOME A JUNK AREA BACK THERE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT THE TOWN SLIPPING INTO A, A SECOND RATE TOWN BECAUSE WE START ALLOWING PROJECTS LIKE THIS WITHIN THE TOWN. 
          AGAIN, I'M NOT AGAINST THE STORAGE AND I'M NOT AGAINST THE BUILDING. 
          I WOULDN'T BE EVEN BE AGAINST OUTDOOR STORAGE OUTSIDE. 
          BUT THE PARKING, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GONNA SCREEN IT, THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR WILL NOT DO A YEARLY TOUR THROUGH THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO UNREGISTERED VEHICLES. 
          THAT THERE'S NO VEHICLES THAT DON'T RUN, THAT THERE'S NO VEHICLES WITH ALL FLAT TIRES, THAT THERE'S BOATS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, SITTING ON THE GROUND. 
          THEY DON'T, ONCE IT'S APPROVED, THEY DON'T CARE. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE LIFE STORAGE PROJECT? OKAY, FOR, UH, THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME, ANY PROJECTS FOR OR AGAINST LIFE STORAGE BILL, BILL STATE ALSO STATED THAT THE STORAGE PLACE ON MCKINLEY NEEDS TO HAVE SIDEWALKS AND SHOULD NOT BE WAIVED. 
          RIGHT, WE GOT THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          SO BEING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, NO, THE QUESTION REALLY IS WHAT WE WANNA DO. 
          CAN I SPEAK? SURE, SURE. 
          UM, JUST TO TALK ON WHAT MR.  HAD INDICATED, UM, HE IS CORRECT. 
          OUR LEASE STATES, ALL VEHICLES MUST BE REGISTERED INSURED IN DRIVABLE CONDITIONS AT ALL TIMES. 
          SO THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE OF THAT. 
          I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE, RICH IS A FORMER LIFE STORAGE EMPLOYEE FOR ABOUT 16 YEARS UP UNTIL ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO, AND NOW WORKS FOR A COMPETITOR. 
          SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE KNOWN BY THE BOARD, UM, JUST TO STATE, I I WORK FOR A COMPETITOR. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          BUT IT HAS NO RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          IT DOESN'T, WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE NOT GONNA, IT'S GONNA CHA IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE OUR OPINION ON ANY OF WHETHER YOU WORK FOR A COMPETITOR OR NOT. 
          SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          [00:15:01]
SO, SO YEAH, OUR DECISION ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT, UM, MY PLAN WAS TO ASK TO HAVE RESOLUTIONS PREPARED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 
          WE'VE GOT THIS ISSUE WITH THE STREET AND I CAN TALK TO TIM FIRST THEN TOMORROW. 
          JUST, UM, A QUESTION BECAUSE TIM BROUGHT UP WHEN WE WERE DOING THE ATION OF, UH, THEIR PROPOSAL FOR SCREENING, OBVIOUSLY THEIR PROPOSAL FOR SCREENING DEALS WITH MCKINLEY, WHICH IS GOOD. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ARE YOU PUTTING, TIM THOUGHT THIS WAS GONNA BE A SEVEN TO NINE FOOT FENCE AROUND THERE THAT WOULD PROVIDE THIS SCREENING. 
          WHAT WERE YOU PROPOSING A SCREENING FOR? THAT IT HAS TO BE EIGHT FEET. 
          IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST EIGHT FEET, SIX FOOT NEXT I THINK, I THINK HE SAID FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE. 
          FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE, IT'S EIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          THEY WOULD PREFER THAT. 
          SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND, RIGHT. 
          WELL THAT WOULD BE A, A FENCE OF EIGHT TO NINE FEET PLUS LANDSCAPING TO BREAK UP THE LOOKS OF THAT FENCE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WHATEVER. 
          SO, AND, AND ANYONE THAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE MADE THAT A CONDITION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 
          SO, SO THAT WOULD BE IN THE RESOLUTION OF, BY THE WAY, IS THIS FOR CORRECT BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP ONE OF THE STRONG, AND I HAVE TO BRING IT UP, ONE OF THE STRONG RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMP PLAN IS THAT THEY HAVE A FULL-TIME CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO DOES THE YEARLY INSPECTION OF ALL SPECIAL USE PERMITS IN THE TOWN. 
          SO IT IS AN INTERESTING POINT. 
          WE, WE UNDERSTAND WHETHER IT'S NOT PICKING ON THIS PROJECT, BUT ALL PROJECTS WILL REQUIRE A YEARLY INSPECTION AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN ACCORDANCE WITH, WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT'S GRANTED BY THIS PLANNING BOARD. 
          SO JUST AS AN ASIDE, IT'S IMPORTANT THING WHEN YOU PUT YOUR CONDITIONS IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY WILL IN THE FUTURE BE STRONGLY ENFORCED AND DONE ON A YEARLY BASIS AND INSPECTED. 
          AND IF SOMEONE'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEASE AGREEMENTS, WE HAVE FULL RIGHT TO EVICT THEM. 
          SO TO THE BURKE PARKWAY ISSUE DIAGONALLY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY. 
          SO BURKE PARKWAY IS THE ROAD FRONTAGE FOR THE, LOOKS LIKE LIBERATOR MANAGEMENT GROUP HAS A BUILDING BUFFALO CORNHOLE PUB IN THERE. 
          THERE'S A BUILDING IN A PARKING LOT AND THEIR FRONTAGE AND THEIR ENTRANCE IS OFF BURKE PARKWAY. 
          AND IT, WHETHER OR NOT IT CONTINUES BURKE PARKWAY, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S CURRENTLY KIND OF A, SOME SORT OF CUT BETWEEN BASED ON THE AERIAL IMAGERY. 
          I'LL ALSO GO TAKE A LOOK AT IT THAT CONNECTS BURKE PARKWAY TO THIS PARKING LOT. 
          SO REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NUMBER OF DECISIONS HERE. 
          BURKE PARKWAY IS FUNCTIONING AS A ROAD THAT SERVES AS FRONTAGE IN FRONT OF AN ADJACENT BUSINESS. 
          AND I KNOW THAT, I DON'T DUNNO IF YOU'RE 200 FEET FROM THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE 200 FEET FROM THAT WOULD BE BUR PARKWAY ENDS RIGHT HERE. 
          THE PAVEMENT SECTION. 
          THIS LINE ACTUALLY ON THE DRIVES IS THE END, END OF PAVEMENT. 
          SO THIS IS WELL OVER 200 FEET TO THIS SECTION OF THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, I MEAN, WE CAN HAVE RESOLUTIONS PREPARED IN THE EVENT THAT WHATEVER DETERMINATION COMES UP FOR BURKE PARKWAYS THAT THE 200 FEET DOESN'T APPLY. 
          UM, IF THE 200 FEET DID APPLY, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO VOTE ON ANY AUTHORIZATIONS THAT WE DID. 
          SO WE CAN DO THAT OR WE CAN WAIT. 
          WHAT DOES EVERYBODY WANNA DO? I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE GOES, I, I THINK THERE'S SOME, SOME MEMBERS THAT ARE GONNA VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH BURKE PARKWAY. 
          SO THAT'S GONNA BE THE SAME EITHER WAY. 
          UM, BILL, IF I COULD SUGGEST, I MEAN IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO ACT ON IT, BUT I KNOW MEAN JUSTIN, I'M, I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW IF, IF CERTAIN, IF CERTAIN THING HAPPENS, WE WOULD NOT ACT ON IT. 
          EVEN IF WE HAD TO DO IT, WE COULD START PUTTING, THERE'S FIVE CRITERIA, THEN THE ADDITIONAL TWO START JUST LISTING THOSE OUT AND SAY, OKAY, HOW ARE THEY MEETING THESE OR NOT MEETING THESE, WHAT MITIGATIONS ARE. 
          SO AT LEAST YOU COULD FURTHER YOUR DISCUSSION THAT THE NEXT MEETING WE'LL DO THAT. 
          IN THE MEANTIME WE'LL GET AN INTERPRETATION FROM THE CODE OFFICER WORKING WITH JENNIFER ON, ON THIS ISSUE OF SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY OF, OF BURKE PARKWAY. 
          OKAY. 
          STREET BURKE PARKWAY PAPER STREET. 
          WELL IN BURKE PARK, CAMIE, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN INFORM BASED ON OTHER PRECEDENT SET BY THE TOWN WITH JENNIFER OR POINT HER IN THAT DIRECTION, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL ON ACTIONS REGARDING ROAD RIGHTIES. 
          LIKE IF WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SELL OUR TRANSFER, HOW BIG IT BEEN TREATED INSTANCES. 
          YEAH, THAT I'D STILL RECOMMEND YOU TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT BECAUSE YEAH, AND WE, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT I, BUT I PREFER IT COME FROM LEGAL THAN FROM ME. 
          I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A DECISION. 
          YEAH. 
          I'LL CALL LISA AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          I'M 
          [00:20:01]
CONFIDENT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO, TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING TO TELL US. 
          MM-HMM . 
          EVEN IF THE TOWN LAW DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION OF, UH, ROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          IT'S A COMMONLY ACCEPTED TERM. 
          IT'S NOT ONE THAT, THAT, ANYWAY, I'M, I'M NOT SAYING WHETHER IT'S COMMONLY ACCEPTED OR NOT. 
          I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S FOR JENNIFER TO TELL US WHEN SHE, WHEN SHE UH, GOES THROUGH AND LOOKS IT UP THOROUGHLY AND BECAUSE, BECAUSE HE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION. 
          TALKING AMONGST OURSELVES TONIGHT. 
          SO WE YOU'RE GETTING INPUT FROM THE ATTORNEY AND FROM THE COURT. 
          I'M TELLING YOU THAT WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION. 
          IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW. 
          IF WE DID IT WOULDN'T BE A GOOD ONE. 
          SO LET'S UH, TABLE LIFE STORAGE TO JULY 20TH AND WE'LL AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE VOTE OFF ON THAT. 
          CAN I ASK YOU THAT SNEAKER, THE SNEAK PERIOD IS OVER. 
          DID WE RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR REVIEW? NOPE. 
          ALL WE GOTTA DO IS WE'VE TO DO SEE PUT THE RESOLUTION TOGETHER FOR SEE, BUT ESPECIALLY PERMIT RIGHT NOW ISSUES REGARDING SEEKER. 
          RIGHT. 
          OTHER THAN WHICH GOES TO THE SCREENING AND LOCATION OF THE OUTDOOR STORE. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING. 
          THIS IS A SHORT EAF OR A FULL EAFI THINK WE DID A SHORT FOUR E AFTER THIS. 
          CAN YOU PROVIDE US THE PART TWO AND PART THREE DRAFT TO GO OVER? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S CONCERNS ON, SHE SAID IT WAS SHORT. 
          GO BACK TO THOSE QUESTION. 
          I'M SURE YOU PREPARE, PREPARE, HAVE THEM PREPARE PART TWO AND PART THREE WHEN WE HAVE LIKE A PRETTY IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
          WELL I DON'T THINK THAT WILL AFFECT THE PART TWO AND PART THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. 
          IS IT GONNA BE BASICALLY THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE EXISTING BUILDING? YEAH. 
          'CAUSE THE EXISTING BUILDING IS TECHNICALLY A TWO STORY BUILDING WHERE THE NEW BUILDING IS A THREE STORY BUILDING, BUT I BELIEVE THE EXISTING BUILDING'S TECHNICALLY TALLER. 
          OKAY. 
          TECHNICALLY IS TALLER AND PLUS WITH THE CREATE DIFFERENCE HEADING NORTH. 
          SO, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO WRAP. 
          I HAVE COPIES OF, I'M SORRY, WHAT? WE HAVE COPIES OF THESE PICTURES. 
          YES. 
          THEY ACTUALLY, I HAVE 11 BY SEVENTEENS THAT YOU CAN HAVE CORRECT THE COPIES THAT SARAH SENT OUT TO YOU, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST WEEK, UM, INCLUDES THESE AS WELL. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, UH, A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING COURT FOR DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, UH, AND PREPARE A PART TWO AND DRAFT PART THREE EAF AND TABLE THIS TO JULY 20TH. 
          SECOND MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          OPPOSED? OKAY, OPPOSED. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          IT'S A SHORT FORM FORM. 
          MR. CLARK, WOULD YOU WANT ANY OF THESE THAT YOU CAN HAVE? THEY'RE ALREADY PRINTED. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH, THEY'RE ALREADY I SOME DIFFERENCES. 
          RIGHT? ALRIGHT, SO WHILE WE'RE, WHILE WE'RE GETTING THAT PASSED OUT, LET'S GET THE NEXT ONE READY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DAVID BURKE REQUESTING REZONING PORTION OF VACANT LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RILEY BOULEVARD FROM C TWO TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT WORKFORCE RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS THE WORKFORCE RENTAL HOUSING THAT'S NEXT TO, THAT'S IN A BUSINESS PARK. 
          CONFUSED ON PARKWAY. 
          YES. 
          YEP. 
          LET'S GO. 
          THANKS SO MUCH. 
          UH, MY NAME'S ALAN HANDEL, I'M VICE PRESIDENT. 
          UM, WE'RE THE CONTRACT 
          [00:25:01]
EE OF, OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. 
          UH, JUST WANTED, AND THESE FOLKS ARE FROM PASS ROW, UH, ENGINEERING AND, UH, WE'LL PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED PRESENTATION. 
          JUST WANT TO QUICKLY REVIEW. 
          WE, WE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTINGENT CONTRACT WITH THE, WITH THE OWNER. 
          UH, IN DECEMBER. 
          WE HAD MET WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING WITH THE SUPERVISOR IN JANUARY. 
          UH, WE MET WITH THE CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE IN FEBRUARY AND UH, THEY FOUND MERIT AND RECOMMENDED, UH, THAT IT BE, UH, ADVANCED TO THE, THE TOWN BOARD. 
          THE TOWN BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION ON THE, UH, ON THE REZONING. 
          UH, AT THAT POINT IN, IN MARCH WE RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE SUPERVISOR FOR OUR APPLICATION TO NEW YORK STATE FOR FUNDING, UH, THE TOWN BOARD THE FURTHEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION IN APRIL. 
          UH, WE ATTENDED A PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION IN APRIL 20TH. 
          WE PRESENT, WE PRESENTED, UH, THE PROJECT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, UM, WE PROVIDED RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE TO THE EXISTING, UH, PLAN. 
          UM, WE MET AT, HAD A PRESENTATION MADE IN MAY PLANNING BOARD AND, UH, WE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL RESPONSES WHICH PASS ROW CAN REVIEW IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BASED UPON WHAT WE HAD SUBMITTED. 
          AND HERE WE ARE NOW, UH, IN JULY, UM, SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE, TO THE TOWN BOARD. 
          UH, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS PART OF A LARGER SITE THAT HAD BEEN UP ZONE FROM C ONE TO C TWO, UH, AND THAT PERMITS A RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. 
          CERTAIN ELEMENTS LIKE RILEY BOULEVARD WERE INCORPORATED INTO, INTO THAT ZONING CHANGE, UM, THAT WERE ESTABLISHED TO MITIGATE MANY OF THOSE IMPACTS. 
          SO OUR REQUEST FROM THE C TWO TO AN NC GENERALLY RESTORES THE PERMITTED USE OF A C ONE ZONE WITH THE ADDITION OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. 
          UM, AS SUCH, IT'S SIMILAR TO A REZONING THAT OCCURRED AT THE NEARBY WOODS AT BAYVIEW WHERE THERE WAS ZONE FROM A, UH, C ONE TWO, UH, AN NC. 
          UH, AND UM, AND WE WERE ASKED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO RESPOND TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. 
          ONE WAS, UH, TO, UM, ASSESS HOW THIS CONFORMS WITH THE NEW DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS OF THIS DATE THAT HASN'T BEEN ISSUED TO THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, THERE WERE SOME, SOME MAPS OF THAT THAT DO INDICATE THAT THIS IS AN AREA, UM, THAT THE TOWN, THE TOWN BOARD AND THE PLANNING BOARD WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT. 
          UM, AND WE LOOKED AT THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM THE, WE BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT ITERATION WAS IN 2006. 
          AND IT REV IT REFERENCES SEVERAL THINGS THAT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, BUT MOST NOTEWORTHY IS THAT ENTERTAINING REZONING REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS PLAN. 
          SO I WANNA INTRODUCE CHRIS SNYDER AND COLE  PASS WROTE, UH, THERE ARE ENGINEERS, THEY CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          WE SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE, UH, ASKED BY THIS BOARD. 
          UM, SO THEY CAN DO THEIR PRESENTATION OR IT'D BE HELPFUL JUST TO SIMPLY HAVE THEM RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. 
          YEAH, I KNOW THAT YOU FOLKS HAVE PROBABLY SEEN THIS A FEW TIMES NOW. 
          IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER, RECAP, UM, ANYTHING WITHIN THE APPLICATION. 
          SO NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THAT WORK OR THAT, WAS IT THE WORK SESSION ONE THAT WE HAD? YEAH, THIS ONE, THE, THE TOWN BOARD WOULD REZONE IT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. 
          SO IT WOULDN'T BE A SITUATION WHERE THE PLAN IS THE ZONING, IT'S JUST THE REZONING. 
          SO WE'D, IT'D BE IF THE TOWN, IF WE RECOMMENDED THAT, WELL, WHAT, WHATEVER, WHATEVER WE RECOMMEND. 
          IF THE TOWN BOARD DID CHANGE THE ZONING, IT WOULD COME BACK TO US AS A REGULAR PROJECT, NOT LIKE A PUD. 
          SO OUR TASK IS SIMPLY TO SEND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD OF WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THE REZONING IS APPROPRIATE AND THE TOWN BOARD CAN DO WITH WHAT THEY WANT. 
          WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. 
          I CAN GIVE AN UPDATE. 
          THE APPLICANT'S BEEN VERY PATIENT ON THIS DRAFT OF A PLAN COMING OUT, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. 
          UM, BUT I HAVE RELAYED TO THE APPLICANT 
          [00:30:01]
AND I'VE TALKED TO THE SUPERVISOR. 
          THE ISSUE HERE IS JUST ABOUT WHAT COMPLICATES THIS IS THAT THERE WAS ORIGINAL EIS DONE FOR THIS BEING A BUSINESS MARK. 
          IF WE, IF IT'S GOING TO CHANGE FROM A BUSINESS, MARK THE CONFERENCE PLAN JUST RECOMMENDED THAT A NEW PLAN BE PUT TOGETHER, AT LEAST A GENERIC PLAN OF HOW THAT WOULD WORK TOGETHER. 
          SO WE WOULD ASK THE OWNERS AND MR. BURKE OR WHATEVER THAT THEY SHOW US HOW THIS IS GONNA WORK TOGETHER. 
          THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AS A BUSINESS PARK. 
          WE RECENTLY APPROVED A CAR WASH WITHIN IN THIS BUSINESS PARK. 
          HOW DOES THIS ALL WORK TOGETHER? YEAH, THAT'S FINE TO REZONE, BUT HOW DOES THIS WORK TOGETHER? SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING THE APPLICANT IS WORK WITH THE OWNER AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT? OBVIOUSLY IF YOU PUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HERE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA PUT A HEAVY COMMERCIAL USE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. 
          WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THAT? AND THAT'S, I THINK THE TOWN BOARD'S GONNA ASK AND YOU'RE GONNA HELP THEM DEVELOP THAT. 
          AND THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM. 
          THERE'S NOTHING IN A COMP PLAN THAT'S GONNA SAY THIS CAN'T BE REZONED TO NC. 
          THE ISSUE IS HOW DO YOU, IF YOU'RE GONNA CONVERT THIS BUSINESS PARK, HOW ARE YOU GONNA CONVERT THIS BUSINESS PARK? IT'S NOT GONNA BE A MISHMASH OF USES THAT DON'T WORK TOGETHER. 
          UH, IT'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE THAT THIS OVERALL PLAN FOR THE SITE. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE SOME EXISTING USERS, WE HAVE A CARWASH BEING BUILT. 
          HOW IS THIS ALL GONNA WORK TOGETHER? SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE WOULD ASK THEM TO DO BECAUSE LIKE BEFORE WE HAVE TO REFERENCE THE OLD EIS THE OLD EIS ONLY TALKS ABOUT OFFICES AND COMMERCIAL USES. 
          SO HOW DO WE HAVE A PLAN THAT WE CAN SAY, YES, THIS MAKES SENSE AND THIS IS GONNA WORK TOGETHER. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO DO. 
          IS THAT SHOW US SOME, NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO SHOW EXACTLY, BUT THEN GENERICALLY HOW'S THIS, HOW THIS PART GONNA WORK NOW IF WE CONVERT PART OF IT TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. 
          AND I THINK IF, IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE WERE, WELL NO MATTER WHAT WE RECOMMEND, IF THE TOWN BOARD WERE TO CHANGE THIS PORTION TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO INCLUDE IN THAT THAT IT'S NOT GONNA BE A BUSINESS PARK. 
          SO MAKING THAT DECISION THEY SHOULD KNOW, WE SHOULD KNOW MEANS ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THERE IS GONNA BE REZONED. 
          THE BUSINESS PARK'S GONNA BE THROWN OUT WHERE IF WE KEEP IT HOW IT IS, WHAT'S IN THERE FOR THE BUSINESS PARK AND STAY UNTIL EITHER A BUSINESS PARK GOES THERE OR THE NEXT PROJECT. 
          BUT IF, IF WE MADE THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE, WE WOULD'VE TO THROW THE ENTIRE BUSINESS MARK OUT, WELL NOT EVEN THE BUSINESS PARK. 
