[00:26:45]
[00:26:46]
WELCOME[00:26:46]
TO[00:26:46]
THE[00:26:46]
AUGUST 17TH[00:26:47]
MEETING IN THE TOWN OF HAMMER PLANNING BOARD WITH OUR RISE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CHUCK BOCK IS REQUESTING PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF A REVISED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN, APPROVAL REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NEW MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS AT 1975 LAKEVIEW ROAD IN 1983 LAKEY ROAD.
ANYBODY HEAR THAT ONE? UM, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UM, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER.
THIS ONE? THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TONIGHT.
DOES ANYBODY NEED A HARD COPY OF MY MEMO? I EVERYBODY'S FOUR.
ANYBODY ELSE? SEE, NOW YOU HAVE, SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALRIGHT.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF NEW YORK PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY CHUCK B TO CONSTRUCT NEW MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS AT 1 9 7 5 LAKEVIEW ROAD AND 1 9 8 3 LAKEVIEW ROAD.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 17TH, 2022 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL.
ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WAS GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THE CHUCK B MINI STORAGE PROJECT FOR THE SECOND TIME? ANYBODY FORWARD AGAINST MINI STORAGE? GIMME ONE SECOND.
I YOU ALRIGHT? NO COMMENTS YET.
ALRIGHT, SO FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL TIME, ANYBODY, UM, CHUCK B SEEING NO COMMENTS, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BILL, BILL AFTER YOU, IF THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ANY COMMENTS YOU COULD AUTHORIZE US TO PREPARE, IF I, WE RECOMMENDED THAT YOU DO A MEG DECK AND THEN YOU PROCEED TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEN SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
I BELIEVE THE ONLY ISSUE AS I STATED IN MY MEMO WAS THAT WAS WHEN WE FIRST REVIEWED THE FIRST PROJECT WAS AESTHETICS AND THE UM, UH, THE ARCHITECT TALK ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING.
MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE AESTHETICS.
[00:30:01]
TO THE, WHATEVER THAT DIRECTION IS, GETTING INTO THOSE, THAT AREA THERE.WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE AESTHETICS OF THAT, OF THAT AREA REMAIN.
YOU HAVE THE, AT THE, UH, WHAT IS IT, THE RESTAURANT ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS KIND OF NICE LOOKING.
WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE LAKE DOWNTOWN LIKE
SO IF YOU WANT SOME SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT, TO THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT, I THINK THE ONLY CONDITION WE HAD BEFORE WAS I BELIEVE THERE'S NO OUTDOOR STORAGE ALLOWED OR IS THERE A SMALL AREA FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OUTDOOR RESTRICTIONS.
SO THE RESTRICTION IS, AND WE TYPICALLY DO THAT WITH ANY KIND OF STORAGE FACILITY, IS THAT THERE'S NO OUTDOOR STORAGE ALLOWED.
YOU HAVE TO SHOW IT ON YOUR PLAN.
IT HAS TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
SO IN THIS CASE, THERE'S NO OUTDOOR STORAGE.
YOU WOULD PUT THAT PART OF YOUR SPECIAL NEWS TERM.
WE COULD ENFORCE IT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD OTHER, NOT JUST OTHER FACILITIES THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN START STORING STUFF OUTSIDE.
AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR NEEDS THAT SPECIAL SAY THAT THERE'S NO OUTDOOR STORAGE.
SO ANY OTHER CONDITIONS, ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH? UH, DO YOU HAVE THE PLAN TO SHOW THEM WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE FRONT OF THE SITE FROM A STANDPOINT OF LANDSCAPING AND AESTHETICS? THAT WAS THE BIG ISSUE LAST TIME.
I THINK IT CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, I THINK YOU'VE HAD ON THIS.
SO WE DID TALK ABOUT, UM, DEMARCATING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACROSS THE FRONT, RIGHT? MM-HMM
AND THEN WHAT WAS THE DECISION ON THE TYPE OF FENCING HE WAS LIKE OPEN.
SO I GUESS WE JUST NEED A DECISION ON WHAT KIND OF FENCING SO THAT WE CAN NOTE IT SOMEWHERE.
OR LABEL IT OR SOME, I MEAN IT WAS JUST SOME SORT OF LIKE WOOD OR VINYL LIKE SOLID PRIVACY FENCE, CORRECT.
I BELIEVE IT'S NOTED SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG THE, THE SIDE MIRROR PROPERTY LENS.
WE SHOULD, WE CAN SAY SIX FOOT HIGH PRIVACY FENCE AND THEN WHETHER THEY, IT'S NOT CHAIN, I MEAN I DON'T YEAH, IT'S STUCK THAT CHAIN LINK WHETHER THEY WANNA GO VINYL OR WOOD.
HE WAS GONNA PRICE IT OUT AND SEE.
I WHICH ONE? BUT IF WE JUST SAY PRIVACY FENCE, THEN HE CAN DO WHICHEVER HE WANTS.
JUST LONG AS THEY CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT.
YEAH, YOU WANNA SHOW THEM THE, THE VISUALS THERE SO WE KNOW.
YEAH, I DID IT LAST MEETING, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING FOR RESOLUTION AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WHAT THINGS YOU WOULD WANT IN THAT
THE COLOR IS THE SAME AS WHAT'S FACING IS GOING TO MATCH WHAT THE EXISTING BUILDING IS.
AND THE SAME WHERE IT IS THE BOTTOM FEW FEET ARE A DARKER COLOR AND THEN THE LIGHTER COLOR ABOVE THE TRIM MATCHES THE DARKER, UM, THE DARKER BROWN COLOR, UM, WHITEBOARDS AND CORNER BOARDS AND UH, WINDOW TRIM.