          HOW DOES THIS ALL WORK TOGETHER? AND DAVE BURKE HAS TOLD US MANY TIMES THAT THIS ISN'T GONNA BE A BUSINESS PARK. 
          RIGHT. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR IT? WELL, AND THEN HE THEN, AND THEN THAT'S PART OF THE, LIKE HOW DO WE REMOVE OURSELVES FROM DECISION AND THINGS THAT RELATED TO A BUSINESS PARK WHEN THE BUSINESS PARK ISN'T, CAN WE START REVIEWING THINGS INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT OR, BECAUSE THE EIS IS IN PLACE, UNLESS IT'S FORMALLY ENDED, IT'S JUST HOW LONG DOES THAT EIS STAY IN PLACE? OR CAN WE START REVIEWING THINGS UNDER SEEKER INDIVIDUALLY? OH, IT'S NOT AS OLD AS THE PRIOR WOOD ONE. 
          IT'S PROBABLY 15 YEARS OLD, I WOULD GUESS 15, 18 YEARS OLD. 
          I CAN'T REMEMBER NOW. 
          HAVE YOU PROVIDED THAT TO US YET? I THOUGHT I, I ISSUED, I GAVE YOU A COPY OF THE FINDINGS DOCUMENT, WHICH SHOWED WHAT THEY DID. 
          I'LL GET THAT AGAIN IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT. 
          UM, BUT WE'RE GONNA TO REFER THAT FINDINGS DOCUMENT. 
          LIKE I SAID, THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, WE GOTTA HAVE SOME SORT OF HOW THIS IS ALL GONNA, WE'RE GONNA REZONE THIS TO WHATEVER. 
          HOW DOES THIS ALL WORK TOGETHER? EXCEPT DAVE BURKE'S GONNA SAY IT DEPENDS ON WHO COMES ALONG, WHO'S INTERESTED WHAT IN MY  THAT'S WHY I SAY IF WE, IF THIS IS REZONED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, WE CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY ANYMORE. 
          I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
          DO YOU MIND IF I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? SURE. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EIS DOING, THERE'S ALSO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE HAPPENING. 
          ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE EIS RELATED TO TO THE BUSINESS PARK? TO THE BUSINESS PARK ITSELF. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          THE BUSINESS PARK REFERS TO THAT ENTIRE AREA THAT'S UNDERDEVELOPED. 
          THAT INCLUDES TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, RILEY BOULEVARD. 
          THAT'S ALL PART OF WHAT WAS UNDERSTOOD INTENDED TO BE A BUSINESS PART. 
          AND THE I APPLIES TO BUSINESS PART, THERE WAS A BUSINESS 15 YEARS. 
          OKAY. 
          REZONE THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING CONFERENCE PLAN AT THE TIME. 
          AND THAT DECISIONS WERE MADE BASED UPON A BUSINESS PART AND IT WANTS TO BE CHANGED. 
          NOW LET'S PUT A PLAN TOGETHER THAT SHOWS THIS IS THE CHANGE FOR THAT BUSINESS PARK. 
          SO THIS WAS REZONED ALREADY TO ACCOMMODATE A BUSINESS PARK. 
          WHAT'S THAT? RIGHT? THIS WAS REZONED IN THE PAST TO ACCOMMODATE YEAH. 
          WAS MY UNDERSTANDING C2. 
          OKAY. 
          IT WENT FROM A, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WENT FROM A C ONE TO A C TWO AND THERE WERE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ADDED TO THAT THAT LIKE THE CAR WASH NEEDED SPECIAL PERMIT. 
          RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE IT WASN'T NECESSARILY COMPLIANCE FULL CONFORMANCE OF WHAT INTENDED 
          [00:35:01]
ACTUALLY THE TOWN BOARD HAD TO AMEND THE FINDING STATEMENT TO ALLOW A CAR WASH IN THIS BUSINESS PARK. 
          'CAUSE IT WASN'T ORIGINALLY ALLOWED. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BUSINESS PARK BECAME THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          SO WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE CAR WASH AND THINGS, IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW, WHICH IS A BUSINESS PARK. 
          NO, IT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED CAR WASHES. 
          WELL THAT IT WAS MY, WITH MY EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH THEISS, UM, IT IT SORT OF WHAT FITS WITHIN THE BOX. 
          SO LIKE IF IF THIS USE IS GOING TO BE RES ARE GONNA BE AT THE CENTER, GONNA BE LESS INTENSE THAN WHAT THE PREVIOUS EIS AND I I DON'T THINK THAT'S IT. 
          IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENSITY. 
          IT'S THIS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND USE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IT WAS EVALUATED AND IGNORING THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL, I THINK AS A A PLAYING BOARD AND AS A TOWN, WE WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT, WE DON'T WANNA JUST END UP WITH A HODGEPODGE OF STUFF FILLED IN THERE. 
          LIKE WHAT IS THE INTENT AND HOW IS IT, HOW DO TOGETHER, HOW DO YOU INVALIDATE A PRIOR EIS WELL IF YOU VALIDATE THE, THE PRIOR EIS YOU'D HAVE TO DO SEPARATE SEEKER ON THIS AND, AND WE BE A PIECEMEAL I WOULD JUST SAY BUT WHO COULDN'T HAVE VALIDATE IT? WOULD IT HAVE TO BE THE TOWN BOARD? WELL, IT'S GONNA BE THE TOWN BOARD AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE TOWN BOARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY ON THIS. 
          CORRECT. 
          WE SENT OUT NOTICES THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE IT'S A REZONING. 
          THE TOWN BOARD IS BEING LEAD AGENCY. 
          RIGHT. 
          THE PROBLEM IS IT IS NOT A UNIQUE ISSUE. 
          THIS IS, I'VE BEEN DOING SECRET FOR 40 YEARS. 
          IT IS BASICALLY AN ISSUE THAT YOU HAD IN AN IMPACT STATEMENT DONE. 
          WELL WE HAVE  GENERIC IMPACT STATEMENT THAT THE USES ARE NOT, THERE'S NO ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          THERE WAS NO ALLOWED USES FOR, FOR A, FOR A CAR WASH. 
          BUT THE TOWN BOARD WENT IN IT AMEND, ENDED THE FILING DOCUMENT AND MADE A DECISION. 
          BUT, BUT TO, TO AMEND BECAUSE THE CAR WASH WAS IN AN AREA THAT WAS ZONED FOR CAR WASHES IS JUST THAT EIS PROHIBITED OR, OR ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME BY PRIOR PROHIBITED THAT SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO THAT WAS A SMALL CHANGE. 
          THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER. 
          SO IF THEY WERE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE, WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NO LONGER REP APPLIES UNTIL WE DO ANOTHER GENERIC ONE FOR THAT AREA. 
          EVERY PLACE IS GONNA HAVE TO HAVE ITS OWN SECRET. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS ITS OWN SECRET HERE AND RIGHT. 
          THIS ONE WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO HAVE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE PROVIDED A, UH, LONG FORM EAF UH, AND ADDRESSED KEY ISSUES THAT THIS PLANNING BOARD HAD ASKED US TO ADDRESS. 
          IF YOU STAND AT THAT LOCATION, LOOK UP AND DOWN THE STREET, YOU FROM, FROM, UH, THIS LOCATION LOOKING THIS WAY, YOU SEE THE WOODS AT BAYVIEW. 
          THAT'S THE PROMINENT RIGHT ON THE HORIZON. 
          JUST NORTH IS THAT WAY JUST FOR, TO GET YOUR BEARINGS NORTH IS THAT WAY? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN IF YOU LOOK THAT WAY, THE OTHER WAY THERE'S A, THERE ARE APARTMENT COMPLEXES ON, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, UH, SOUTH PART, UH, OR SOUTHWESTERN RATHER. 
          SO I DON'T THINK OUR CONCERN IS WITH YOUR PROJECT, I THINK OUR CONCERN IS WITH WHAT IS MR. BURKE DOING WITH WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A BUSINESS PARK? SO, SO I THINK IT ANOTHER IN YOUR PROJECT ON ITS OWN MERITS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE DOING, BUT WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO COMMUNICATE. 
          LIKE IF, IF WE, IF WE SAY TOWN BOARD, WE WANT YOU TO CHANGE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. 
          WHAT THAT DOES TO THE REST OF THIS BUSINESS PARK IS SOMETHING THAT WE, THAT I I WE SHOULD ASK THE TOWN BOARD TO ADDRESS AT THE SAME TIME THEY ADDRESS THIS. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          AND, AND JUST LOOKING AT IT INTUITIVELY, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS DO, THIS IS WHAT I DO. 
          LOOKING AT THE SITE, THE AREA ON THIS SIDE OF RILEY BOULEVARD LENDS ITSELF MUCH MORE, MORE TOWARDS THIS TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AS IT ABUTS THE SCHOOL AND, AND THOSE FACILITIES. 
          AND THEN THE AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RILEY BOULEVARD LENDS ITSELF MORE TOWARDS HEAVIER COMMERCIAL USES, UM, BASED UPON IT'S ACCESS. 
          BUT THAT DEPENDS ON MR. BURKE WHO OWNS PRESUMABLY THE CORNER OF BAYVIEW AND RILEY BOULEVARD AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, HE MAY COME TO US SAYING, WE WANNA PUT THIS IN HERE AND HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE DO THAT? THAT, I MEAN THAT, SO WHAT HAPPENS IF HE COMES IN WITH SOME SORT OF, I DON'T KNOW, OFFICE BUILDING, OFFICE BUILDING OR LIGHT PERMISSIBLE AND C TWO ZONE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT MANUFACTURING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR, OR LIKE ONSITE ASSEMBLY OR WAREHOUSE OR SOMETHING? WAREHOUSE, YEAH. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE, HE HAS COME FORWARD WITH SOME WAREHOUSING THAT WAS, HAD BEEN REJECTED AT SOME POINT. 
          UM, SO I MEAN I, I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING BOARD TO DO IS TO MAKE A REC, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATION TO THE DOWN BOARD MAYBE JUST THAT, THAT 
          [00:40:01]
WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT AS GOOD MERIT IS NEEDED IN THE COMMUNITY AND THERE'S A VERY GOOD BUFFER BETWEEN, UH, THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT EXIST, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RILEY BOULEVARD. 
          UH, IT'S PROXIMITY TO THE SENIOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SENIOR, UM, COMMUNITY BUILDING IS EXCEPTIONAL. 
          SO THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR CONCERNS ON THE AREA OVERALL TO THE TOWN BOARD BASED ON . 
          RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A DECISION. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I MEAN, LET'S, LET'S BREAK THIS INTO PIECES. 
          UH, AS FAR AS THE SIMPLE THING IN FRONT OF US WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS PARK, THE REZONING FROM COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT? I I HAVE A HANDFUL OF QUESTIONS PROCEDURALLY BASED ON DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          AND THEY'RE MORE ABOUT DOCUMENTS. 
          SO I GUESS THEY'RE NOT PROCEDURE, BUT DID YOU JUST SAY YOU SUBMITTED A LONG FORM? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THERE'S ONLY A SHORT FORM ON THE TOWN WEBSITE. 
          SO I'M LOOKING AT SHORT FORM AND HE'S SAYING HE SUBMITTED A LONG FORM. 
          HE GAVE US A LONG FORM JUST RECENTLY. 
          SO WE, WE, WE PROVIDED A LONG FORM TWO WEEKS AGO. 
          A COORDINATED REVIEW INCLUDED A LONG FORM, A COORDINATED REVIEW WITH LONG FORM. 
          THEY PROBABLY START OUT WITH SHORT FORM. 
          SO HAVE WE SEEN THE THEN YES, WE HAVE THE LONG FORM IN OUR, IN OUR IS, WE DON'T MAKE THE SECRET DECISION THE TOWN BOARD DOES. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THE SECRET DOCS. 
          RIGHT. 
          WE CAN JUST GO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS ON THE WEBSITE, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MY BEARINGS ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND MAYBE I DON'T NEED TO BECAUSE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REZONE WHEN IT COMES BACK. 
          THAT'S, YEAH, RIGHT. 
          I'M JUST CONFUSED ON A HANDFUL OF THINGS. 
          SO, AND MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PROJECT, BUT IT'S, THE WHOLE PROJECT SAYS IT'S REGARDING A PORTION OF AN SBL. 
          SO ARE YOU ALSO SUBDIVIDING THE PERSONAL? YEAH, SO THE PROJECT INCLUDES THIS FIRST STEP, WHICH IS THE, YOU KNOW, GOING FOR THE REZONING. 
          THE SECOND STEP WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THIS PORTION, THE WAIT, RIGHT NOW IT'S THIS ENTIRE WAIT, YOU REZONING THE ENTIRE PARCEL? JUST THIS PORTION. 
          THIS PORTION. 
          SO WE HAVE TO SUB IT FIRST? NO, YOU'RE GONNA REZONE. 
          HOW CAN YOU REZONE PART OF SOMETHING? YOU CAN, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. 
          YEAH, YOU CAN PART PARCEL NO'S DIFFERENT. 
          IT'S DIFFERENT. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I GUESS SETTING THAT DOWN FOR A SECOND. 
          IF I FOLLOW THE BREADCRUMBS ON THE DOCUMENTS, AND MAYBE I JUST SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT THEM, BUT I'M LOOKING AT WHAT'S ON THE TOM WEBSITE RIGHT NOW. 
          WE HAVE IN THIS SHORT FORM A REFERENCE TO THE ATTACHED PARCEL FOUR. 
          AND THEN WHEN I HAVE TWO NARRATIVE MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS FOR A PROPOSED PARCEL ONE AND A PROPOSED PARCEL FOUR, BUT A DRAWING OR A PROPOSED PARCEL ONE AND PROPOSED PARCEL TWO, BUT A DRAWING FOR PARCEL FOUR THAT'S SUGGESTING A REZONE TO R THREE, I AM SO LOST AT THIS POINT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S AN OLD APPLICATION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WHOLE DOCUMENT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M THOROUGHLY CONFUSED. 
          SO AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A MOVE TO GO TO R THREE, BUT NOW WE HAVE NEW, OR THE TOWN HAS NEWER DOCS, THEY HAVE A LONG FORM AND WE'RE LOOKING AT AN NC. 
          YES. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA ADDRESS THAT OUT. 
          THAT WAS A LOT AT ONCE, BUT I WAS BEING YEAH, NO, I VERSUS THE DOCUMENTATION. 
          I THINK WHEN WE HAD INITIAL DISCUSSIONS, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSION, WHETHER IT'S R THREE OR OR NC. 
          OKAY. 
          THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT NC WAS MORE APPROPRIATE, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE ADJACENT, UH, THE, THE REZONE THAT OCCURRED, UH, AT TAPE WOODS BAY VIEW. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT IS PERMITTED ON A RESIDENTIAL BASIS IN AN R THREE IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S PERMITTED IN AN NC. 
          I'LL PUT THE LONG FORM ON TOMORROW ON THE WEBSITE OR I CAN EMAIL YOU. 
          YEAH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN EMAIL THE, BE THE DOCS AND ULTIMATELY THE TOWN DECISION, I JUST, I FOUND IT VERY HARD TO LIKE WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND WHAT I SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WITH REGARD TO THE NC. 
          LIKE NOTHING WAS ADDING UP THE TOWN BOARD AND THEIR SECRET DECISION WILL CONSIDER THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND, THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SITE PLAN. 
          THEY HAVE TO, CAN'T SEGMENT ITS REVIEW. 
          THE TOWN BOARD COULD ALSO, LIKE THEY DID FOR THE, FOR THE CAR WASH SAY ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THEY COULD AMEND THE FINDINGS DOCUMENT THEY HAVE TO IS TO GENERATE THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION ON HOW THEY'RE GONNA DECIDE ON, ON THAT SECRET DECISION. 
          SO WHAT ARE YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS? I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN WE HAVE, AND THAT'S WHAT I EXPRESSED AND YOU KIND OF AGREED, IS THAT HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO THE OVERALL PLAN OF THIS AREA? IT WAS A, IT'S NOT LIKE I'M MAKING THEM PLAN SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T OWN OR WHATEVER. 
          THIS IS AN APPROVED BUSINESS PARK. 
          WE NEED A PLAN TO SAY HOW ARE WE INTRODUCING RESIDENTIAL INTO AN 
          [00:45:01]
APPROVED BUSINESS PARK AND HOW'S IT GONNA WORK ALTOGETHER? RIGHT? BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          WE CAN TELL THE TOWN BOARD IF YOU REZONE THAT IT'S SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THAT WE THINK YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. 
          AND THEN THEY CAN, THEY CAN DO THAT. 
          AND IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE THAT THEY DO IT THAN US BECAUSE IT'S A BIG DEAL FOR THE TOWN. 
          WE ABLE TO SEND ONE OF US MAYBE BILL OR SOMEONE ELSE TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH OUR FINDINGS TO ALSO ARTICULATE SOME OF THIS. 
          IT MAY BE HELPFUL. 
          AND THEY'RE ALSO ABLE TO SAY, I WANT YOU TO SHOW UP AND ARTICULATE THIS BECAUSE, AND BY THE WAY, THEY COULD ASK YOU TO BE ON A WORK SESSION THAT PROBABLY, I I TOLD THE TOWN BOARD, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND ALLOWS THE TOWN BOARD TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IF THERE'S ENOUGH CONCERNS OR ISSUES THEY WANT YOU, THEY CAN ALWAYS REFER BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INPUT. 
          THEIR JOB IS TO GET ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DIFFICULT DECISION. 
          THIS IS A DECISION TO CHANGE AN APPROVED BUSINESS MARKET. 
          I KNOW MR. BURKE HAS BEEN IN HERE, BUT IT'S AN APPROVED BUSINESS. 
          MARK. 
          GUYS, WE NEED TO PLAN TO SAY HOW THIS IS GONNA WORK. 
          IF I'M A RESIDENT IN THE AREA, I WANNA KNOW, OKAY, ARE WE CHANGES, THIS IS ALL GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL, IS IT, I KNOW HE DOESN'T HAVE A SPECIFIC, BUT HOW IS THIS ALL GONNA WORK TOGETHER? IS IT GONNA MAKE SENSE AND IS IT GONNA BE GOOD FOR THE TOWN? IT'S A DOMINANT CORNER OF THE TOWN, THE BUSINESS PARK. 
          WHAT'S PROMPTED THIS? YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, A MOVIE THEATER, A TINSEL TOWN MOVIE THEATER WAS PROPOSED AND PEOPLE WENT NUTS. 
          AND THEN THE TOWN SAID, WE GOTTA COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN. 
          THE PLAN WAS AN OFFICE BUSINESS PARK THAT NOW HAS CHANGED, MORPHED OVER THE YEARS. 
          IT'S NOW TIME TO SAY, HEY, WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY? SO THAT GRAY OUT AREA RIGHT THERE, RILEY. 
          AND YEAH, SO WILL THAT REMAIN C TWO? THAT WOULD, AT THIS POINT IT WOULD REMAIN C TWO AS AS BACKGROUND. 
          WE HAD SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, THE SELLER AND AT THAT POINT HE SAID, WHY DON'T WE REZONE EVERYTHING TO UH, TO TO NC ON THIS SIDE OF RILEY BOULEVARD. 
          WHICH, WHICH I THINK MAKES IT, IT'S NOT STANDARD C TWO, AS YOU REMEMBER FROM THE FINDINGS. 
          THE FINDINGS SAY THESE ARE THE ONLY ALLOWABLE USES AND THESE ARE THE PROHIBITED USES. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO GO BACK FOR THE CAR WASH BECAUSE IT WAS SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS A PROHIBITED USE. 
          IT WASN'T ALLOWED IN THE SEAFOOD ZONE BY ANYTHING. 
          WE WERE ALSO GONNA GET THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE PUBLIC MINI STORAGE, WHICH BY THE WAY, THAT PROJECT HAS GONE AWAY BECAUSE IT PROHIBITS WAREHOUSING AND ITS IN, IS PUBLIC MINI STORAGE, WAREHOUSING, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. 
          SO THAT, MY POINT THOUGH IS THAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, INTUITIVELY, EVERYTHING SOUTH OR NORTH OF RILEY BOULEVARD MAKES MORE SENSE. 
          RESIDENTIALLY OR RESIDENCE OR AN NC WHICH IS A, OR WHICH WOULD BE A, A MORE LIMITED COMMERCIAL USE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT WE'RE MAKING THE DECISION OR WE WOULD BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO ONLY, ONLY REZONE A PORTION OF IT. 
          AND THAT SEEMS COUNTER TO CONSIDERING THIS WHOLE PARCEL, YOU KNOW, ALL ALL TOGETHER. 
          I I IMAGINE THAT YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS PARCEL THE, THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDERED REZONING THIS. 
          AND AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT, LOOK AT THIS PARCEL AS WELL. 
          ARE WE ENCOURAGING THE TOWN BOARD TO SEGMENT THEIR REVIEW IN ANY WAY? AND I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT DREW BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT SEGMENTATION, BUT THEY LOOKED AT THIS, I GUESS IT'S NOT ONE BIG PROJECT, IT'S INDIVIDUAL, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ALL THESE BITS OF, WELL WE CHANGED THE USE, WE CHANGED THE ZONING TO CHANGE THE USE AND WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE ZONING TO CHANGE THE USE AND WE'RE GONNA SUBDIVIDE THIS 'CAUSE WE MIGHT CHANGE THE ZONING TO CHANGE THE USE. 
          YOU'VE NO LONGER REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AS A WHOLE. 
          RIGHT? THAT'S THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF OF YEAH. 
          OF GETTING RID OF THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AND WE'RE NOT SO, SO THAT PUTS US IN A POSITION WHERE WE WOULD, WE COULDN'T LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE ANYMORE. 
          THEY'D BE ALL INDIVIDUAL PARCELS, BUT IT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN DOING. 
          AND MAYBE THAT CREATES THE PROCESS WHERE THEY DO A NEW ONE OR SOMETHING TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING. 
          SURE, SURE. 
          BUT THE, BUT THE LAST TIME THEY LOOKED AT THE WHOLE THING DIDN'T WORK OUT. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THIS AS A WHOLE. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR LISA SCHEMATIC PLAN BECAUSE THERE IS AN EIS ON RECORD, I HAVE TO COMMENT ON THOSE ISSUES. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS ELOQUENTLY STATED THE FACT THAT WE AUTOMATE IMPACTS ARE LESS FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          IT'S GONNA HOPEFULLY GENERATE LESS TRAFFIC, IT'S GONNA LESS WHATEVER. 
          BUT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THAT EIS WE'RE NOT GONNA SEGMENT, WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE OVERALL PARK. 
          THAT'S WHY IT'S RECOMMENDED IN THE COMMON PLAN AND IN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE TOWN BOARD. 
          YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING GUYS. 
          YOU CAN'T JUST PIECEMEAL THIS PIECE BECAUSE 
          [00:50:01]
OUR IMPACT WE'RE GONNA CREATE BECAUSE OF JUST DOING THIS PIECE. 
          MR. BURKE IS TECHNICALLY THE APPLICANT AND HE STILL OWNS THE PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          IT IS A PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. 
          WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE AGREEMENT FROM THE SUPERVISOR FROM THE TOWN BOARD, BUT WE'VE JUST GOTTA HAVE SOME PLAN IN PLACE. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO, SO, AND THAT'S THE THING. 
          SO WHERE WE ARE, WE WET MAKE UP THIS PLAN. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ELECTED PEOPLE IN TOWN. 
          THERE'S THE PLANNING BOARD, WE DO DO PROJECT BY PROJECT. 
          SO THESE NEXT QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED AT THE TOWN BOARD LEVEL. 
          SO WE SHOULD SEND IT TO THEM RATHER THAN HAVING THIS COME BACK HERE. 
          BUT THE QUESTION FOR US IS WHAT ARE WE GONNA SAY WHEN WE SEND IT TO THEM? WHICH I MEAN WE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING. 
          UH, SO THAT'S WHY I KIND OF WENT TO WHERE I WAS EARLIER. 
          AS FAR AS JUST THE ONE PIECE, THE REZONING FROM C TWO, RIGHT? C TWO TO NEIGHBOR COMMERCIAL. 
          HOW DO MOST OF US FEEL ABOUT THAT? RIGHT? I WANNA REVISIT THE EIS BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT, UM, OUR COPIES, IT'S UH, IT DOESN'T MATCH UP WITH THE PLANNED INTENT FOR THIS WHOLE PARCEL. 
          WELL IT MATCH UP WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT, BUT IT DOESN'T MATCH UP WITH ANYTHING WE'VE DONE IN RECENT YEARS. 
          YEAH. 
          OR, OR ANYTHING WE'VE DONE SINCE THEY DID IT. 
          IT FEELS OUT, IT FEELS OUT OF CHARACTER AND INVITING PEOPLE TO LIVE BEHIND A POTENTIAL WAREHOUSE OR NEXT TO THE, I MEAN I I THINK WHEN THEY PLAYGROUND, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY DID IT, TRACTOR SUPPLY WENT IN AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT AND SINCE THEN THERE'S BEEN NOTHING. 
          AND EXCEPT WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST LIKE YEAR. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHICH, WHICH ALL, EVERYTHING WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST YEAR REQUIRED SOME TYPE OF, WELL I GUESS THERE WAS ONE PROJECT THAT DIDN'T END ON NOT HAPPENING. 
          CAN, CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. 
          SO WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT A PLAN FOR BUSINESS PARK HERE. 
          ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE E ASKED OR AN ACTUAL PLAN THAT'S SOMEWHERE WRITTEN INTO THE COMP PLAN OR CODE LICENSE? WELL, IT'S NOT THE COMP PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S THE EIS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OVERALL PLAN IN THE EISS THERE WAS ACTUALLY A PLAN. 
          YEAH, FOR THE BUSINESS PART. 
          THERE WAS ACTUALLY FINDINGS MADE ON THAT PLAN AND WHATEVER THE PLAN IS OBVIOUSLY GONNA CHANGE. 
          SO THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THAT PLAN CHANGING IN, IN THAT, IN THAT DECISION NOT ONLY SECRET . 
          AND, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN GENERALLY REFERENCED IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY, I DOUBT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX OR ANYTHING. 
          I THINK IT WAS JUST OKAY. 
          THERE, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THE, IN THE, IN THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SUPPORT AFFORDABLE, UH, IN THIS TYPE OF LOCATION. 
          AND AS I STATED BEFORE, IT DOES, ONE OF THE KEY FINDINGS, UH, IN THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ENTERTAINING THE ZONE REQUESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS PLAN. 
          SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS, SPEAKS VERY DIRECTLY TO THAT. 
          IS THAT UPDATED IN YOUR LONG FORM? 'CAUSE THE SHORT FORM SAYS NO. 
          NO, IT'S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NO, IT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE ZONING CODE. 
          WE, IT AGAIN, THOSE ARE OLD DOCUMENTS WE DID SUBMIT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IT UPDATED IN THE LONG FORM. 
          IT IS UPDATED IN THE LONG FORM. 
          IT SHOULD BE UPDATED IN THE LONG FORM. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S ALSO, THERE'S A MULTI-PAGE, UH, RESPONSE LETTER THAT, THAT OUR TEAM, THE RESPONSE, DID YOU RECEIVE THEIR RESPONSE LETTER? I NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT BURIED SOMEWHERE THAT I WILL LOOK FOR . 
          DID OTHER BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVE THOSE? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE GOT THE RIGHT INFORMATION. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE, WITHIN WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT WE DO DISCUSS, UH, CONFORMITY TO THE, UH, THE 2006, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AND I THINK OUR CONCERN IS NOT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT'S THE BUSINESS PARK PROPOSAL. 
          THAT WAS WHAT THE SEASON WAS DONE ON. 
          SO, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, I MEAN I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE I, I, YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS QUITE A BIT AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU'RE, NOW THAT'S THE PLAN FOR THIS AREA. 
          THAT'S A PROJECT THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR THE AREA. 
          SO I MEAN THAT MAY BE, THAT'S UP TO AND THE PROJECT, THE BUSINESS, THE PROJECT A BUSINESS PART. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU CAN STOP BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND REVIEW IT. 
          QUESTION. 
          YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
           THE ES AND IT WAS ABOUT 18 YEARS AGO, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHAT DID THE EIS HAVE A PLAN ON? LIKE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A THIS HERE AND A THAT THERE AND A THIS HERE AND A THAT THERE, OR WAS IT JUST, THIS IS A BUSINESS PARK AND WE THINK WE'RE GONNA ATTRACT E EITHER WAY WITH THEY HAD A SAMPLE LAYOUT OF, OF THE BUSINESS PARK, ALL THAT WAS IN THERE TO ANALYZE. 
          BUT YEAH, YOU COULD, YOU COULD HAVE THREE USERS IN THERE, YOU COULD HAVE 10 USERS IN THERE. 
          AND THE EIS SAID THESE ARE THE TYPE OF USES THAT ARE ALLOWED AND THESE ARE THE USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED. 
          RIGHT. 
          I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO, TO SAY, AND I'LL TRY AND MAKE THE POINT AGAIN. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THESE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY THE TOWN BOARD. 
          OUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS 
          [00:55:01]
AREN'T GONNA COME TO ANY SOLUTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THOSE SOLUTIONS. 
          CAN WE JUST LIST CONCERNS? EXACTLY. 
          PUT THEM IN A LETTER. 
          SO WHAT DO WE WANNA PUT IN THE LETTER SO WE MAKE SURE THE TOWN BOARD ADDRESSES THESE THINGS? THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE UP WITH. 
          THANK BILL. 
          I'VE ALWAYS SAID TO THE PLANNING BOARD IN A REZONING, YOUR IDEAS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR AGAINST, YOU'RE GENERATING INFORMATION FROM THE TOWN BOARD TO MAKE A RATIONAL DECISION ON THE RUN. 
          I APOLOGIZE TO THE BOARD IF I NO, IT'S, IT'S, SO WE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, THEY'LL BE IN THE MINUTES AND WE CAN USE THOSE AS THE BASIS FOR A LETTER. 
          SO, AND THE QUESTION IS, IS IS A RESIDENTIAL USE COMPATIBLE WITH THE UNDERLYING PLAN TO MAKE A BUSINESS PARK? WELL THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO. 
          IT'S A SEPARATE TO THAT. 
          SO IF THEY WERE GONNA DO A REZONING BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS NO, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO INTO THE REST OF THE STUFF THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. 
          YES. 
          IF, IF THEY'RE GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT WE WANT, WE LIKE A BUSINESS PART, WELL THEN NONE OF WHAT WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. 
          NONE OF IT CHANGES. 
          SO IF THEY SAY YES, THEN THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO INTO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WE HAD AS TO HOW THIS FITS IN WITH THE REST. 
          SO, AND, AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT WHETHER WE SAY, YEAH, WE THINK YOU SHOULD OR NO, WE THINK YOU SHOULDN'T. 
          IT'S WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD CONSIDER. 
          SO WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A LIST OF THAT AND WE'LL HAVE TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION YES OR NO. 
          BUT LET'S, LET'S COME UP WITH A LIST. 
          SO TO HELP THE PLANNING BOARD TO AUTHORIZE ME, WE CAN JUST PUT THE FRAMEWORK OF A REPORT TOGETHER, WHAT ISSUES WE NEED TO ADJUST, PUT YOUR ISSUES IN THAT FRAMEWORK OF THE REPORT. 
          YOU ISSUE YOUR REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD. 
          TOWN BOARD, THEY CAN HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA WHO ALSO MAY HAVE COMMENTS OR CONCERNS THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS. 
          I'LL TAKE, TAKE FROM THESE MINUTES, I'LL TAKE STEPS, COMMENTS. 
          I LIKE WHAT JEFF SAID ABOUT MINUTES. 
          PEOPLE HAVE RAISED A GOOD AMOUNT OF THINGS. 
          AND TO EXTRAPOLATE, CAITLYN, ON YOUR POINT ABOUT THE UNDERLYING, THERE'S ALSO THE SORT OF QUESTION OF DOES IT, DOES THE, THIS PROPOSED REZONING AND THE USE STEMMING FROM THE COMPORT WITH THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, THAT'S SORT OF BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE USES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE SURROUNDING PARCELS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AND MONTHS. 
          WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A BUSINESS PARK, WHICH IS ALSO THE MAJOR, LIKE DOES FIT IS FINAL STATEMENT. 
          THIS BUSINESS PARK WAS REZONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HE SAID THIS WAS A GOOD AREA FOR THAT TYPE OF FELONY. 
          I DO AGREE THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS WE'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          DOESN'T MEAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD GO EVERYWHERE IN THE TOWN. 
          SO WE'VE ALREADY SET THE PRECEDENT THAT WE REZO THE PROPERTY FOR BUSINESS FARM. 
          WE NEED TO, IF WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT, YES, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE FUTURE OF THIS CORNER, THIS AREA OF THE TOWN, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          BUT YOU'RE GONNA HELP THE TOWN BOARD PUT TOGETHER THE REASONS IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT OR NOT. 
          RIGHT? JUST SET THAT, SET THAT. 
          SO, SO HERE'S WHAT WE'LL DO. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL, UH, WE WILL TABLE THIS UNTIL JULY 20TH. 
          IN THE MEANTIME, SARAH WILL GO THROUGH THE MINUTES, GET A LIST OF THE THINGS WE WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER. 
          IF WE, IF AFTER YOU GET THAT LIST, YOU COME UP WITH OTHER THINGS, WHAT WE'LL DO IS, IS WE'LL, WE'LL WRITE THOSE THINGS DOWN ON THE LIST AND WE'LL JUST DO A QUICK VOTE ON JULY 20TH. 
          UM, WE LIST TO CONSIDER, I MEAN, WE, WE'LL, WE'LL DO, WE'LL DO WHETHER OR NOT WE RECOMMEND THE REZONING, BUT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS IMPORTANT AS MAKING SURE WE GIVE THE TOWN BOARD A NICE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD CONSIDER IF THEY'RE GONNA DO THE, SO JUST THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE, I ASKED ABOUT THE SCHOOL BUSES. 
          REMEMBER THAT? YES. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND I NEVER GOT AN ANSWER TO THAT. 
          THEY SAID THAT IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THE SCHOOL BUS DOESN'T GO IN. 
          YES. 
          SHE WOULD'VE ONE THAT, THAT I WAS TOLD TO, WELL, THEY CAN WALK TO SCHOOL. 
          WELL, THEY CAN'T WALK TO SCHOOL BECAUSE WE GOT THREE SCHOOLS. 
          AND I JUST WANNA MAKE KNOW IF THEY'VE CONTACTED THE FRONTIER SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SEE IF THEY'LL ALLOW SCHOOL BUSES IN THERE AND IF NOT, WHERE THEY'RE GONNA, BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS IF THEY HAVE TO PICK THOSE KIDS UP ON RILEY BOULEVARD, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE PEOPLE ZOOMING IN AND OUT OF A CAR WASH, AND THERE'S GONNA BE, IF THEY BUILD SOMETHING ELSE, EVERY CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. 
          SO MY CONCERN IS THAT I, I DON'T REALLY FEEL THAT THIS TYPE OF HOUSING OR ANY HOUSING SHOULD BE A UP ABUTTED UP AGAINST OTHER BUSINESSES LIKE THAT. 
          SO CLOSE NOW THERE'S NO BUFFER. 
          I MEAN MM-HMM. 
          THERE, THERE'S SIMILAR APARTMENTS ON, ON SOUTHWESTERN. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT TWO, DON'T, DON'T CONFUSE THE ISSUE. 
          SOUTHWESTERN CARS GO UP AND DOWN. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING HERE, YOU, YOU'RE BUTTON UP AGAINST A BUSINESS CARD AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT, LIKE THEY SAID, THEY MIGHT PUT IN A, A BIG WAREHOUSE WHERE THEN SEMIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          I, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN. 
          I, I THINK THAT 
          [01:00:01]
OKAY. 
          YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THOSE, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT, WE HAVE BUILT SIMILAR, SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS. 
          YOU COULD JUST REACH OUT TO THE FRONT OF YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ASK IF THIS ONE AND WHERE THE SCHOOL BUS STICK WOULD BE AND PROVIDE RESPONSE. 
          THAT WOULD BE OKAY, NOAM. 
          I MEAN, IF THEY SAY, OKAY, WE DO THAT, THEN WE CAN DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          BUT THAT'S WHAT BILL SAID. 
          THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE IT A BUSINESS. 
          I SAY THE MOTION, THE TABLE REZONING. 
          I DID NOT, OR MAYBE I DID TO REACH TO TABLE REZONING TO JULY 20TH. 
          SECOND. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. BOBIN. 
          UH, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS A DRAFT 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. 
          JOSH, THE MOST RECENT DOCUMENT ON THE FINDINGS IS THE ONE THAT YOU EMAILED OUT LAST FRIDAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          THAT HAS ALL THOSE STUFF IN IT. 
          WE LEFT YOUR COMMENTS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE FRIDAYS. 
          AND BY THE WAY, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HELP THE SECOND DRAFT OF FINDINGS. 
          RIGHT. 
          THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HELP, BUT I TRIED TO PUT A SYNOPSIS TOGETHER OF WHAT I BELIEVE THE ISSUES ARE MEETING THE MINUTE MEETING MINUTES AND WHATEVER OF WHAT THE THINGS YOU'RE GONNA, INSTEAD OF READING THE WHOLE DOCUMENT, WHICH WE CAN'T DO. 
          THESE ARE, I BELIEVE, THE ISSUES THAT WERE GENERATED IN THE LAST TWO MEETINGS ABOUT THE FDIS. 
          SORRY. 
          SO THE ONE I HAVE FROM FRIDAY DOESN'T HAVE FACT CHANGES IN IT. 
          IS THERE A VERSION WITH TRACK CHANGES? OH NO, THIS IS THE SECOND ONE. 
          SORRY, THERE'S TWO. 
          SO I'M AT THE FRIDAY A THERE'S TWO ON FRIDAY. 
          OH YEAH, THAT FRIDAY AFTERNOON. 
          SEE WHICH ONE I LOOKED AT RIGHT'S THE SECOND, THERE'S TWO OF THEM THAT CAME OUT. 
          THERE WAS FBI. 
          OKAY, SORRY. 
          SO WE WANT THE DOLLAR GENERAL. 
          SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TIMELINE WE SET OUT, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FEIS TODAY. 
          AND, UH, WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION, HAVE TO BE IN A POSITION TO VOTE ON THE FBIS AT OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          SO, UH, NOW THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE WE DID A POSITIVE DECLARATION AND SEEKER AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE SEEKER PROCESS. 
          UM, JENNIFER, AS OUR ATTORNEY, WHAT THINGS DO YOU WANT US TO DO NEXT? DO YOU, OR DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I GUESS I SHOULDN'T PUT YOU ON THE SPOT LIKE THIS. 
          NO. 
          SO I THINK, AND ACTUALLY DREW AND I DISCUSSED THIS A LITTLE BIT TODAY. 
          I THINK WHAT YOUR NEXT STEP HAS TO BE IS, DID THE APPLICANT, WELL I GUESS YOUR NEXT STEP SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION OF HAS THE APPLICANT MITIGATED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE OR PRACTICABLE ALL THE CONCERNS YOU HAD WITH THE PROJECT. 
          THAT IS YOUR CONSIDERATION IS, IS THAT FOR THE FEIS OR IS THAT FOR THE FINDING STATEMENT? IT'S IN THE, WELL IT'S, SO I THINK IT'S BOTH. 
          YEAH. 
          A LITTLE OVERARCHING BECAUSE I FLAGGED A COUPLE PLACES WHERE I DID NOT FILL IN A CONCLUSION THAT DREW HAD ALSO KIND OF FLAGGED WHERE I THINK AS A BOARD WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT GOES INTO THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH IS MAKING ANSWERS DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION OF HAVE THINGS BEEN MITIGATED? DO WE THINK THIS AN EFFECT YOUR FEIS IS GOING TO HELP YOU COME TO YOUR CONCLUSION FOR YOUR BINDING STATE, CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          THE DEIS, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT'S OPINION. 
          YOU, THEY WERE ASKED TO SAY, OKAY, THESE ARE THE ISSUES. 
          DO WITH DEIS, YOU THEN DO THE FEIS BY MOSTLY ANSWERING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS. 
          IT HAS TO RECORD THE APPLICANT'S HEALTH AND ANSWER, NO QUESTION. 
          YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THOSE. 
          YOU NEED TO CHANGE THOSE BECAUSE THE FEIS MUST REPRESENT YOUR OPINION WITH THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, THE DEIS AND THE FEIS, THEN YOU HAVE TO ARTICULATE YOUR DECISION IN A FINDINGS DOCUMENT WEIGHING AND BALANCING THE ISSUES THAT WERE PRESENTED IN BOTH DOCUMENTS AND MAKE A CLEAR DECISION ON THE RECORD BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT IS ON THE RECORD. 
          SO WE'RE AT THE POINT IS, THAT'S WHY I SENT YOU A DRAFT FINDING STATEMENT BECAUSE THE FBIS IS GONNA LEAD TO THAT FINDING STATEMENT TO SAY WHAT ARE DECISIONS, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHAT, AS KAITLYN HAS POINTED OUT, THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. 
          YOU HAVE TO RESOLVE THOSE. 
          YOU HAVE HAVE AS A BOARD, A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SAY, AS JENNIFER HAS SAID, HAVE WE MITIGATED THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. 
          THERE'S ALWAYS 
          [01:05:01]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHEN YOU BUILD, BUILD ANYTHING. 
          AN IMPACT STATEMENT ALLOWS YOU TO MITIGATE, UNLIKE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO SAY, IT WILL NOT IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT. 
          A-A-E-I-S ENDS WITH, HAVE YOU MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE FOR, FOR THIS PROJECT? ARE THE, OR YOU'VE DETERMINED THAT THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT YOU DETERMINE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT AT ALL, OR THEY DID MITIGATE THE MAX OF TECH PRACTICAL. 
          I PUT A LIST TOGETHER OF THE GUYS THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE I PUT 13 THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP THAT I DON'T THINK WE'VE RESOLVED. 
          THERE MAY BE LESS, WHICH YOU THINK ARE LESS, BUT THESE ARE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP THROUGH YOUR COMMENTS ON THE FBIS. 
          WE NEED TO CLEARLY ARTICULATE THAT IN THE FBIS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION. 
          I I, THAT'S ALL I CAN HELP YOU WITH. 
          YOU GUYS HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. 
          CAITLYN HAS SOME GOOD QUESTIONS. 
          YOU NEED TO RESOLVE IT AND COME TO A CONCLUSION ON IT AND THINK ABOUT MITIGATIONS. 
          THEY'VE OFFERED MITIGATIONS. 
          HAVE YOU MITIGATED SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'RE SAYING, THERE'S NO MITIGATION FOR THE PEDESTRIAN. 
          ARE THERE ANY MITIGATION FOR THAT? AND IS THAT A LARGE ENOUGH IMPACT THAT YOU CAN'T PROVE THIS PROJECT? ARE THERE MITIGATION, A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS, THE NOISE, THEY'VE OFFERED A BUNCH OF MITIGATIONS. 
          HAVE THEY MITIGATED THE MAXIMUM SAME PRACTICAL OR DO YOU HAVE OTHER IDEAS FOR REASONABLE, REASONABLE MITIGATION FOR NOISE ISSUES, LIGHTING? I THINK THEY'VE ADDRESSED CAMMY'S HERE TO TALK ABOUT STORMWATER ISSUES OR OTHER ISSUES ABOUT THAT. 
          I THINK THE, THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER ISSUE AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION. 
          IT'S NOT A RIGHT OR WRONG, IT'S THAT THEY MITIGATE THE MAXIMUM EFFECT PRACTICAL. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT EARLY ON, YOU GAVE THE APPLICANT DIRECTION ON, THEY BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANTED THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING TO LOOK LIKE, AND THEY HAD THAT PREFERRED OPTION WITH THE PITCHED ROOF. 
          WELL GUESS WHAT THAT PREFERRED OPTION IS? THE APPLICANT HAS PUT IN THE DEIS AND FDIS, YOU CAN'T PUT THE AC UNITS ON THE ROOF. 
          SO THE AC UNIT'S GOTTA GO SOMEWHERE ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          ONE OF THE MITIGATIONS YOU COULD OFFER IS, LOOK, EVEN WITH THE NOISE AND OTHER PROBLEMS, WE THINK THE MITIGATION IS THE MOVE THAT AC UNIT YOU MOVE AC LOCATION. 
          THAT WOULD'VE LESS IMPACT. 
          UM, SO ANYWAY, I TALK A LOT. 
          THESE ARE ISSUES HERE. 
          YOU GUYS NEED TO TALK. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF ME, JENNIFER CAMMY'S HERE. 
          THE APPLICANT IS HERE. 
          YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. 
          YOU NEED TO SAY, OKAY, WE AS A, A PLANNING BOARD ARE, THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GIVING YOU ON THE FBIS AND TO BEGIN TO PUT, TO FINALIZE THAT FINDINGS ON IT. 
          BECAUSE ONE WILL COME PROBABLY AT THE TWO MEETINGS OR ONE MEETING AFTER. 
          YOU SHOULD BE FBIS FOR THE PUBLIC'S SAKE. 
          ONCE YOU ACCEPT THE FBIS, IT WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE TOWN WEBSITE FOR PEOPLE TO REVIEW. 
          THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. 
          BUT THE, BUT THE RESIDENTS, THE AREA CAN SUBMIT LETTERS TO THE PLANNING BOARD SAYING, HEY, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. 
          WE BELIEVE THIS. 
          IT'LL INFLUENCE YOU ON THE, THERE'S NO FORMAL PROCESS. 
          IT GOES OUT, THE FINDINGS, THE FEIS IS AVAILABLE AND PEOPLE CAN COMMENT ON IT. 
          YOU HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST 10 DAYS, WE'LL PROBABLY WAIT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO WEEKS BETWEEN MEETINGS. 
          YOU'LL PROBABLY TALK ABOUT THE FINDINGS AND AN ISSUE, THE FINDINGS AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING. 
          UM, SO ANYWAY, I TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR. 
          LIKE TO YOU GUYS, I'M GONNA, UNLESS YOU ASK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          SO LET'S, I GUESS LET'S GO OVER THIS LIST. 
          AND, AND OUR GOAL IN THIS LIST IS, IS TWOFOLD. 
          ONE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE QUESTIONS FROM THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WERE ANSWERED, BUT WE, WE ADDRESSED THAT IN THE FILE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFTS. 
          SO IF WE HAVE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE FEIS WOULD BE NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, EITHER MITIGATIONS THAT, THAT WE WANT TO ASK FOR, THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY ASKED FOR. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT A CORRECT SUMMARY? AND I DID AGREE, BY THE WAY, I DID CHANGE THE ONE THING WHERE CAITLIN AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE STUFF THEY PUT IN THE FBIS WAS THEIR OPINION. 
          I STATED THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S OPINION. 
          YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR OPINION. 
          NOW. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT I WENT TO DREW AND DREW GAVE SOME VERY GOOD GUIDANCE ON HOW TO, AND I, YOU PROBABLY NOTICED THAT I USED A LOT OF YOUR SAME VERBIAGE IN HERE ABOUT HOW TO, THE APPLICANT STATED X AND THE DEIS, THE PLAINTIFF, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THEIR APPLICANT'S OPINION AND, AND WITH A COUNTER STATEMENT AS WAS RELATIVE RELEVANT. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF PLACES THAT I ADDED THAT IN. 
          THERE'S A NUMBER OF 'EM RIGHT BEFORE THE HEADING 4.2 0.2 WHERE THINGS, BECAUSE YOURS IN PURPLE OR, UM, I THINK YOURS WAS IN PURPLE, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE. 
          YES. 
          MINE'S PURPLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THAT I HAVE SOME THINGS IN, UM, FOR EXAMPLE ABOUT PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES, BACKUPS TO SUBSTANTIATE CERTAIN CLAIMS THAT WERE MADE THAT MAY NOT BE RELEVANT. 
          AND SO 
          [01:10:03]
TRUE. 
          THIS LIST THAT YOU HANDED OUT, DOES IT IN ANY WAY FOLLOW THE SAME ORDER OF OUR FEIS? I TRIED TO FOLLOW THAT ORDER. 
          THAT'S HOW I WENT THROUGH, I WENT THROUGH THE FEIS AND THE QUESTIONS AND WHATEVER AND THEN SAID THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO RESOLVE. 
          THE FIRST QUESTION WAS ABOUT CONSISTENCY WITH CONFERENCE OF PLANNING OVER OVERLAY DISTRICT. 
          SO, AND EVERYBODY'S GOTTA TALK ABOUT OUR, OUR DRAFT FEIS. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE I, I MEAN I WANNA GO OVER THIS LIST, BUT I DON'T WANNA REHASH THINGS. 
          IF YOU WANNA GO THROUGH THE LIST, I CAN FOLLOW HERE AND FLAG IF THERE'S SOMETHING HERE THAT NEEDS TO GET RIGHT. 
          BUT THE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THERE, WE DON'T NEED TO FLAG. 
          SO IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT IN YOUR PURPLE OR IT'S IN THE, IN THE YELLOW OR IF IT WAS IN THERE ORIGINALLY, WE DON'T NEED TO FLAG THAT. 
          'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME. 
          NO, BUT THERE'S SOME I FLAGGED THAT WE NEED SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT. 
          SO I'LL FLAG THAT IF YOU DON'T ALREADY HIT IT HERE IN THE CONTEXT. 
          BECAUSE SOME OF THESE TOPICS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AC UNIT HAS A NOISE COMPONENT, IT HAS A PROXIMITY SETBACK THERE, THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS. 
          SO I'LL TRY AND FLAG FOR THAT ALONG WITH YOU WHILE YOU GO THROUGH THIS. 
          AND I GUESS TO TO, TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I WANNA DO, I WANNA SEE WHAT CHANGES WE WANNA MAKE. 
          I DON'T WANNA READ WHAT WE ALREADY DID. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION THAT IS NOT THIS, THERE IS A WHOLE SPOT THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND I DON'T KNOW IF I DID IT OR IF DREW DID IT OR IF JOSH DID IT UNDER RESPONSE TO COMMENT ONE A DOT YEAH, THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S HIGHLIGHTED. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I GOT, WE ADDED THAT IN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE, I THOUGHT THE STUFF YOU YOU ADDED IN WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN BROWN THOUGH. 
          THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. 
          NO, I HAVE AN EARLIER VERSION OF THAT IN THERE. 
          THAT'S ALRIGHT. 
          SO I DIDN'T TRY TO REMOVE ANYTHING. 
          I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT GO WHAT? HOW THIS CHANGED. 
          I TRIED. 
          SO WE'RE, SO AS LONG AS WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REMAINING CONCERNS AND THERE'S NOT A COMMENT, WE CAN KIND OF JUST IGNORE THE HIGHLIGHTING. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, I'LL I'M GONNA SIGN MY . 
          SO JOSH HIGHLIGHTED SAYING YOU MAY WANNA CHANGE THIS PARAGRAPH. 
          JOSH HIGHLIGHTED. 
          SO YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO NUMBER ONE, CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OVERLAY DISTRICT. 
          A ZONED CORRECT RELEASE NOT RELEVANT UNLESS NOT ZONED CORRECTLY, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN. 
          SORRY, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICTS APPLICANT BELIEVES THEY MEET THE OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. 
          HAVE THEY DONE ENOUGH ARCHITECTURE, LOCATION ON SITE, SCALE OF PROJECTS, ET CETERA, TO MEET AND NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OTHER MEDI MITIGATIONS? SO THIS IS THE, THE RURAL CHARACTER OVERLAY DISTRICT. 
          WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT? SOUTHERN HAMBURG OVERLAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THE MITIGATIONS WERE OFFERED WAS THE, THE DOLLAR GENERAL THAT, UH, RESEMBLES AN ARCHITECT, UH, AGRICULTURAL BUILDING, TWO ZONING SETBACKS. 
          SO REAL QUICK, SO ONE THING THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT IN, AND THIS MAY SEEM LIKE A SMALL POINT, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TALKS ABOUT HOW NOT ONLY THAT THIS IS A, A DISTINCT REGION IN THE TOWN, BUT IT IS A DISTINCTLY RURAL REGION IN THE TOWN. 
          AND THERE'S THIS REALLY IMPORTANT SENTENCE I THINK, WHICH WILL SPEAK TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY CHARACTER, WHICH IS THIS ATMOSPHERE HAS FOSTERED AN INDEPENDENCE. 
          AND THAT'S IN QUOTES, AN INDEPENDENCE IN MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS RURAL AREA. 
          IT'S IN A DISCUSSION OF THE LAKEVIEW AREA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AND SO THIS NOT ONLY SPEAKS TO THE DISTINCT, UH, RURAL CHARACTER OF, UM, THE, UH, THE LAND USES IN THE, IN THIS REGION, BUT ALSO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO LIVE THERE, INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS, UM, UH, UH, ON HEALTH ROAD. 
          AND SO THAT IS A, THAT THAT THAT SPECIFIC REFERENCE IT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, DID NOT MAKE IT INTO OR IS NOT REFERENCED IN THE FEIS AND I. 
          AND I THOUGHT THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER, UM, INCLUDING IT SHOULD THAT GO UNDER ZONING OR COMMUNITY CHARACTER? I THINK IT, IT WOULD BE THE OVERLY DISTRICT. 
          BUT THAT'S THE COPY. 
          THAT'S A PLAN. 
          NOT THE OVERLY DISTRICT. 
          BUT BUT THE QUESTION OF ZONING IS WHETHER IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN. 
          I MEAN, NO. 
          SO THE, SO THE ZONING LOOK AT DREW'S LAUGHING 'CAUSE THE ZONING HAS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE. 
          THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINS TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          CORRECT. 
          NO. 
          HELPS YOU BETWEEN BUT UNDERSTAND, SORRY, I MISSED THE OVERLAY 
          [01:15:01]
DISTRICT WAS PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          SO THE OVERLAY IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THAT AREA OF THE TOWN. 
          WE PUT AN OVERLAY IN PLACE TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. 
          SO I I JUST, I I WAS JUST REFERRING TO DREW'S OUTLINE. 
          YEP. 
          WHICH, WHICH LIST? ZONING. 
          BUT THAT WAS, WELL I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADD IT IN AND I'M GONNA RIGHT. 
          ZONING, I LIKE WORK, BUT SOLAR WAS PUT IN PLACE TO IMPLEMENT. 
          CAN I BORROW YOUR HARD COPY? SECOND, TYPE IN THAT QUOTE AND AND AGREE OR DISAGREE LAND RESULTED IN ALLOWING THOSE C TWO. 
          WHICH ONE? THIS AREA? UH, RIGHT HERE. 
          THIS NOW THIS. 
          WE CAN START THERE. 
          I MIGHT START THERE IF THAT'S OKAY. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          YEAH. 
          WE WERE ONLY COUNTING THE SOUTHERN HAMBURG OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          WHAT'S THAT? ARE WE ONLY SPEAKING OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT? YES. 
          AS COMMUNITY CHARACTER, YOU ASKING ME MY OPINION, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          SO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE MORE IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. 
          WE TEND NOT TO SAY, OKAY, IF I DIDN'T HAVE AN THE ZONING CHANGE, I WOULD SAY I GOTTA REFER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          THE OVERLAY WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THE OVERLAY IS CODIFIED AS PART OF THE YEAH. 
          AND THE OVERLAY HAS A LOT OF OBJECTIVES OR A LOT OF THINGS THEY'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS. 
          AND THAT REALLY GOES TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          IT'S HARD TO GO BACK TO THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE THE ZONING IS WHAT IS IMPLEMENTING THAT CONFERENCE PLAN. 
          ZONING MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONFERENCE PLAN. 
          A PROJECT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE ZONING MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONFERENCE. 
          WERE YOU JUST READING FROM THE CODE OR FROM THE CONFERENCE COMP PLAN, BUT I STARTED WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. 
          YEAH, THERE'S A FIRST TOO. 
          OVERLAY DISTRICT IS CODIFIED TOO, SO I KNOW WHAT YOU WERE OVER. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES SPECIFICALLY SAY THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SET BACK FROM RURAL GRAVES AND ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT THAT TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER AND THE AESTHETICS AND LAYOUT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO PREVENT THE AREA SUBURBAN MARKET. 
          THE QUESTION IS, HAVE THEY DONE ENOUGH TO MITIGATE  PRACTICAL, THOSE IMPACTS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER ESTABLISHED BY THE OVERLAY. 
          DISTRICT COUNCIL SAYS RURAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES SHALL BE APPLIED TO MANAGE GROWTH AND ACHIEVE A MORE DESIRABLE ENVIRONMENT THAN WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE STRICT APPLICATION OF EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS. 
          SO ARE THERE, I GUESS WHILE WE'RE ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MITIGATIONS THAT WE WOULD REQUEST TO HAVE IT COMPLY WITH THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT? OR WOULD WE SAY THAT, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE FINDING STATEMENTS, WHICH IS THE NEXT STEP, I DON'T WANNA JUMP TOO FAR AHEAD, BUT THERE'S CHOICES YOU TOGETHER. 
          WELL, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CONCLUSION IN HERE AS WELL. 
          RIGHT? SO, SO OUR CONCLUSION HAS TO BE EITHER IT MEETS THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, THEY MITIGATED ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T MEET. 
          SO, SO ONE MEETS THE OVERLAY DISTRICT TWO, THEY WOULD MITIGATE ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T MEET THE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE OR THREE, THERE ARE MITIGATIONS THAT THEY COULD DO TO MEET THE MI THE OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE. 
          THOSE ARE OUR THREE CHOICES. 
          SO WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO PUT A RECOMMENDATION IN IN THERE. 
          SO OUT OF THOSE THREE CHOICES, WHAT DO WE PUT IN THERE? RIGHT. 
          AM I, AM I DOING IT WRONG? GOOD QUESTION. 
          I MEAN, GREATER SETBACKS I THINK WOULD GET TO THE INTENT OF THE SOUTHERN OVERLY DISTRICT. 
          WHETHER OR NOT THEY THINK THAT'S FEASIBLE. 
          I MEAN, BUT ALL RIGHT. 
          GREATER SETBACK. 
          SO, SO, SO WE PUT IN THERE THAT WE BELIEVE IT WOULD NEED GREATER SETBACKS TO MEET, YOU KNOW, GREATER SETBACKS FROM THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 
          EVERYBODY FROM SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WE WANNA VOTE ON EVERYTHING OR DO WE WANNA JUST KINDA, I MEAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS SO SOUTHWESTERN, AND THIS IS THE, THE POINT I TRIED TO ADD IN IS THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARACTER ALONG SOUTHWESTERN AND THE CHARACTER ON HELPS. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE DIS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, COMPARING IT TO SOUTH SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH IS A VERY DIFFERENT CHARACTER IN NATURE. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ADDED IN HERE IS 
          [01:20:01]
THAT THE PLACEMENT OF A COMMERCIAL RETAIL DRIVEWAY ON HEALTH ROAD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER ALONG HEALTH ROAD, WHICH I REALIZE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          BUT THAT'S, BUT THAT'S, BUT THAT GETS TO THE CHARACTER IN THE ZONING AND IT ALSO GETS BACK TO THE SETBACKS AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER OVERLAY DISTRICTS, WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY AGREES. 
          BUT SHOULD YOU ALSO ADD IN THERE, SO I GUESS THE, MAYBE THE SCOPE AND BREADTH IN THIS DOCUMENT'S CONFUSING ME BECAUSE THERE IS LIKE A VERY STRONG COUNTERPOINT TO THAT IN THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT THE DRIVEWAY ON SOUTHWESTERN, LIKE THE STATE OR THE TOWN OR THE COUNTY OR WHOEVER SAID NO. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. 
          LIKE I THINK IF WE MAKE THE POINT THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS A GREATER IMPACT ON HEALTH ROAD, WHICH I AGREE WITH, WE HAVE TO ALSO STATE THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO BE PLACED IN ANY OTHER PLACE BASED ON WHOMEVER TOLD US. 
          NO MITIGATE THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THE FORCE OF HAVING TO HAVE THE COMMERCIAL DRIVE ON TO HEALTH. 
          THEY TRIED TO FIND THE BEST PLACE TO PUT IT. 
          THEY DID STUDIES ON HEADLIGHTS. 
          HAVE THEY DONE ENOUGH? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO IF THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO GO ON HEALTH, WELL, HAVE WE DONE ENOUGH? SO, SO MARGO RAISED AN ISSUE FOR, FOR ME, UH, SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO THE DOT SAID NO IF, IF WE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT, IT SAID IN ORDER TO MEET THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE DRIVEWAY CAN'T BEHELD. 
          IT HAS TO BE ON SOUTHWESTERN, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DOT SAID NO, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? SO ED WAKOWSKI AND I HAD A LENGTHY, FRUSTRATING CONVERSATION BEFORE. 
          WE WERE TRYING NO, NO, HOLD ON. 
          NO, NO, NO. 
          I'M, I'M, THIS COMES BACK A SECRET. 
          HE EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE DECISION FROM THE DOT WAS NOT WEIGHING IN SEEKER. 
          AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AS A PLANNING BOARD WE HAD TO EVALUATE OTHER THINGS, BUT THEY WERE NOT WITHIN THE NARROW DEFINED SCOPE FOR WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO COMMENT ON AND THAT THEY WERE NOT EXPLICITLY NOT FACTORING IN. 
          AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT COULD BE A CHALLENGING SITUATION FOR US TO BE IN WHERE WE'RE BALANCING THINGS, BUT FOR THEM IT ONLY CAME BACK TO A CERTAIN NARROW SCOPE. 
          SO, SO NOW MARGO STATED THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT FAIR TO ASK THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT DT SAID NO, NOT FEASIBLE. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY TO, TO ASK THEM TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE DOT HAS ALREADY SAID NO. 
          AND I GUESS MY QUESTION, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE FOR OUR ATTORNEY AND, AND DREW CAN WEIGH IN, IS THAT ACCURATE? JUST BECAUSE THE DOT SAID NO. 
          IF, IF WE LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WELL THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. 
          I THINK YOU CHARACTERIZE IT RIGHT? IN MY OPINION IS IF THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT IS NOT A FEASIBLE ACTION AND THAT'S WHERE WE LIE. 
          THAT'S OUR DECISION, RIGHT? WHETHER IT'S FEASIBLE OR NOT, OUR NARROW SCOPE IS TO DO WHAT'S BEST IN OUR VEINS AND OUR VEINS. 
          IS THAT EXACTLY. 
          IT'S NOT, DOESN'T MEET THE CHARACTER ON HOUSE. 
          WE'RE IN KIND OF A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE OF DOT HERE. 
          BUT DON'T FORGET THE STANDARD IS ALSO MITIGATING TO THE GREATEST EXTENT, PRACTICAL. 
          RIGHT? SO SO TO REQUEST A MITIGATION THAT THE DOT ALREADY DENIED, IS THAT PRACTICAL? CORRECT. 
          THAT IS A QUESTION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. 
          THAT'S A QUESTION FOR US TO CONSIDER. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          LOVE BEING A LAWYER SOMETIMES, DON'T YOU? , THAT'S YOUR JOB. 
          SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SO, SO, SO GOING BACK TO THAT, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT TALKS ABOUT IS MY PRIOR STATEMENT ABOUT GREATER SETBACKS. 
          THE APPLICANT WOULD PROBABLY INDICATE THEY WERE NOT PRACTICABLE. 
          AND SO THAT COMES BACK TO US BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE Y AND WHAT THEY CAN PUT, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          IT'S AGAIN, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT, PRACTICAL. 
          AND WE DECIDE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS PRACTICAL, THAT'S OUR DECISION THAT WE'RE TASKED WITH. 
          SO IT'S NOT A EXCLUSIVELY LEGAL DECISION. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPOINTED THE TYPES OF DECISIONS WE'RE APPOINTED TO MAKE. 
          SO WE'VE GOT A, WE'VE GOT TWO THINGS HERE WITH THE OVERLAY ZONING SETBACKS. 
          SO I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF PUT ONE AND TWO TOGETHER. 
          AND WE HAVE THE, WE MENTIONED THE DRIVEWAY ON HEALTH AND WE MENTIONED THE SETBACKS TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S USED AS RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO ARE THERE DIFFERENT, I WOULD ALSO SAY SETBACKS ON HEALTH ROAD SETBACKS TO HEALTH ROAD TO HEALTH ROAD BECAUSE ONE OF THE SPECIFIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS, SO THERE'S THE GREATER SETBACKS FOR RESIDENTS AND THEN GREATER SETBACKS FROM DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SETBACK FROM ROADWAYS PRESERVE THE RURAL OF THE DISTRICT. 
          SO, AND THE ESTE, AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THE AESTHETICS AND LAYOUT OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO PREVENT THE AREAS OF DIGGING ON SUBURBAN APPEAR. 
          SO, AND THAT'S NOT AN OVERARCHING QUESTION THAT'S JUST BEEN ANSWERED A LONG TIME AGO IS WHETHER IT'S INHERENTLY A SUBURBAN THING. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT. 
          'CAUSE THERE ARE DOLLAR GENERAL , THE, SO, SO 
          [01:25:01]
I THINK WE HAVE CONTINUED BREAK NOW. 
          I WOULD, IT'S THAT POINT HAS BEEN MADE. 
          SO SETBACKS, MITIGATION, THE ONLY ADDITIONAL MITIGATION THEY COULD POSSIBLY DO TO MEET THOSE SETBACKS MM-HMM . 
          WOULD BE TO MOVE THE BUILDING. 
          SO OUR QUESTION IS DO WE THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A PRACTICABLE MITIGATION OR NOT? AND WE SHOULD DECIDE THAT AS A GROUP. 
          SO WHAT DO WE THINK, DO WE THINK THAT THAT IS A, A PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO ADDRESSING POTENTIAL? WELL, I GUESS, WELL FIRST OF ALL, WE GOTTA IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE IS A PROBLEM. 
          SO, SO DO WE BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING CAUSES A PROBLEM WITH THE SETBACKS AS THEY RELATE TO THE OVERLOOK? DOES THAT ANSWER YES. 
          YES. 
          IS, OKAY. 
          SO IF WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE, DO WE BELIEVE THAT MOVING THE BUILDING IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THAT PRACTICAL, OR SHOULD I JUST SAY PRACTICAL, PRACTICAL, PRACTICAL. 
          I KNOW IT'S PRACTICAL, I HAVE TO SAY IT THAT WAY. 
          YES. 
          UH, A PRACTICAL SOLUTION. 
          WE THINK MOVING THE BUILDING IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION THAT SHOULD BE PRACTICAL, BUT IT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PRACTICAL. 
          SO THAT, AND THAT'S THE TOUGH QUESTION. 
          WE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH QUESTIONS OR, OR TOUGH TO SEE DECISIONS NOT GONNA COMPLICATE IT. 
          EVERY REACTION HAS A REACTION. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO YOU COULD CREATE OTHER PROBLEMS BY MOVING , BY MOVING THE BUILDING. 
          YES. 
          IT GETS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED AND THAT'S WHY THEY STUDIED IT AND SAID THEY BELIEVE THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO CITE THIS BUILDING ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          BECAUSE YOU CREATE OTHER PROBLEMS BY MOVING THE BUILDING AROUND ON THE SITE. 
          WELL, AND, AND, OKAY, SO IT'S SIMPLER TO TAKE IT PIECE BY PIECE. 
          BUT IF WE TAKE THEM TOGETHER, IF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON SOUTHWESTERN, THEN IT WOULD BE PRACTICABLE TO MOVE THE BUILDING IN A WAY THAT CONFORM TO WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE ISSUES WITH CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE OVERLY DISTRICT. 
          WOULD YOU MOVE THE SEPTIC FIELD, MOVE EVERYTHING MIND? I MEAN YOU JUST HAVE TO COMPLETELY REARRANGE THE ENTIRE RIGHT. 
          BUT I, I THINK THERE WAS A RICH, THERE WAS A DRAWING AT ONE POINT IN TIME THAT HAD THE DRIVEWAY IN SOUTHWESTERN THAT HAD THE BUILDING IN A SPOT. 
          YES. 
          THAT WOULD'VE MADE IT. 
          AND IT WAS MOVING OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT MOVED EVERYTHING ELSE THAT PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE SAYING NOW THAT IT DOESN'T, AND I THINK THAT THE SEPTIC HAS TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT IT'S ON BECAUSE OF THE TRUCK ACCESS AND THE ORIENTATION OF THE PARKING LOT. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IF THE PARKING LOT WAS ORIENTATED DIFFERENTLY, THE SEPTIC, YES. 
          I THINK YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S LET'S SKIP THAT QUESTION AND GO TO THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVEWAY MOVING IS PRACTICAL WOULD THEN LEAD US INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE MOVING THE BUILDING IS PRACTICAL PRACTICABLE. 
          SO THE DOT SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY MORE CURB CUTS ON SOUTHWESTERN DENIED THE CURB CUT ON SOUTHWESTERN. 
          DO WE THINK A, A CURB CUT ON SOUTHWESTERN WOULD BE A PRACTICABLE SOLUTION TO MITIGATE THE ISSUES RAISED AS FAR AS THE ZONING SETBACKS AND CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVER DISTRICT? WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THAT? IF THE CURB CUT WAS ON SOUTHWESTERN IT, LOT OF THE BUT MY THING IS, SO IS THAT A PRACTICABLE SOLUTION? THAT'S THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ANSWER. 
          WELL, THEY CAN'T DO IT, SO REALLY NOT, BUT MY THING IS, OKAY, SO YOU, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT IF, IF SOUTHWESTERN, IF THE, IF THE STATE SAYS YOU CAN'T PUT ON SOUTHWESTERN, THEY'RE DICTATING TO US, WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD DO, THEN WE GOTTA PUT ON HEALTH ROAD. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK BUT THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO THE STATE ROAD. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO DO A CURB CUT ON SOUTHWESTERN THAT DOESN'T DICTATE TO US THAT WE GOTTA LET 'EM DO WITHOUT WE SO SO YOU WOULD SAY SOUTHWESTERN IS A PRACTICAL SO YEAH, MITIGATION. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THINK WELL, YEAH. 
          WHAT HELPS IS RIGHT. 
          IT THERE SHOULD BE NO WAY THEY SHOULD BEHELD. 
          WE CAN WE CAN STOP IT. 
          YES, PLEASE. 
          'CAUSE IT'S OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          WELL, SO I, SO I'M, I I DON'T KNOW THAT, AND MAYBE JENNIFER HAS THOUGHTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE 
          [01:30:01]
BEEN TOLD AND THERE'S NO WAY TO PUT IT A DRIVEWAY ON SOUTHWESTERN. 
          IT'S A DOT ROAD THAT THEY'VE BEEN TOLD AND IT IS. 
          SO JENNIFER'S THOUGHTS ARE, WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          I KNOW THAT JENNIFER, WE'RE NOT IN AN HOUR, I'M WAITING FOR TO WEIGH IN, BUT I THINK THAT IT IS NOT, IF THE DOT SAYS THAT IT WOULD BE DENIED, IT'S NOT A VIABLE OPTION. 
          DOES IT HAVE TO BE A VIABLE OPTION TO BE A PRACTICAL MITIGATION? YES. 
          IN ORDER TO BE PRACTICABLE IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT COULD REASONABLY BE DONE. 
          CORRECT DREW. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THE ISSUE TOO IS NOT WHAT, WHAT'S WE EARLY ON PUSH THAT ISSUE ON AND ON MM-HMM . 
          IT, IT WAS SOMETHING WE CONTINUED TO ASK THEM TO LOOK AT AND THEY BELIEVE THEY PRESENTED ENOUGH. 
          THEY BELIEVE THEY PRESENTED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SAY, LOOK, IT JUST CAN'T BE DONE. 
          WE WOULD, WE WOULD DO IT IF IT COULD BE DONE AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A DRIVEWAY ONTO SOUTHWESTERN, WE SHOULDN'T, WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD HAVE WENT FURTHER AND STUDIED. 
          OKAY. 
          HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AND HOW CAN WE DO A LITTLE BIT MORE? I THINK EARLY ON THE THE ANSWER WAS, AND REMEMBER KAITLYN CALLED ED RUSKI WAS THAT, LOOK, THE STATE DOESN'T WANNA ALLOW A CURB CUT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT COUNTS AS PRACTICABLE BECAUSE, AND I GOT ZERO, I GOT NOWHERE AND I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT AARON HAD SEEN WAS IT FORMALLY DENIED THOUGH? I DON'T THINK , THEY, WELL I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS FORMALLY DENIED, BUT THEY ISSUED A DETERMINATION THAT THE CURB CUT, THERE'S A LOT OF THIS SAYS THE CURB CUT HAS TO BE ON HAL ROAD. 
          CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT'S IS THAT APPEALABLE, WE WERE INFORMED OF THAT AS WELL. 
          WE WERE INFORMED OF THAT. 
          IS THAT APPEALABLE? WELL, THE TIME TO FILE AN ARTICLE UPDATE WOULD'VE EXPIRED FOR THAT DETERMINATION. 
          UM, THEIR ONLY OFFER, JUST TO FINISH YOUR QUESTION WAS THEY SAID YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET A STATE LEGISLATOR INVOLVED, UH, GET TO TRY TO FORCE THE DT THAT'S RELEVANT THEN DO, DID THIS IS UP TO US TO DO THAT. 
          THOSE WERE OPTIONS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WHEN THEY INQUIRE NOT TO US, WE HAD THE OPTION TO GET A STATE LEGISLATOR INVOLVED. 
          NO, THEY, THE DOT DIDN'T MAKE THAT STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT. 
          THEY MADE THAT STATEMENT TO US TO YOU GUYS THOUGH. 
          NOT TO. 
          WELL, MY POINT THOUGH IS THAT WE'RE NOT JUST DECIDING PRACTICABILITY IN A VACUUM MM-HMM . 
          MM-HMM . 
          RIGHT. 
          WE'RE NOT SAYING OH, DID THE DOT DECISION, IS THAT THE ONLY THING RELEVANT? I MEAN, NOW I ASKED ONE QUESTION AND I FOUND OUT THAT MAYBE A STATE LEGISLATURE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THOUGH THE POLICY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THAT IT NOT JUST FOR THE, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, I MEAN JUST FOR THE ROAD, BUT, UH, WE GOT THE, I DUNNO WHAT YOU WERE TOLD, I WAS TOLD IT'S A POLICY. 
          THIS IS THE WAY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU UNLESS SOMEONE ABOVE US TELLS US TO CHANGE OUR MIND. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY DID NOT SAY THAT TO ME WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM. 
          THAT'S WHAT I TOLD. 
          I THINK THE CURB CUT ON SOUTHWEST IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION. 
          YOU THINK IT IS? YEAH. 
          SO WE, SO WE'VE GOT TWO YESES. 
          YOU THINK IT'S PRACTICAL? WELL, YOU, YOU KNOW, IF THE DT IS TELLING YOU YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, UH, GIMME THE DEFINITION OF PRACTICAL. 
          I MEAN, IF THEY'RE TELLING YOU NO, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GIVE IT TO HAVE IT AT THE DT LEVEL AND IF THERE'S SOME OTHER AVENUE WE CAN GO TO TO TRY TO CHANGE THAT, THEN YES. 
          IF IT'S POLITICAL OR SOME OTHER WAY, YES. 
          BUT THE PRACTICAL WORD IT DOESN'T ASSOCIATE WITH, IF THEY'RE TELLING YOU NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT. 
          I I IT'S CONFUSING. 
          WELL, WE HAVE TO ANSWER YES OR NO BASED ON WHAT WE'VE GOT IN THE RECORD. 
          I DON'T THINK IT IS. 
          NO. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ALSO, NO, NO. 
          IF THERE WERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE AS A BODY, WE OWED IT AS OUR DUTY TO DO THAT WHEN WE GOT THE INFORMATION FROM DOT AND NOT NOW. 
          SO I DON'T, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS OUR OBLIGATION. 
          IS IT OUR OBLIGATION TO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS OUR OBLIGATION, BUT THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S PRACTICAL. 
          THEN IF THE ROAD ENDS THERE AND THAT WAS THE ANSWER AND WE CHOSE NOT TO TAKE IT HIGHER, THEN IT'S, WELL I DON'T TAKE IT HIGHER EITHER. 
          IT WASN'T ON THEM, IT WAS ON US. 
          THEY TOLD SARAH WE COULD TAKE IT UP. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT THAT'S A GAME OF POLITICS THAT GIVEN THAT GRAY ZONE, THE ROAD KIND OF ENDS HERE. 
          I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW. 
          OKAY, I AGREE. 
          CAN I, I DON'T KNOW IF OUR ROLE IN, IN THIS, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS Y'ALL'S DECISION, BUT, UM, AND AS YOU KNOW, OUR OPINION ALREADY, BUT, UM, THE THOUGHT TO PUT TO THE ATTORNEYS HERE IS THAT THAT DOT RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S NOT PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO US PUTTING A STRUCTURE ON A DOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OF. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, I THINK THAT THE SEEKER 
          [01:35:01]
LAW AND GUIDANCE BASICALLY SAYS IF IT'S NOT WITHOUT OUR CONTROL TO IMPLEMENT, THEN IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PRACTICAL FOR US TO PROVIDE TO THE TOWN. 
          SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S, IF I'M MISTAKEN IN THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE SEEKER GUIDANCE DOES SAY SOMETHING. 
          I'M PROBABLY NOT SAYING IT FULLY CORRECTLY, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THE SEEKER GUIDANCE DOES SAY SOMETHING VERY MUCH TO THAT EFFECT. 
          AND TARA, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE, BUT THERE'S ISSUE, THERE'S WAYS OF DOING THAT WHERE DOT SAYS, WELL IT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO PUT A STREETLIGHT HERE. 
          SO THE PEOPLE GO BEYOND THAT AND SAY, WE WOULD NEED A STREETLIGHT THERE BECAUSE OF ALL THE ACCIDENT. 
          UNDERSTAND. 
          AND THEY GET AND THEY GET OVER ARE I SAID I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST SO WE DON'T, SO WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ON THIS AL I HAVE TO GO LAST. 
          I ALREADY, WELL I HAD ALREADY PRELIMINARILY WEIGHED IN ON THAT. 
          WHAT DID YOU SAY? WELL, I SAID BECAUSE I I I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN. 
          YOU JUST DON'T WANNA, I, I WANNA HEAR WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE I ALREADY SAID BEFORE, SO WHAT DO YOU THINK, BILL? OKAY. 
          I I THINK THAT IT IS PRACTICAL AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT THE DOT RIGHT OF WAY. 
          BUT IF THAT'S THE LAYOUT THAT MEETS THE PLAN, THEN MAYBE IT'S NOT PRACTICABLE FOR THE PROJECT TO MEET THE PLAN. 
          AND IF THE DOT SAYS WE CAN'T DO IT WITH THESE CONDITIONS, AND THERE'S OTHER ONES THAT THE DOT REFERENCE THAT WE'RE GONNA GET TO LATER THAT I FEEL THE SAME WAY. 
          YOU KNOW, IN, IN SOME WAYS IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DOT'S DENIAL THAT YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT GOES ON THIS PROPERTY IS GONNA GET THE SAME GUIDANCE FROM DOT, THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO GO THIS SIDE STREET. 
          SO, AND THERE MAY BE A, A DIFFERENT BUILDING WITH A DIFFERENT LAYOUT THAT MEETS THE SETBACKS WITH THE DRIVEWAY. 
          WE NEED CALL SETBACKS AND EXCEED THEMS. RIGHT? WELL, WE EXCEED THE SETBACKS, THE UNDERLYING ZONE APPLIES. 
          WHAT'S THAT? I, WHAT WAS KAI'S? SHE STILL DOESN'T, I I DON'T REMEMBER INITIALLY HAD SAID, I HAD INITIALLY SAID THAT I WAS LEANING THAT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY NOT PRACTICABLE, BUT THAT WAS BEFORE SARAH MADE THE STATEMENT. 
          I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WAS AN AVENUE VIA THE BY. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN AVENUE, BUT, BUT THAT WAS WHAT WAS SAID TO US. 
          BUT I STILL AM NOT SURE IF THAT'S AN AVENUE OR NOT. 
          BUT THE, THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM THAT I HAD IS THAT ALMOST ALL OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROJECT ARE COULD HAVE BEEN LARGELY MITIGATED IF WITH THE DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT AND WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S, I MEAN I AGREE. 
          I MEAN BASICALLY THE DOT SORT OF LEFT US IN THE NEIGHBORS IN A REALLY RIGHT. 
          AND I AGREE WITH THAT COME UP IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WHERE A STATE AGENCY HAS MADE A DETERMINATION IN ONE WAY, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY SENSE A PLANNING BOARD COULD SEE AS PRACTICAL. 
          DOES THAT EVER COME UP IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS, AS THE DOT HAS ALWAYS STATED TO ME, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN. 
          UM, BUT IT'S THEIR DUTY TO ISSUE A PERMIT. 
          YOU REALIZE YOU COULD MAKE A FINDINGS THAT SAYS THE MITIGATION IS THAT THE, THE ACCESS HAS TO GO ONTO SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD, BUT YOU REALIZE THE STATE DOT HAS TO MAKE THEIR OWN FINDINGS. 
          IF THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU NEAR AT LOGGERHEADS ANYWAY, THEY'RE GONNA SAY, NOPE, IT'S GONNA HAVE A BIGGER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A A, A CURB CUT ON SOUTHWEST. 
          AND, AND, AND THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE, RIGHT? IF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IT ON OUR END AND THE THINGS THAT THE DOT NEEDS TO DO IT ON THEIR END CANNOT BE RESOLVED, THEN HOW CAN YOU HAVE THE PROJECT GO THERE? RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE AS FAR AS AS THIS PRACTICAL ARGUMENT, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO USE OUR BEST JUDGMENT AS THE RIGHT, SO WE USE OUR BEST JUDGMENT INDEPENDENT OF THE DOT. 
          AND IF THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE DOT, THEN I THINK THAT LEADS TO A VERY SPECIFIC CONCLUSION CONVERSATION THAT MAY HURT MORE. 
          BUT PROBABLY IF, IF YOU WERE TO SAY THE MITIGATION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS HAVING THE ENTRANCE ON THE SOUTHWESTERN, THEN YOU'RE FINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS TO DO WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          I MEAN, ARE WE BEATING OURSELVES UP MM-HMM . 
          AND SAYING, GEEZ, THE ANSWER TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS TO PUT AN ENTRANCE ON SOUTHWESTERN, EVERYTHING ELSE IS FINE. 
          OR DO WE STILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES RELATED? WE'RE KNOCKING OURSELVES SAYING, HEY, IT'S, IT'S RELATED TO COMMUNITY CHARACTERS. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A TRANSPORTATION ISSUE. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU WANNA SAY THAT THE DOT AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS WRONG, THAT IT IS BETTER TO HAVE THE ENTRANCE. 
          IT'S MORE 
          [01:40:01]
A COMMUNITY CHARACTER ISSUE. 
          I MEAN, I KNOW THE RESIDENTS THERE BELIEVE THAT THAT INTERSECTION IS AN AWFUL INTERSECTION, BUT THE STUDY AND THE DOT HAS SAID IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT ON THERE THAN HAVE IT TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN AT A, AT A, NOT AN, AT AN INTERSECTION. 
          SO, SO THE BUILDING WOULD'VE TO MOVE, BECAUSE THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL USE AND IT'S, IT'S CLOSER TO THAT BUILDING. 
          I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONES, UH, COMMERCIAL, WHEN WE FACTOR IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND EVERYTHING, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT IT HAVE A, A RESIDENTIAL TYPE SETBACK. 
          SO THE BUILDING WOULD'VE TO BE MOVED, THE BUILDING ITSELF IGNORING THE HVAC THE BUILDING ITSELF, I BELIEVE IS ONLY 15 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT BUILD, THAT MAKES A SETBACK. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND THE BUILDING COULD EASILY BE MOVED IF TO, TO AN AREA THAT WE THINK WOULD MEET THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          AND I THINK THE SHAPE AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING DO MEET THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT TOO. 
          UH, SO I, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT WE NEED ANY CHANGES TO THAT, BUT, BUT THE BUILDING COULD BE MOVED A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          IF THE DRIVEWAY WAS MOVED, IT WOULD MEET THOSE OTHER CRITERIA WITHOUT THE DRIVEWAY BEING ABLE TO BE MOVED. 
          YOU CAN'T MOVE IT ANY FARTHER THAN THE 15 FEET. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE THE INITIAL PLANS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS DESIGNED, THE END GRASS WAS ON, BUT THERE, THAT WAS SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, AT THE OUTSIDE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I DON'T HAVE THAT AT OUR FINGERTIPS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO AT THIS POINT. 
          BUT YOU'LL NOTICE THE SETBACKS IN THAT DESIGN WE'RE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. 
          WE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. 
          AND IN FACT, IT WOULD PUSH THE BUILDING CLOSER TO HEALTH. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I MEAN, JUST CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE MITIGATION FACTORS IS, I THINK IT'S ONLY HELPFUL TO LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER OPTION IS. 
          SO, SO THEY'RE, SO THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. 
          YEAH. 
          NO, BUT IT DID TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE OTHER IT, BUT WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS IT DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THEM THAT WE ADDRESSED. 
          SO IT DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THEM. 
          BUT THERE ARE NUMBER, RIGHT. 
          IT DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF THE SETBACKS, WHICH I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THERE'S OTHER ISSUES MADE. 
          WE'LL HAVE TO SEPARATE THE SETBACKS FROM THE DRIVEWAY AGAIN. 
          SO THE OTHER THING IS DREW, DID THE TOWN BOARD VOTE ON THE REZONING REQUESTS MADE BY THE, AND WERE THOSE APPROVED? YES. 
          SO THE ADJACENT PARCEL WERE THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO, THIS IS NOW ZONE RESIDENTIAL. 
          MM-HMM . 
          WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. 
          NOT NO, BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY IN YEAH, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT AFTER THE FACT. 
          I MEAN, I STILL THINK IT NEEDS TO, RIGHT? IT STILL NEEDS TO BE GETTING, GETTING THROUGH. 
          AGAIN, HOUSE WAS ALREADY THERE. 
          IT'S THE NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST SET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO, SO WE, YEAH. 
          SO, SO WE ADDRESSED THE DRIVEWAY. 
          IT WAS THREE TO THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I SAY SOMETHING? THE DRIVEWAY MENTION OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RECORD WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE ON THIS ISSUE GOING BACK ALMOST TWO YEARS. 
          IT'S ALL IN THE DEIS DOCUMENTS. 
          SO AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, IT IS, AT LEAST FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT ISSUE WAS, WAS LONG OVER WITH. 
          SO, UH, THE DO T'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THEIR MIND ON THIS. 
          CORRECT. 
          I MEAN, WE, WE BE, WE'VE TALKED TO 'EM, I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE TALKED TO 'EM, THIS IS NOT GONNA CHANGE. 
          IT'S NOT AN OPTION. 
          AND WE MOVED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS TO MITIGATE THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL TO HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY OF HEALTH. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S ALL IN THE RECORD, BUT IT, IT IS OUR DECISION WHETHER IT'S THE MAXIMUM EX EXTENT, PRACTICAL. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TASKED WITH. 
          AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT DECISION IS, THERE'S A PROCESS TO GO FROM THERE. 
          BUT IT'S OUR DECISION AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT FOR ALL THESE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM STEP PRACTICAL, WE WE'RE GONNA TAKE THAT AS A GIVEN. 
          I, I'M SORRY THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY GIVING THAT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME, BUT IT'S NO, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ALMOST NINE 20. 
          AND ON THAT ISSUE, ALL THE ISSUES, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, IF YOU HAVE THE BUILDING, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S LUMINOUS. 
          THIS WHOLE PROJECT HAS BEEN, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RECORD, AND I'LL LOOK BACK AT MY NOTES, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS THE BOARD THAT PUSHED US TO HAVE TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. 
          WHEN THEY SAID, WHEN WE GOT THE DOT SAYING NO, WE HAD TO COME UP, IT WAS THE BOARD HAND IN HAND WITH US SAYING, OKAY, THAT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE. 
          IT WASN'T LIKE US SAYING, I WOULD SAY, LET'S JUST GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE MINUTES, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE PROJECT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. 
          , WE, WE CAN, BUT IT'S, IT'S RARE. 
          I MEAN, WE, WE MAKE SUGGESTIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD'VE SAID, WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE IT TO HEALTH AGAIN? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, I THINK YOU, YOU WOULD'VE PITCHED TO A MOVE TO HEALTH AND, AND WE WOULD'VE GONE FORWARD WITH THAT AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
          THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN US SAYING, OH, DOT SAID NO IN SOUTHWESTERN, BUT 'CAUSE IT GOES YOU, YOU'RE IMPLYING THAT, THAT WE INITIATED THE MOVE TO HEALTH. 
          AND I'D BE VERY SURPRISED. 
          AGAIN, I'M, I THINK WE JUST NEED BACK UP THE MINUTES AND I I'LL AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, RIGHT. 
          AND THAT DREW WEIGH IN A LOT. 
          AND I THINK WE EXPRESSED AT THE TIME THOUGH, THAT OUR HANDS WERE, WERE FELT TIED. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW, I, I, BECAUSE CALLED ED, WE WENT BACK AND FORTH, I CAN TELL YOU THAT 
          [01:45:01]
I, AT LEAST I'VE BEEN CLEAR ON THE RECORD CONSISTENTLY THAT HAVING THE ROAD, THE DRIVEWAY ON HEALTH HAS REMAINED A, AND NOW WE'RE HERE AT AN, AT AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE WRESTLING WITH NOW. 
          RIGHT? AND I, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THERE'S LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE ISSUE WAS EVER FULLY RESOLVED. 
          ANY, NO, I'M NOT SAYING WHAT. 
          I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT ONE POINT THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IF IT WAS ON SOUTHWESTERN, AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE GOT THE DOT REPORT AND WE PIVOTED THE HEALTH. 
          AND THAT WAS, AGAIN, I'M NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING. 
          I THINK WE THE MINUTES, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LOT OF , WELL, THERE'S ISSUES, THERE'S CONCERNS WITH THE ANGLE OF THE INTERSECTION AND THE TURN ON THE, ON AND OFF OF HEALTH ROAD. 
          SO I THINK WE SHOULD GO ON A RIGHT, I THINK WE SHOULD GO ON TO SETBACKS. 
          UM, I MEAN I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO MUCH INTO THE BACKGROUND, BUT IN, IN MY OPINION, THESE ARE THE APPLICANT'S PROJECTS AND THERE'S CHANGES THAT MAKE US GO FORWARD. 
          BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE CHANGE THAT WE NECESSARILY THINK IS WHAT HAS TO BE DONE. 
          IT'S IF, IF WE WOULD'VE SAID SOUTHWESTERN AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE WOULD'VE BEEN IN FACT SAYING NO TO YOUR PROJECT WITHOUT ALLOWING YOU TO GO THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS OUTLINED BY OUR STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. 
          SO WHETHER OR NOT WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE, THE RIGHT DECISION, IT'S YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          SO WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT. 
          IF WE WERE TO DO, IF WE WERE TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, SOUTHWESTERN OR NOTHING AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THEN I DON'T, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE WE'RE NOT DOING OUR, OUR JOB. 
          WE, WE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO, IN MY OPINION. 
          MAYBE OTHER BOARDS FEEL DIFFERENTLY AND, AND I KNOW A LOT OF RESIDENTS FEEL DIFFERENTLY. 
          A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, WHY'D YOU EVEN LET IT GO THIS FAR? IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE TO LET YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND, AND IF HELPS WAS THE WAY TO HAVE IT GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS THE BEST SOLUTION EVER. 
          IT JUST MEANS THAT THAT WAS THE SOLUTION THAT HAD US GO THROUGH THE PROCESS YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH. 
          AND THAT WAS MY OPINION. 
          YOUR ROLE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT DRIVEWAY, NOT THE DRIVEWAY ON SOUTH PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ON SOUTHWESTERN, THAT THAT'S OFF THE TABLE. 
          RIGHT? OKAY, LET, SO THAT, THAT IS NOT PRACTICAL. 
          LET'S, CAN WE MOVE ON SO IT'S NOT PRACTICAL. 
          THAT'S FROM THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S THESE CIRCUIT. 
          I DON'T THINK WE DISAGREE THAT THAT'S YOU, CAITLIN SAID YOUR HANDS WERE TIED AND THAT'S HOW WE ARE. 
          YEP. 
          OUR HANDS ARE TIED. 
          RIGHT? THAT MEANS IT'S NOT PRACTICAL AND THREE PEOPLE SAID IT WAS PRACTICAL AND THREE PEOPLE DIDN'T. 
          SO WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A MAJORITY OF IT. 
          UM, SETBACKS MOVING OF THE BUILDING TO COMPLY WITH SETBACKS. 
          DO WE THINK THAT THAT IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION? I THINK THAT MEETING THE 20 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ADJACENT GRANDFATHER PRIOR TO THIS PROJECT, RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER FOR THE BUILDING SHOULD BE PRACTICAL. 
          IT'S LIKE FIVE FEET. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I MEAN I, THERE'S GOTTA BE A WAY TO DO THAT. 
          I MEAN, THEY ALL, WE ALSO HAD A COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE HVAC UNIT, WHICH WE, THAT'S ON THE LIST. 
          LET'S, LET'S BREAK WEEX. 
          SO THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO S BUT THERE IS THE, THE, THE, THE INTENT OUT THERE IGNORING WHAT THE PRESENCE OF HVAC WAS. 
          CAN THIS BE THERE FE AND GO THERE. 
          UH, OKAY, SO BOB, YOU THINK MOVING THE BUILDING TO COMPLY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS, BECAUSE WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT AS A, AS A AN ISSUE. 
          UH, DO YOU THINK MOVING THE BUILDING IS A PRACTICAL APPROACH? ALL RIGHT, DENNIS. 
          YEP. 
          MARGO, SHOULD I ANSWER? NO, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF MOVING THE FIVE FEET ACTUALLY DOES MOVING TO MEANINGFULLY REDUCE THE OTHER IMPACTS BECAUSE THE IMPACTS AREN'T STEMMING FROM THAT FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE. 
          SO I NEED TO ANSWER THOSE TWO QUESTIONS TOGETHER. 
          SO NO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT DOESN'T MEANINGFUL REDUCTION. 
          YEP. 
          I BELIEVE IT DOES CORRECT. 
          AND I SAY THAT IT DOESN'T FOR THE SAME REASONS MARGO SAID. 
          SO AGAIN, THREE, THREE. 
          THIS IS GOING WELL. 
           JOB. 
          WE NEED DOUG AT A MEETING OF SOME SORT. 
          DOUG IS GLAD MEETING. 
          YEAH, HE IS DOUG. 
          RIGHT? UH, OKAY, SO, SO NEXT ON THE NEXT ON THE LIST IS TREE MANAGEMENT LAW AND TREE REMOVAL REPLACEMENT, UH, THE NUMBER OF TREE REQUIRED TREES AND REPLACEMENT TREES, LOCATION, TREES, MITIGATION CHANGES. 
          SO WE THINK THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT THEY PROPOSED MITIGATES THE LOSS OF TREES. 
          [01:50:02]
YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST, I'LL I'LL SAY THIS ONE'S A BIT SIMPLER THAN THE OTHER ONES WE'VE DEALT WITH. 
          I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE IS, IS YES, HOLD ON. 
          WELL, WELL THAT I'M GONNA, I'M JUST GIVING MY OPINION. 
          WELL NO, BUT UH, BEFORE YOU GIVE AN OPINION, OKAY, I DID THE MATH WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS. 
          THERE'S A NET LOSS OF 10 TREES. 
          DO WE WANT THEM TO PLANT? DO WE WANT THEM TO PLANT 10 MORE TREES? IS THAT PRACTICABLE? WELL THE REASON WHY I SAY YES IS BECAUSE EVEN IN OTHER PROJECT WHERE THERE'S A NET LOSS OF 10 TREES, WE DO A NEGATIVE DECK ON SEEKER. 
          SO I DON'T THINK ANY ISSUES WITH THE TREE IN THIS PARTICULAR LANDSCAPING PLAN IS ENOUGH ON ITS OWN TOWARD A POSITIVE DECLARATION. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I SAY YES. 
          SO WELL I GUESS TAKING THAT IN CONTEXT, IS THERE SOMETHING WE COULD DO WITH THOSE THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE RURAL CHARACTER AND MITIGATE FOR THE LACK OF A SETBACK PLACEMENT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER? ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE COULD PLACE SOMETHING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S LOCATED, THAT IT ALSO MITIGATES OTHER CONCERNS THAT WOULD BEEN RAISED RELATED TO THE SETBACKS AND THE RURAL CHARACTER? SO IS THAT A, PUTTING A LINE OF TREES OR SOMETHING ALONG THE BACK OF THE EDGE OF THE PARCEL, IS THAT A POTENTIAL OP? WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT'S A VIABLE, THAT ALSO THEN ADDRESSES OTHER CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED? IT TIES ALL BACK IN. 
          I OFFER THIS MITIGATION BECAUSE IT ACTS AS, I DUNNO IF THE APPLICANT'S GONNA LIKE IT, BUT A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE A DUMPSTER AND AC UNITS ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE FOR SOME, AND AGAIN WE FORCE IT BY, BY DOING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING LIKE THIS, WE FORCE THEM TO PUT THE AC UNITS ON THE GROUND AND SAID, I STILL THINK THERE COULD BE, IF YOU REMOVE THE DUMPSTER AND THE AC UNITS PUSH THE BUILDING CUT MORE FEET, YOU COULD HAVE A PRETTY GOOD LANDSCAPE BEHIND THIS BUILDING WITH A FENCE THAT WOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE SOME BETTER BUFFER TO THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          REALIZE THEY TRIED TO ADDRESS THE NOISE ISSUE BY DOING NOISE BLANKETS AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS AND WHATEVER. 
          BUT I THINK THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS THAT RELATE TO, AND AGAIN, TRYING TO PROTECT THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL USE IT MAYBE NOT BE A RESIDENCE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, IT'S RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE ZONING. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THAT RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE TO THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 
          IS THERE A WAY YOU CAN MITIGATE THE MAXIMUM TECH PRACTICAL PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY, I THINK IN MY, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS THAT THE AC UNITS AND THE LOADING AND THE DUMPSTERS ARE LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE, THE RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          COULD YOU MOVE THOSE AND COULD YOU PUT THAT LANDSCAPE AND FENCING ALONG THAT PROVIDE A BETTER BUFFER BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE WHICH IS ONLY 12 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL USE EVEN THOUGH IT NEEDS ZONING. 
          CAN WE PROVIDE THAT, THAT BUFFER TO THAT? I THINK THAT HELPS TO ADDRESS SOME ISSUES OF TRYING TO FIT IT INTO THIS PROBLEM OF HAVING ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL USE SYSTEM. 
          THAT ANSWER IS NO, WE CANNOT MOVE THE HVAC. 
          I PROMISE YOU IF I COULD, I WOULD, I CAN'T. 
          THERE IS OPERATIONS TO WHERE THE DUCT WORK HAS TO COME INSIDE THE BUILDING. 
          IT CAN'T DO IT ON THE LOW SIDE WALLS. 
          IT'S THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN PUT IT ON THIS STYLE OF BUILDING THE MITIGATIONS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. 
          WE'VE ALREADY PROVIDED, THERE'S A ROW OF TREES, EVERGREEN TREES THAT WE'VE PROPOSED AND WE'VE PROPOSED A FENCE IN A NOISE BARRIER FENCE. 
          IT'S NOT JUST A FENCE, IT'S A NOISE BARRIER FENCE AROUND THOSE HVAC UNITS WE'RE EXCEEDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF D-E-C-D-E-C ON NOISE MEDICATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND MY OPINION IS IF IF THIS PROJECT, IF THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE, IT WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE BEEN A POSITIVE DECK. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING I THINK THEY MITIGATED THE LANDSCAPING AND THE TREES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. 
          WHAT DOES EVERYBODY ELSE THINK? I THINK THE CONCERN IS THE MAXIMUM. 
          I MEAN IT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT, BUT IS IT THE MAXIMUM? YEAH, I THINK THEY DID AN I THINK YOU DID. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          JOB MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. 
          PRACTICAL. 
          THAT'S MY MY QUESTION BACK TO YOU IS THOUGH, JUST BECAUSE IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE MAXIMUM YOU'RE USING LANDSCAPING. 
          I'M JUST TRY TO SUGGEST, TRY TO FIT IT INTO THIS COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          WE'VE LOOKED AT OTHER MITIGATIONS AND WHATEVER. 
          DOES THE LANDSCAPING TREE MANAGEMENT LAW, TREE REPLACEMENTS, TREE REMOVAL, DOES IT DO ENOUGH TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE MAXIMUM PET PRACTICAL, THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET AND WHAT'S TO THE ONE SIDE OF THIS? HAVE YOU DONE ENOUGH IN IN IN MY AND MY RESPONSE IS YES, IT'S JEFF SAID YES, RIGHT? UH, NO, HE SAID NO. 
          DIDN'T SAY THAT. 
          I WROTE, I WROTE TWO YESES. 
          THIS MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH THE TREES. 
          DO YOU THINK THERE'S MAXIMUM LET ME LEMME START. 
          OKAY. 
          [01:55:01]
HE HASN'T ADDRESSED YET. 
          DID YOU SAY YES, JEFF? JEFF DEFINITELY SAID YES. 
          SOMETHING. 
          WE JUST DUNNO WHAT HE SAID. 
          OKAY, LET, WE'LL LET HIM TAKE HIS BACK AND WE'LL GO PERSON BY PERSON. 
          I'LL WHOA TAKE IT BACK. 
          COME ON DENNIS. 
          MORE. 
          YOU THINK THEY COULD PLANT MORE TREES? SO, SO I AGREE. 
          I THINK YOU CAN PLANT MORE TREES. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL HOLD ON BOB. 
          NO, JEB SAID NO. 
          I KNOW HE ALREADY SAID NO. 
          WE WENT OUT ORDER BECAUSE IT GOING, GOING LIKE THIS. 
          HE SAID, HE JUST SAID NO THEY COULD SURPRISINGLY AM IN YOUR CAMP BILL, AND I THINK THAT WE WOULDN'T PAUSE TO ADD SOMETHING ON 10 TREES ALONE. 
          BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION AT HAND HERE. 
          THAT'S NOT RELEVANT. 
          THE QUESTION IS, DON'T RELEVANT. 
          WE GET GOOD REASON, WE VOTE ON WHAT WE BELIEVE IS PRACTICAL. 
          SO LET'S NOT GET INTO THE REASON SOMEBODY AND SAY IT'S WRONG. 
          LET'S LET THEM VOTE. 
          AND NOT JUST PRACTICAL, A PRACTICAL MITIGATION TO THE PRESENTED ISSUE BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE FENCE AND THE TREE LINE. 
          AND YOU CAN'T MOVE THE BUILDING. 
          SO WE'RE LANDING ON MOVING. 
          THE BUILDING ISN'T PRACTICAL, EVEN THOUGH MOVING THE BUILDING COULD BE HELPFUL IF IT WOULD IN FACT INSULATE THE HVAC AND THE, UM, AC. 
          BUT I, I THINK THAT THE 10 TREES, EVEN WHETHER YOU LOOK AT THEM IN A VACUUM OR HOLISTICALLY APPLIED TO THE WHOLE PROJECT, UM, IS NOT GONNA BE THE THING THAT TIPS, THE TIPS THE SCALE. 
          SO, RIGHT. 
          I THINK THEY'VE DONE WHAT THEY CAN WITH THE LANDSCAPING. 
          ANYONE IN AND OF ITSELF, I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHETHER OR NOT, SO, SO THIS ONE WE'VE GOT FOUR NOS AT LEAST. 
          SO, SO AT LEAST WE HAVE A MAJORITY THAT SAY THAT THE TREE MANAGEMENT IS NOT MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. 
          SO GOOD FOR US. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          I'M HAPPY WE GOT ONE. 
          UH, NEXT IS NOISE IMPACTS. 
          NOW I KNOW DREW WANTS US TO, UH, MOVE THE AC UNIT TO THE ROOF TO REDO THE BUILDING. 
          HE SAID TO THE, TO THE A WELL HE WANTED, OKAY, SO, SO YEAH, LET'S MOVE THE OTHER SIDE. 
          THEY CAN'T MOVE THE OTHER SIDE. 
          CAN WE DO AC IN? THERE'S A LOT OF UNITS, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE VIABLE FOR COMMERCIAL, BUT THERE'S IN-BUILDING HVAC UNITS THAT GO IN ROOF STRUCTURES IN THE ROOF STRUCTURE. 
          AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL RETAIL SPACE, AS THEY NOTED IN THE DEIS. 
          THEY CHARACTERIZES THAT. 
          IS THERE A POTENTIAL TO PUT IT IN THE ROOF H HVAC SYSTEM? I, I HAVE NO IDEA. 
          I'M NOT. 
          DOUG MIGHT HAVE A BAD IDEA BASED ON, YEAH, HE PROBABLY WOULD'VE BACKGROUND, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHICH PUMP FROM AIR CONDITIONING OR REFRIGERATION. 
          NOTICE IT COMES FROM THE BOX THAT'S OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S, ARE THEY, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE THAT IS, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, IS YOUR MAIN NOISE, DO YOU HAVE A  UNIT OR IS THAT ALL TIED INTO YOUR HC I MEAN, I'M, MY POINT IS NOT NOISE ON THAT ONE THOUGH BECAUSE WE'VE GOT IT UNDER NOISE. 
          UNDER NOISE. 
          SO WE DID A NOISE STUDY AND THE NOISE PROFESSIONAL SAID THE MITIGATION WOULD BE TO INSTALL A ACOUSTICAL FENCE THAT GOES AROUND THE HVAC UNITS. 
          AND WHEN WE INSTALL ACOUSTICAL FENCE AROUND THE HVAC UNITS, THERE'S NO MORE NOISE AT THE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS OR THERE'S NO NOISE THAT EXCEEDS THE NOISE THAT IS ALREADY THERE. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF NOISE ALREADY THERE. 
          Y'ALL MAY NOT REALIZE IT, BUT IT'S SITTING IN A TRIANGLE BETWEEN TWO VERY BUSY STREETS. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF NOISE AND WE'VE GONE THE EXTRA EFFORT OF MITIGATING IT DOWN BELOW. 
          ALRIGHT, THAT DEC STANDARD. 
          SO, SO, SO LET'S, LET'S JUST GO, OH, SO WE'RE ON, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF NOISE IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 
          WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF NO NOISE. 
          SO DO YOU THINK THEY MITIGATED THE, THE NOISE? THE YES BOB PERSON? YEAH. 
          YES. 
          YEP. 
          YEAH, MARGO, YEAH. 
          YEAH, I AGREE TOO. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY UNANIMOUS AS FAR AS, SO THE NOISE IMPACT, THE, THE NOISE, THE, THE, THE FENCE FOR A NOISE IMPACT IS DEFINITELY MITIGATING IT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT. 
          PRACTICAL. 
          UM, DO WE WANNA TALK ABOUT CONSTRUCTION NOISE? I THINK THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO REALLY PUT IN THERE, UH, LIGHTING ISSUES. 
          CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION THAT DETAINS TO THIS FENCE AND THE SETBACKS, IS THERE A FENCE SETBACK IN THE TOWN CODE DREW? WHAT'S THAT? IS THERE A SETBACK FOR THE FENCE IN THE TOWN CODE OR IS THERE A FENCING? NO, YOU CAN PUT FENCES RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND TRY TO KEEP YOU ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. 
          SO, SO LIGHTING IMPACTS, 
          [02:00:01]
WE'VE GOT THE HEADLIGHT ISSUE. 
          SO I'M GONNA DELETE ONE OF MY COMMENTS THAT, THAT ADDRESSES MY ALL COMMENT. 
          SO WE GOT THE LIGHTING ISSUE WITH THE DRIVEWAY ON HEALTH AND THE PERSON'S PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. 
          NOW THEY SENT US SOME, SO YOU SENT, WAS THE APPLICANT SENT THE PICTURES OR THE RESIDENT TO SEND THE PICTURES? RESIDENT SENT THE PICTURES. 
          RESIDENT SENT THE PICTURES. 
          APPLICANT DID A STUDY, THE APPLICANT DID A STUDY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO THE DRIVEWAY PLACEMENTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU COULD DO TO MITIGATE THE HEADLIGHT ISSUE. 
          YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR DRIVEWAY HAS CHANGED. 
          WE PROVIDED YOU FOUR OR FIVE ITERATIONS AND IT'S A SPLIT DRIVEWAY, WHICH MEANS THERE'S, WHEN THE CARS ARE EXITING, THEY'RE NOT AIMING THEIR HEADLIGHTS AT THAT NEIGHBOR'S HOME AT ALL. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THAT FROM THE TIME THEY START TO PULL OUT, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING GOING ACROSS THE ROAD. 
          I, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE TURN, BUT HOW ABOUT GETTING TO THAT TURN? IS, HAS THAT BEEN MITIGATED? WELL INSIDE THE, THE SITE? WELL, I MEAN, I'M EXIT THE SITE I'M GONNA PULL OUT YEAH, WE'VE GOT A TREE FOR ONE THING. 
          WE DID PUT A TREE IN THAT, UM, IN THE V OF THE DRIVEWAY. 
          SO YES, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH BLOCKING THAT TREE WOULD BE, UM, BLOCKING THE NEIGHBORS STRAIGHT ON THAT HILL. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. 
          IF THEY'RE IN THE, SORT OF, IN THE DRIVE AISLE, JUST TO, JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE, THE, THE HEADLIGHT STUDY THAT WE DID LOOKED AT THE FOUR DIFFERENT DRIVEWAY OPTIONS INITIALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN WE ADDED, SORRY, WE LOOKED AT THREE AND THEN WE ADDED THE FOURTH, WHICH SPLIT THE DRIVEWAY AND THAT FULLY MITIGATED THE, THE HEADLIGHT IMPACTS. 
          SO THAT IS THE ONE THAT WE INCLUDED IN THE DEIS AND RECOMMENDED AS BEING THE, THE FULLY MITIGATING SOLUTION FOR THAT ISSUE. 
          WELL, WE REALLY WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL EVERYTHING'S UP AND RUNNING. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S, AND THOSE WERE ALL HELPFUL. 
          IS, IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THE ORDER THAT I'M GOING? YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, SO CAN I RAISE A COUNTER SUGGESTION BEFORE WE, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, AND I'VE THROWN THIS OUT MANY, MANY, MANY, PROBABLY MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, IS WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE ANGLE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ORIENTATION AND ONE OF THE THINGS I SUGGESTED WAS SOME SORT OF OUTREACH TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY LANDSCAPING OR OTHER ITEM FOR THE, AND NOTHING EVER CAME OF THAT SUGGESTION TO PUT ACROSS THE STREET, TO PUT ACROSS THE STREET TO PUT IT ON THEIR PROPERTY, UH, TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF SCREENING. 
          SO WHILE I THINK THAT THEY, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THEY'VE DONE THE SWEEP ANALYSIS THERE MAIN CONCERNS, THERE'S THE SINGLE RESIDENCE ACROSS THE STREET AND THERE SEEMS TO BE ADDITIONAL THINGS OR OUTREACH OR SOME MECHANISM THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN DONE TO TRY AND SUPPORT. 
          SO, SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS WHAT THEY SUBMITTED WITH THE ANGLED DRIVEWAY IN THE TREE IN THE MIDDLE. 
          SO THIS IS HOW THEY'RE, AND THEIR STUDY IS SAYING BY USING THIS ANGLED DRIVEWAY, SEE HOW THEY'RE ANGLED AND WHATEVER, AND HAVING THE TREE IN THE MIDDLE THAT THERE IS NO HEADLIGHTS SHINING INTO THE RIGHT INTO IT. 
          SO THAT WAS THE MITIGATION THEY OFFERED IN THE FBI ASKING THAT. 
          SO DENNIS, DO YOU THINK THEY WELL, I, I ACKNOWLEDGE HOW THAT RAISES THE QUESTION FOR ME IS THAT, IS THAT GONNA INTERFERE WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING OUT WITH THEIR LINE OF SIGHT WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING LEFT OR RIGHT, IF THE TREE'S IN THE MIDDLE? THAT'S, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT, THAT WE'VE GOTTA CONSIDER. 
          SO DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'VE MITIGATED THIS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL? NO, I THINK THEY COULD HAVE WENT ACROSS THE STREET. 
          ALRIGHT, BOB? NO, I . 
          J NO, MAR NO, NO. 
          I I ALSO THINK, NO, UM, ORIGINALLY I WAS BACK ON MY DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE ON SOUTHWESTERN. 
          BUT THEN I ALSO THINK THAT THE LANDSCAPING ACROSS THE STREET WOULD BE A, A, A POTENTIAL SOLUTION OR SOME SORT OF MUTUALLY AGREED UPON IF THEY'RE GONNA BE LONG-TERM NEIGHBORS. 
          SO NUMBER SIX IS UNDERGROUND BAD. 
          I MEAN, WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENTS AND OUR NEIGHBOR NEVER ASKED FOR US TO DO ANYTHING TO THEIR PROPERTY. 
          SO TO ALRIGHT, WE'RE THAT NOW WE'RE ASKING, AND I, AND I HAD ALSO SUGGESTED THE NEIGHBOR HASN'T ASKED FOR THAT. 
          AND YOU'RE, I MEAN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO YOUR SUGGESTION, DON'T GET ME WRONG. 
          I JUST FEEL LIKE WELL, YEAH, BUT I OF OUR NEIGHBOR AND THEY MAY NOT WANT A HEDGEROW IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE. 
          NO, BUT AT NO POINT, AND I HAD BROUGHT IT UP IN A MEETING HAD 
          [02:05:01]
THEY GONE BUT HAD, HAD YOU GUYS MADE THE INITIATIVE TO GO OVER AND ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          LIKE THERE'S THE, I DON'T REMEM HONESTLY, CAITLYN, I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          AND I'M SURE YOU DID, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          I DO REMEMBER HAVING SOME EMAILS, UM, WITH MR. PALUSO EARLY ON ABOUT THINGS AND UM, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO THIS IS A EASY, WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING BY YOUR VOTE IS THAT YOU WOULD WANT ADDITIONAL LITIGATION POTENTIALLY A, A HEDGE ROW ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT. 
          LANDSCAPING, YOU WOULD PUT IT THAT WAY. 
          IF IN THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION, THE APP, THE OWNER ACROSS THE STREET WILL NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, THEN THEY'VE DONE, THEN, THEN YOU GO FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. 
          AT THAT POINT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, AND AGAIN, MAKE SURE WE'RE CORRECT, THAT YOU WOULD WANT ADDITIONAL MITIGATION AND, AND A HEDGE ROAD. 
          SO THE FINDINGS WOULD INCLUDE THAT IF THE SITE PLAN COMES IN AND THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET SAYS, NO WAY I'M ALLOWING A HEDGEROW, THEN I GUESS THAT'S YOUR DECISION. 
          I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO LET ME KNOW. 
          BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GOING, THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO DATE IS ENOUGH MITIGATION. 
          I THINK THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE DO ALSO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE RECORD FROM THE NEIGHBOR WHERE THEY ATTEMPTED WITH THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THEM TO DO SIMULATION HEADLIGHTS AND YEAH, I MEAN, AND REMEMBER NOT SAYING THEY OFFERED MITIGATION PERSONALLY. 
          I THEY SAW THAT LETTER AND THEY OFFERED THE MITIGATION TO ADD THE TREE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND TO TURN THE DRIVEWAY. 
          SO THEY'RE, WHEN YOU'RE PULLING OUT, WHEN I'M PULLING OUT THAT DRIVEWAY, THE TREE WHEN I'M COMING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY IS GONNA HELP BLOCK THOSE HEADLIGHTS. 
          AND THEN WHEN I GET TO, YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS TREE HAS TO BE FURTHER ENOUGH BACK THAT AS I PULL OUT TO PULL ONTO THE ROAD, THE TREE'S NOT BLOCKING MY VIEW. 
          BUT NOW THE, THE CAR'S TURNED TO MAKE THE RIGHT OR LEFT DOWN THE SIDE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE OFFERED. 
          I'M NOT, THAT'S WHAT THEY OFFERED AS THEIR ADDITIONAL MITIGATION TO THE STUDY, THEY BELIEVE SAID THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT'S NOT GONNA BE A HEADLIGHT PROBLEM, BUT WE WE'RE GONNA ADD THESE ADDITIONAL MITIGATION. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S SO NEXT IS UNDERGROUND IS SHOWING TO THAT POINT. 
          NEXT IS UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AGREEMENT. 
          IF THAT PROBLEM WILL RESOLVE YEAH, THEY, THEY BASICALLY OFFER US A MITIGATION LOOK, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT THEY RUN INTO DIGGING THE SITE AND THERE'S, THERE'S A, THERE'S A UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADMIT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO REMOVE THAT TANK AND MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF IT JUST JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE WOULD. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO DO WE THINK THAT THAT'S THE PRAC, THE, THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL TO MITIGATE YEAH, THAT SOLUTION? SO WE GOT THE YES FROM DENNIS BOB. 
          YEAH. 
          YES. 
          THEY, THEY, THEY SAID THAT THEY, THEY AGREE, THEY AGREE THAT AT THE OKAY, YES, THEY'D HAVE TO DO JEB. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT IS MARIO. 
          YEAH, I TELL YOU CAN REASONABLY DO. 
          YEP. 
          AGREE. 
          AND THAT ONE'S UNANIMOUS. 
          WE'RE DOING SO MUCH BETTER NOW. 
           . 
          UH, NEXT IS STORM WATER DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS, HIGH GROUND WATER, EXISTING SWALES IN DITCHES. 
          BILL, I'LL HELP YOU, KIM IS GONNA HELP YOU TRY TO ISSUE A LETTER. 
          TALK ABOUT HAVE THEY ADDRESSED THE, THE STORM WATER ISSUES. 
          THEY HAVEN'T DONE FINAL DESIGN YET, BUT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT BASED UPON THEIR PLAN THAT THEY'VE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM 10 FRACTIONAL GRAD? I DO BELIEVE THEY, I THINK THEY MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, THERE CAN BE SOME FINE TUNING TO THE GRADING, BUT IN THE END THEY'RE CONTROLLING STORM WATER TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO I HAD, I, I DON'T THINK SO EITHER. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE ARE SUBSTANTIVE, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY IN THE COMMENT RESPONSES. 
          IN TERMS OF MEDIATION, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS WHERE'S THE FLOW OF THE STORMWATER ENTERS ON THE RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SIZE? WHERE IS THE STORMWATER FLOW COMING OUT? AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONNECTING INTO AN EXISTING DITCH OR DRAINING CHANNEL. 
          AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME FROM ONE OF THE RESIDENTS INDICATED THAT THAT DITCH OR CHANNEL IS NOT THERE. 
          SO I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND SO THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ACCURATELY RESPONDING TO THE COMMENT, WHICH WE ALSO HAVE TO DO HERE. 
          WHERE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF TARA, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE OR MEANS DUG IN SOME IT, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE STORM WATER COMING OUT AND IS IT CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING CHANNEL OR PIPE OR DITCH? AND IS THAT ALL LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY? NOW THERE'S ON THE HEALTH ROAD SIDE, WHEN YOU SAY THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, WHAT DO YOU, I'M SORRY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SO THE STONE MAR FLOW WE HAVE, YOU SAID HERE THAT THE RAIN GUARD IN IS DESIGNED WITH AN OVERFLOW STRUCTURE, WHICH DISCHARGES TO THE EXISTING ROADSIDE DITCH ON S ROAD VIA CULVERT. 
          SO THAT'S ONE OF THEM. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS A SECOND BIO RETENTION AREA THAT ALSO HAS OVERLAND 
          [02:10:01]
FLOW. 
          WHERE, WHERE ARE THOSE TWO? I WAS TRYING TO LOOK IN THE, AT THE LATEST SITE PLAN, WHICH IS IN THE DEIS, WHICH IS BLURRY. 
          WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A BETTER RESOLUTION IN THERE. 
          IT'S JUST YEAH. 
          POSSIBLE TO READ BASED ON HOW, DON'T TAKE ME A HUNDRED PERCENT, A HUNDRED PERCENT LIKE THIS IS, BUT THE, UM, THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED ALONG PELTZ ROAD, THERE IS A DRAINAGE DITCH. 
          IT'S GRADED DRAINAGE DITCH ALONG HEALTH ROAD. 
          ALONG HEALTH ROAD. 
          HOW DID WE GO THERE? HOW DOES IT GET FROM THE RAIN GARDEN TO THE DITCH? IS IT DIRECT? IT'S, YES. 
          IT WOULD BE, UM, I BELIEVE THAT IS OVERFLOW LIKE SHEET FLOW TO THAT RAIN GARDEN. 
          TO THE RAIN GARDEN. 
          AND, AND THAT'S ONLY A SECTION OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA. 
          MOST OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS BEING COLLECTED IN PIPES, UNDERGROUND PIPES OR LIKE FROM THE ROOF, IT'LL GO INTO ROOF DRAINS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEM AND DIVERTED OVER TO THE STORM POND. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN HOW DOES IT GET FROM THE STORM POND TO ANYWHERE? AND THEN THE LAND NATURALLY THE TOPOGRAPHY NATURALLY FLOWS TO THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. 
          IT'S KIND OF LIKE GOT THIS THICKET OF VEGETATION THERE. 
          THAT'S WHERE THAT'S NATURALLY AND THAT'S WHERE THE OUTLET IS. 
          AND WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE? UM, THEN IT JUST GOES ONTO UH, NICOLA VIC'S PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          CAMMY, I MIGHT CALL YOU TO MAKE SURE I FEEL LIKE I'M OKAY WITH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ANSWERED A QUESTION ADEQUATELY. 
          NONE DENNIS, AS FAR AS STORM WATER? YEAH. 
          BOB? YES, DEB, MARGO, LAST QUESTION SENT ME A LITTLE BIT LOST. 
          I AM GONNA CALL CAMMY AND MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS SAYS AND THAT OUR ANSWER IS CLEAR ENOUGH THAT ANYONE CAN, AND WE CAN CIRCULATE THE REVISED LANGUAGE. 
          BUT THE QUESTION, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT THE GRADING PLAN TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN ENGINEERING IN WORDS. 
          AND THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO INSERT A GRAPHIC WITH THE COMMENT RESPONSE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S A REASONABLE THING TO DO HERE. 
          DID WE JUST, DID YOU THE COMMENT WAS WHERE WILL THE DISCHARGE OF THE MOUNTS, SHE JUST EXPLAINED THAT ULTIMATELY THE DISCHARGE ENDS UP IN THE FIRST PROPERTY. 
          WELL THE, THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY DRINKS THAT WAY IT CURRENT THAT WAY. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE AT SOUTHWESTERN, YOU'RE MUCH HIGHER. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND THEN EVERYTHING DRINKS TOWARDS THAT BACK CORNER. 
          SO WHETHER THIS IS YEAH. 
          SO IT'S WHETHER THIS IS CAUSING AN ADVERSE CHANGE TO THE WAY THAT THE FLOW IS ALREADY MOVING. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THEN THE STORMWATER DESIGN REQUIRES THAT THEY CONTROL THE FLOW TO BE LESS THAN PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS. 
          AH, AND IN YOUR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IN, WELL AGAIN, I HAVEN'T DONE A FULL ENGINEERING SURE, SURE. 
          THEY ARE TELLING ME THEY'RE GONNA MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE STATE REQUIREMENTS SAY PRE YOUR POST DEVELOPMENT MUST BE LESS THAN YOUR PRE-DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND, AND NO MATTER WHAT WE DECIDE MM-HMM . 
          CAMI CAN HOLD UP A BUILDING PERMIT IF THE DESIGNS DO NOT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SURE. 
          SO EVEN IF WE SAY, OH, WE THINK IT DOES, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT IT DOESN'T, THAT'S, THAT'S CAMMY'S JOBS DUE. 
          UH, SO, BUT I THINK THAT WAS ONE, NOT TO PUT YOU THE SPOT. 
          WELL SHE, SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY EITHER. 
          SHE, SHE MAKES IT WHEN, WHEN, WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT. 
          THAT'S WHY SHE'S SAYING SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE FULL DESIGN BECAUSE SHE, THAT'S NOT HER TIME TO MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          YEAH. 
          THE QUESTION'S RIGHT. 
          BY THE PUBLIC. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT OKAY SAID, WHERE'S THE STORM STORMWATER GOING? IS IT GONNA CREATE A BIGGER PROBLEM? AND THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, AND S ADDRESSED THAT IN THEIR NOTE TO YOU IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVELS, THAT'S GONNA BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DESIGN OF THIS SYSTEM. 
          THERE ARE HIGH GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS, BUT THIS AREA, THE NEIGHBORS WANNA KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA CAUSE A FLOODING PROBLEM. 
          PROBLEM. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND TO THE EXTENT, AND I'M HAVE TO CALL CAMMY TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO THIS LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR IN THE AN BECAUSE THE OTHER THING WE HAVE TO DO IS ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. 
          AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEARLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION LIKE CONCERNS AND WHAT MITIGATION I MAKE SURE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR. 
          SO, SO CAN WE WORK ON ANSWERING THAT QUESTION CLEAR? I'LL WORK WITH PAMMY TO MAKE SURE SHE GAVE US SOMETHING. 
          I'LL MAKE SURE THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED. 
          SO NEXT GENERAL TERMS. THE FINAL DESIGN IS NOT DONE, BUT THE GENERAL TERMS, THIS IS, SO WE WANT, WE WANNA ANSWER THE QUESTIONS NEXT, NEXT ISSUE ON UNDER THIS IS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. 
          IT'S A RAISED MOUND SYSTEM. 
          UH, WHERE IS IT DISCHARGING ITS EFFECT ON SURFACE WATER? IS THAT AGAIN, IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION? YEAH, CORRECT. 
          AND, AND, AND ABOUT THE APPLICANT DID ANSWER THAT QUESTION WRONG. 
          IT WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE 
          [02:15:01]
MOUND SYSTEM DISCHARGED NOT SURFACE WATER. 
          SO CAMMY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. 
          IT'S A MOUND SYSTEM. 
          IT GOES INTO A, INTO A DISCHARGE. 
          UH, GEEZ, I USED TO DESIGN THESE SYSTEMS YEARS AGO AND IT BASICALLY FILTERS BACK INTO THE GROUND. 
          NOW UNDERSTAND WHEN THIS IS DESIGNED, I KNOW HOW THEY'RE DESIGNED, IT'S SUPPOSED TO GET BACK INTO THE GROUNDWATER, BUT THEY TEND TO RUN IT TOWARDS LIKE A ROADSIDE DITCH LIKE IN SOUTHWESTERN. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING. 
          THAT BASICALLY, IF FOR SOME REASON THAT OVERFLOWS, IT OVERFLOWS INTO THE, INTO THE DITCHES TYPICALLY IN ERIE COUNTY, HOW THEY DO IT. 
          BUT SUPPOSEDLY, THEORETICALLY IT'S SUPPOSED TO PERCOLATE IN THE CORRECT. 
          YES. 
          THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DIRECT CONNECTION INTO THE RIGHT, INTO THE STORE ORDER SYSTEM. 
          THERE'S NO, SO, SO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ISN'T SO MUCH WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS PRACTICABLE. 
          I THINK THAT ANSWERS OBVIOUS. 
          IT'S WHETHER OR NOT IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION CLEARLY WHETHER OR NOT OUR FEIS CLEARLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION AND CAMMI HAS A RESPONSE FOR US THAT WE CAN USE. 
          RIGHT? SO WE'LL, WE'LL USE CAMMIE'S RESPONSE FROM THE PRIOR ONE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE SECOND PART OF WHERE THE, THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WOULD DISCHARGE, I, I BELIEVE HAS BEEN FULLY ANSWERED AND THAT WE'RE JUST GONNA LOOK, SEE IF WE CAN MAKE IT MORE CLEAR AND OR REFERENCE A GRAPHIC. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          THE SURFACE WATER I THINK WAS A QUESTION THAT I HAD RAISED ADJACENTLY, RIGHT? MEANING WAS THE, BECAUSE THE WATER TABLE IS SO HIGH AND WHAT WAS THE FOUND GONNA DO? BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE. 
          I THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN RIGHT AND I THINK, I THINK CAMMY IS THE BEST QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THAT AND SHE WILL HELP BOLSTER THAT. 
          BUT PART OF THE FEII THINK WE KICKED THAT ONE OUT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE. 
          I THINK IT WAS A QUESTION. 
          I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THEY RIGHT, IT WAS, IT'S MORE QUESTION THE ER COUNTY STANDARDS. 
          THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET APPROVED. 
          AND AND CAITLIN'S POINT WAS OUR FEIS DRAFT. 
          THE MOST REASON ONE WE HAVE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. 
          MAKE SURE. 
          SO WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO IMPROVE OUR RESPONSE TO ADEQUATELY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          SO AGAIN, NOW WE'RE UP TO NINE, WHICH IS COMMUNITY CHARACTER, UH, A ARCHITECTURE B SIZE AND LOCATION ON SITE C OVERLAY DISTRICT. 
          I I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION ON ARCHITECTURE, BECAUSE I ASKED JOSH THAT WE'VE TRIED TO REVIEW, WAS THERE, YOU GUYS HAVE AGREED THE DECISION AND WE SHOULD STATE IT IN THE FBIS, THAT WE CHOSE THAT ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING? YES. 
          THEY GAVE YOU AND THE ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE A BAR WITH THE PEAK ROOF, LIKE THIS IS THE ONE THAT YOU CHOSE. 
          I, I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          WE PICKED THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK AT THE TIME WE FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE RAMIFICATIONS TO THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, BUT WE DID PICK IT. 
          WHEN, WHEN WAS THAT SELECTION MADE? IT WAS PRETTY EARLY. 
          LIKE 20. 
          AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON YET. 
          NO, THEY WEREN'T HERE YET. 
          IT WAS PROBABLY 20, 20 19 OR 2020. 
          AND THAT'S, AND AND YEAH, THAT, THAT DID HAVE SOME VOCATION FOR THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT. 
          BUT I STILL THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION GIVEN THE AGRICULTURAL LOOK OF THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING. 
          YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN I COMPARE IT TO THE ONE THEY PROPOSED DOWN THE STREET CLOSER TO THE LAKE, WHICH DID HAVE PARTIALLY A FLAT ROOF, DIFFERENT AREAS WITH DIFFERENT CHARACTER NEED DIFFERENT BUILDING DESIGNS. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. 
          SO, YEAH. 
          SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT IN THE FBIS WE'RE GONNA SAY THAT'S ONE OF THE MITIGATIONS THAT ONE OF THE MITIGATIONS OF THE CHARACTER IS THAT YOU AGREED ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING. 
          SO LET'S, IS THE ARCHITECTURE, DO WE AGREE ON THE ARCHITECTURE, DENNIS? YES. 
          UH, YES. 
          JEFF? YES. 
          SMAR. 
          YES. 
          KAYLYN YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO YES. 
          YEAH, THERE'S OTHER ISSUES BUT THAT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, BUT NOWHERE DID WE DEFINITIVELY SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT IS, THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, SIZE AND LOCATION ON SITE. 
          AND THAT GETS INTO THE, THE ARGUMENTS WE WERE HAVING OVER MAYBE THE BUILDING PLACE DISCUSSION, RIGHT? WE, WE'VE KIND OF HAD THAT DISCUSSION AT THE BEGINNING. 
          SAME THING FOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, RIGHT? IT RELATES TO ONE, TWO, AND NINE ALL KIND OF GO TOGETHER. 
          SO YOU STILL GONNA VOTE ON THESE TWO OR GOOD? I MEAN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT OUR ANSWERS ARE GONNA CHANGE. 
          ALRIGHT, SO NEXT IS TRAFFIC QUESTIONS ON COUNTS AND TRIPS TO THE NIKE SITE. 
          THAT'S IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION, RIGHT? THAT WAS, THAT'S KIND, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THAT'S KIND OF BE AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CLEARLY RESPONSE AND SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH INTERSECTION. 
          I I, I GUESS MY, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE THEY SUBMITTED A TRAFFIC REPORT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, TRIPS TO THE NIKE SITE. 
          THE TRAFFIC REPORT WAS SUBMITTED AND I LISTED 
          [02:20:01]
ATTACH IT AS THE METRICS. 
          SO DO WE NEED TO RE WE DON'T NEED TO REATTACH SOMETHING. 
          NO, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. 
          IT'S IN THE DIS WE JUST NEED TO REFER THAT TO THE ANSWER THE RESIDENTS HAVE ASKED. 
          SO, SO WE CAN, THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC NUMBERS WERE GENERATED. 
          THEY TALKED ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE, THEY ADDED 25% OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS. 
          THEY DID, THEY DID STUDY THOSE THINGS AND IT'S GONNA BE PART OF THE RECORD. 
          AND DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT RECORD? SO IN OUR FEIS WE CAN REFER TO THINGS THAT WERE IN THE DEIS NOT HAVE TO ATTACH IT AGAIN, RIGHT? IT'S GONNA BE, WE'RE GONNA ATTACH THE DEIS. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS CAITLIN ASKED. 
          THAT'S KIND OF DISJOINTED. 
          THE FINAL FBIS WILL INCLUDE THE VEIS AS AN APPEND I OR INCLUDED BY REFERENCE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE A MORE CLEAR VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN, REATTACH IT BECAUSE THE ONE IS BLURRY THAT IS IN THERE. 
          SO IF WE CAN WORK WITH THE A OR SOMEONE TO GET A BETTER, BETTER QUALITY, BETTER RESOLUTION RESOLUTION, BETTER RESOLUTION. 
          AND THERE MAY, YOU MAY WANNA JUST CHECK THROUGH. 
          THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WANT TO INCLUDE. 
          'CAUSE SOME OF 'EM LOOK LIKE THEY'VE BEEN SCANNED RATHER THAN PDFS THAT THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE. 
          THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD MAKE. 
          SO, WELL, SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH INTERSECTION. 
          THE, THE ISSUE OF THAT IS, UH, SOUTHWESTERN'S A BIT HIGHER THAN HEALTH. 
          SO IT'S KIND OF A, A HILL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE, WHAT ANYBODY COULD DO TO ADDRESS THAT OR ANY CHANGES WE WOULD SUGGEST OTHER THAN TO DRIVEWAY BEING ON SOUTHWESTERN. 
          YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE HILL. 
          SO NEXT IS PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY. 
          THIS THIS IS A, THIS IS A BIG ONE. 
          THIS IS A, THIS IS A VERY, UH, DIFFICULT ISSUE. 
          AND THIS WAS, AND THIS IS ANOTHER REQUIREMENT OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. 
          THAT THERE IS BE CONSIDERED FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VICE. 
          HAVE THEY MITIGATED THE MAXIMUM PRACTICAL? THEY'VE TRIED TO DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S, THEY, THEY'RE PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS ALONG SOUTHWESTERN INSTEAD THE PLAN AND ON. 
          YEAH, I MEAN THIS IS AGAIN WHERE PRACTICAL BECOMES AN ISSUE. 
          SIDE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY AREN'T GONNA MAKE IT SAFE FOR SOMEONE TO CROSS THE STREET AND GO TO THIS, TO, UH, A STORE THAT HAD A GENERAL STORE. 
          AND WE KNOW THAT PEDESTRIANS ARE GONNA WANNA GO TO DOLLAR GENERAL. 
          KIDS ARE GONNA WANNA GO AS SOON AS THERE'S SOMEPLACE THAT THEY'RE ACCESSIBLE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SAFE BY VEHICLES. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE ENTITY. 
          SO THAT'S RIGHT. 
          I SAID WELL I THINK THE PRACTICABILITY BECOMES WILDLY IMPORTANT. 
          THESE JUST, THEY'RE DANGEROUS ROADS TO CROSS AND WHAT CAN THEY DO ABOUT IT HAVING ONLY ACCESS TO THIS SMALL PORTION OF THEIR PARCEL, WHICH THEY PUT SIDEWALKS ON. 
          THAT'S BEING SAID A VERY HARD QUESTION. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE FULLY EVALUATED IT IN THE DEIS EITHER THOUGH, BECAUSE WHAT THEY SAID IS, WELL, PEDESTRIANS WON'T USE IT. 
          THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS, THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          IT SHOULDN'T BE A THING. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE, WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT, WELL, ANYTHING WE SHOULD SAY WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. 
          YES. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ADDED A STATEMENT IN THAT SAYS THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. 
          AND, AND WHY PEDESTRIANS, IF A GENERAL STORE GOES IN THAT CORNER, PEDESTRIANS WILL WANT TO ACCESS IT. 
          AND THERE'S CYCLISTS. 
          AND CYCLISTS. 
          YEAH. 
          THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET. 
          THERE IS A SUBDIVISION WITH HUNDREDS OF HOUSES AND PEOPLE AND CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN THOSE HOUSES ARE GONNA WANT TO GO TO THE GENERAL STORE AND BUY TOYS AND CANDY AND THINGS YOU CAN BUY IN GENERAL STORES. 
          SO I, I KNOW THEY SAID THAT PEDESTRIANS WILL ACCESS IT, BUT THAT'S, I I I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ANY LEVEL. 
          AND I HAD PLUGGED SOME LIKE WOULDN'T WE WOULD SPECULATIVE, WE DON'T WANNA SPECULATE HOW THEY MIGHT, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION, HOW ARE PEDESTRIANS OF BICYCLISTS USING THIS PART OF THE TOWN MAP? AND ARE THEY CROSSING? I MEAN, THERE ISN'T SOMETHING FOR THEM, AN ESTABLISHMENT. 
          SO, SO, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ON THAT SIDE, AS FAR AS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, WE'VE GOT A, A PLACE THAT SELLS GOLF CARTS. 
          WE'VE GOT I THINK A, A PLACE THAT SELLS FLOORING FOR HOMES. 
          AM I RIGHT? THAT'S OVER THERE SOMEWHERE CLEANER. 
          THERE'S A MEAT, THERE'S A BUTCHER, BUTCHER'S ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
          BUT YOU, YOU CAN GO FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND BUY MEAT WITHOUT HAVING TO CROSS SOUTHWEST PEOPLE BIKE PEDESTRIAN PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO. 
          RIGHT. 
          PEOPLE DO BIKE. 
          AND 
          [02:25:01]
THE COMMENTS THAT HAS MADE TO US WERE BASICALLY LIKE, WELL, PEOPLE AREN'T GONNA USE IT. 
          IT'S NOT SAFE. 
          THEY SHOULDN'T BE. 
          IF IF WE PUT SOMETHING THERE THAT'S GONNA ATTRACT THE PEDESTRIANS, PEDESTRIANS ARE GONNA GO TO IT. 
          THAT'S MY OPINION. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          I AGREE. 
          YES, I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          IF, IF WE PUT UH, AN ICE CREAM STAND THERE, PEOPLE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT. 
          'CAUSE IT'S AN ICE CREAM STAND. 
          BUT IT'D BE DANGEROUS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD GO THERE IN MY OPINION. 
          I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT A BUSINESS CAN DO IF THEY CAN'T PUT A CROSSWALK RELATED THERE, WHAT THEY CAN DO TO CONTROL PEDESTRIAN ACTION. 
          I, I JUST, I AGREE. 
          IT'D BE LIKE ME SAYING, WELL I CAN CONTROL THE PEOPLE CROSSING MY STREET. 
          I CAN'T. 
          SO, SO THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK A QUESTION FOR OUR, OUR, UH, CONSULTANTS AND OUR LAWYERS. 
          IF, IF THEY CAN'T MITIGATE THAT ISSUE, BUT WE STILL 'CAUSE YOU, IT IS ONE THING TO PUT A DRIVEWAY INTO SOUTHWESTERN AND HAVE DOT SAY NO, IT'S A TOTAL OTHER THING TO ASK THEM TO PUT IN A, A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND A CROSSWALK. 
          I, I, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S NOT PRACTICAL. 
          UM, BUT BEING THAT THERE'S NOT A PRACTICAL SOLUTION AVAILABLE TO US AND YET IT'S STILL DANGEROUS, WHERE DOES THAT PUT US? WHAT, WHERE DO WE GO FROM THERE? YEAH. 
          IT'S JUST A CORE ISSUE AND IT'S JUST TERRIFYING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          BUT FOR A-F-E-I-S PURPOSE AND A FINDING STATEMENT LATER, YOUR PURPOSE RIGHT NOW IS HAVE THEY MITIGATED IT TO THE GREATEST? ALRIGHT. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT WE CAN SAY IS THAT THE MITIGATION, THE EXTENT PRACTICAL HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT THERE IS DOES NOT ALLEVIATE THE, DOESN'T ALLEVIATE THE CONCERN OR THE RISK. 
          PERFECT. 
          I THINK THAT MAY GO WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS. 
          WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE, THE SAME THING WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN AGREE WITH THE WELL AND DOES NOT AND DOES NOT BRING IT ANY CLOSER TO, ACCORDING WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT'S REQUIREMENT THAT WE ENCOURAGE BICYCLE OR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND TO THAT POINT, I MEAN, JUST LAST TWO WEEKS AGO YOU HAD AN APPLICANT BEFORE YOU AND YOU HAD A CHANCE THAT IT WAS THE GOLF CART PLACE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          TALKING WITH YOU ABOUT THIS PROJECT. 
          THEY'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU AT LEAST TWICE AND BOTH TIMES YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO PLACE SIDEWALKS AND YOU'VE WAVED THEM. 
          THEY'RE DOWN THE STREET WHERE THERE IS A LIGHTED INTERSECTION AND THIS PLANNING BOARD HAS CHOSEN TO WAVE SIDEWALKS AT A LIGHTED INTERSECTION. 
          WE'RE AT A, A PLACE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LIGHTED INTERSECTION. 
          THEY'RE CLOSER TO THAT EXIT OF THAT SUBDIVISION THAN ANYBODY ELSE. 
          THEY'RE CLOSER TO TIM HORTON BUT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME PEDESTRIAN. 
          DOESN'T, DOESN'T, I'M ONLY SAYING THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS. 
          NO, OUR WE'RE SAYING THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE'S NOTHING TO CONNECT TO. 
          RIGHT. 
          PUTTING A SIDEWALK TO KNOW WHERE DOESN'T MAKE THE SITUATION SAFER. 
          RIGHT. 
          POINT WAS IT DOESN'T SAFER WE AGREE SIDEWALK. 
          OH, I AGREE THAT I SAY INTERSECTION. 
          DREW, YOU YOU HAD A COMMENT YOU WANTED TO NO, I JUST SAID FOR THE, FOR THAT ONE, IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO WALK, NOBODY WALKS TO, TO THEIR GOLF CART COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHWESTERN. 
          I MEAN, WHAT? YEAH, I KNOW THERE'S PEDESTRIANS ON THE SOUTH, SO THERE COULD BE PEDESTRIANS. 
          I'M SPECULATING THAT WANT TO GET TO TIM MORTON'S ORDER, THE POST OFFICE SORT OF, THIS IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE. 
          YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PAST FEW MONTHS. 
          I MEAN WE DEALT WITH STARBUCKS UP ON MCKINLEY BY THE MCKINLEY MALL AND TRIED TO COME UP WITH A PRACTICAL SOLUTION. 
          THERE WASN'T THROUGH AN EIS BUT WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT, THAT THAT WORKS AND WHATEVER. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS THAT, HAVE WE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO MITIGATE THAT ISSUE? WE KNOW THIS IS GONNA ATTRACT PEOPLE TO WALK TO. 
          I THINK, I THINK OUR RESPONSE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT ADDING THE SIDEWALKS, AS THEY SAID IS, IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND. 
          SO THAT'S THE MOST THEY COULD POSSIBLY DO ABOVE, BEYOND THAT ALSO WITHOUT, WITHOUT OTHER, IF WE WAVE IT FOR SOMEBODY DOWN THE STREET, THEN SOMEBODY A DIFFERENT BUSINESS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          A DIFFERENT BUSINESS. 
          BUT, BUT SHE IS TOTALLY RIGHT. 
          GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED HAS THE LIGHT, WHICH MEANS GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED MEETS THE SIDEWALK TO GET TO DOLLAR GENERAL. 
          SO I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS, WHERE IS DRAW WHERE THE PEDESTRIANS ARE DRAWN TO. 
          I KNOW, I KNOW, BUT THERE'S NO FEASIBLE. 
          AND IF, IF WE WERE CONSIDERING, WELL, WELL, ARE WE GONNA SAY THAT THEY MITIGATED IT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICALLY? I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE THING. 
          THE, I I THOUGHT MY ONLY QUIBBLE IS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT AN AN, AN INDIVIDUAL OR A APPLICANT WHO IS MEETING THE STANDARD UNDER THE CODE IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S MY ONLY QUIBBLE. 
          I I'LL WITHDRAW THAT IN PARTICULAR, THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE. 
          UH, BUT I I I THINK WE CAN AGREE 
          [02:30:01]
THAT, THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THEY CAN DO. 
          AND I DON'T THINK WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE'S STILL HERE, RIGHT. 
          SIDEWALK, I DON'T THINK ADDRESSES THE UNDERLYING SAFETY ISSUE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IT'S THE BEST THEY COULD DO. 
          CORRECT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE GOT THAT SCHOOL BUS STOP. 
          GOT A LETTER. 
          WE GOT A LETTER. 
          IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? I THINK THAT MAY BE THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND THEY SAID PRACTICAL. 
          WHAT ELSE YOU DO? ECONOMIC IMPACTS NOT SIGNIFICANT. 
          MAKE A STATEMENT HERE WITH ECONOMIC IMPACT, GUYS. 
          ECONOMIC IMPACTS WE'RE NOT, I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE WITH THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY THINK IT'S AN ECONOMIC, WE WOULD ONLY CONSIDER ECONOMIC IMPACTS IF IT WOULD BALANCE OUT SOME OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE GONNA SAY HERE THAT SOME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS BEING OUTWEIGHED BY THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF A DOLLAR GENERAL. 
          THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. 
          IN A COMMUNITY OF 50,000 PEOPLE IN THE ECONOMY, WHATEVER IT IS, NOT A NEGATIVE IMPACT, BUT IT'S NOT OUTWEIGHING ANY. 
          SO JUST UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. 
          YOU WOULD ONLY USE IT IN AN EIS TO OUTWEIGH. 
          I'M DOING A BIG FACILITY THAT I'M GONNA GET 500 JOBS. 
          I CAN SAY THAT OUTWEIGHS THIS, THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          AND YOU CAN WEIGH AND BALANCE THEM. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE SECRET LAW SAYS. 
          WE THIS. 
          THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT'S GONNA OUTWEIGH YOU'RE GONNA CONSIDER THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTORS NOT A HUGE ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          THE ONLY THING I ADDED IN THAT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY SUBSTANTIATED. 
          AND I'VE USED DREW'S WORDING ABOUT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT, THAT WE, THAT WE COULD NOT WEIGH ON THAT. 
          I THINK YOU COULD AGREE THAT THE ECONOMIC ISSUES DO NOT OUTWEIGH, WE'RE NOT USING OUTWEIGH, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. 
          WE'RE GONNA SAY THERE'S POSITIVE OR IT'S NOT OUTWEIGHING ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT GUYS. 
          SO, RIGHT. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA, THE ECONOMIC ISSUES AREN'T, AREN'T HELPING OR HURTING. 
          NO, THEY'RE NOT HELPING. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE, GEEZ, WE NEED THIS AND THEN OUT WE SOLVE OTHER PROBLEMS. LIKE YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, THE AMAZON PROJECT. 
          LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE AMAZON PROJECT. 
          OKAY? SO WE MADE IT THROUGH THE LIST BECAUSE REMEMBER WE DIDN'T DO THE AMAZON PROJECT. 
          SOMEBODY ELSE DID. 
          NEVER CONFUSE IT. 
          PLEASE, UH, WE GOT THROUGH THE LIST. 
          WE, WE GOT SOME CHANGES. 
          I THINK WE'RE IN A PRETTY GOOD POSITION. 
          THERE'S A FEW THAT WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE A MAJORITY ON, BUT I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY GOOD. 
          SO I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, DOLLAR GENERAL TO JULY 20TH. 
          MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND BY MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          A MOTION CARRIED. 
          WELL, I'M GONNA PREPARE THE NEXT DRAFT OF THE FBI TO GET IT OUT TO YOU IN LESS THAN A WEEK. 
          SO YOU'LL HAVE A WEEK TO REVIEW IT AND GET ME ANY COMMENTS. 
          SO YOU HOPEFULLY MAY BE ABLE TO ACT ON IT. 
          YOU'RE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AND, AND HAVE THE MAJORITY OF YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS THE FBI ASPIRATION. 
          UM, SO NEXT THING IS WE'VE GOT, UH, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 15TH MEET WELL BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION I MADE ANY CHANGES THEY WANTED TO MAKE TO THOSE MINUTES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JUNE 15TH MINUTES IS TIGHT. 
          THAT'S A MOTION BY MR. CLARK. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND BY MR. CHAPMAN. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          MOTION. 
          DOUG'S NOT HERE, SO I'LL MAKE MAKE A MOTION. 
          MOTION YOUR SO. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION BY MR. CHAPMAN. 
          SECOND BY SECOND, MR. MAHONEY. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.