SO WE ADDED, UH, ADDED WINDOWS.
THIS IS, THIS IS THE NEW BUILDING.
WE ADDED WINDOWS SO THAT IT BREAKS UP THAT STREAM SUB.
AND YOU GUYS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE, THE TREE REQUIREMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
TYPICALLY WE PLANT TREES ALONG THE HIGHWAY.
OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT THE EXISTING CONDITION THERE, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE, SO THERE ARE OTHER PLACES YOU COULD PLANT THOSE TREES OR MAKE THIS AESTHETICALLY PLEA.
AGAIN, THE REQUIREMENT IS ONE, ONE TREE EVERY 30 FEET OR ON THE PROPERTY LINES.
NO WAY YOU'RE PUTTING TREES ALONG THE ROAD HERE, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO, SO THAT'S JUST THE KIND OF DIRECTION, PUT WHAT KIND OF DIRECTION YOU WANNA GIVE THEM ON THAT.
AND THE RENDERING HAS THEM BEHIND THE STORAGE AND I DON'T, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S A FINE PLACE FOR THEM EXISTING VEGETATION AREA.
AND SOME OF IT'S GONNA BE TAKEN OUT FOR THIS.
SO YOU GUYS CONSENT, BUT I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, WHAT YOU COULD DO TONIGHT IS THOSE AUTHORIZE US THERE.
THOSE THREE RESOLUTIONS WOULD BE THAT ESSENTIALLY USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS AND, ALRIGHT.
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO THEN WE'LL UM, MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PLANNING BOARD CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE RESOLUTIONS AND TABLE CHUCK B TO SEPTEMBER 21ST.
[00:35:01]
ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 21ST RESOLUTIONS.UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PEOPLE INC REQUESTING SITE, SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT BE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD, WEST SIDE OF ROGERS ROAD.
CHAIRMAN CLARK, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SEAN HOPKINS OF THE LAW OF APPLICANTS GEORGE JIM MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
ALSO WITH ME ARE JO PEOPLE INC.
AND MARK BROOKS FROM LONG ARCHITECTS, LONG ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS.
AS YOU RECALL, YOU HELD A PUBLIC HEARING.
I SAW THOSE, YOU HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AT YOUR MEET LAST MEETING.
UM, I THINK WE'VE PRESENTED DETAILED INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT.
NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE THE LAST MEETING, CORRECT? NO, NOTHING'S CHANGED.
AND AS YOU'LL RECALL, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WENT THROUGH FIRST THE REZONING TO PUD.
SO IT'S BEEN, I THINK IT'S BEEN PRETTY THOROUGHLY EVALUATED.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS.
NUMBER ONE, AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, DISCUSSED, WE'RE GONNA NEED A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE STORMWATER FACILITY FOR BOTH PROJECTS.
THERE IS SHARED ACCESS AND PROPERTY, SO SHARED UTILITIES THROUGH THE PROJECTS.
SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT BEING A CONDITION.
AND THEN FINALLY, AS YOU RECALL, NOT AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS QUOTE UNQUOTE HEART TRAIL.
AND WE THINK WE'VE COME UP WITH A LAYOUT THAT WORKS BOTH FOR THIS PROJECT AND THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA, WHICH IS THE ADJACENT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT.
SO RELOCATION OF THE HEART TRAIL AND INCORPORATING THAT INTO BOTH THESE SITES IS INCLUDED IN THE UPDATED PLANS.
AND THE BOARD HAS DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON
WE'RE FINAL THAT AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER SHOW I BROUGHT UP TO THE APPLICANT JUST BEFORE THE MEETING AND THE FINAL REVIEW, AND YOU HAVE A CONDITION IN THERE, THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE APPROVED BY OUR DEPARTMENT.
I COULD HELP FROM THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
UM, BUT THE ONLY ISSUE IS KEEP IN MIND THE FRONT OF THIS SITE, THIS SITE IS EXISTING, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES ON THIS SITE NOW, BUT THE FRONT OF THE SITE, THE BUILDINGS ARE NICE LOOKING BUILDINGS TO LOOKED AT.
THERE'S GONNA BE TWO BUY OVER TENSION BASINS.
THEY CAN BE NICE LOOKING, THEY CAN BE NOT SO NICE LOOKING.
SO WE JUST GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE LANDSCAPE WELL THE TYPE OF WHAT THEY PLAN IN THEM AND THEN LANDSCAPING AROUND THEM THAT, AND OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE INC DOESN'T WANT IT ALSO TO BE AN EYESORE AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING EITHER.
BUT SEAN AND I RECRUIT IT COULD BE VERY NICE BY RETENTION BASES AND THERE CAN BE AWFUL LOOKING BIAS RETENTION BASE.
THE PURPOSE OF THEM IS A VERY GOOD THING.
ORDER QUALITY, BUT THEY CAN BE EYESORE IF NOT MAINTAINED AND NOT PLANTED WELL.
SO THAT'S THE CONDITION IN THERE.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL, JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY ADDRESS THE BIO RETENTION WHALES IN THAT LANDSCAPE.
YEAH, AND AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD KNOW, I'VE WORKED WITH PEOPLE LIKE NOW FOR MANY YEARS ON PROJECTS THAT DRIVE BY THEIR PROJECTS, INCLUDING THEIR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REQUIREMENT AND REST ASSURED WE WON'T WE'LL COMPLY.
SO WE DO HAVE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS.
UM, THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE SEEKER THE TOWN BOARD, RIGHT? THAT'S THE SECOND PAGE.
UM, THE TOWN BOARD DID A SEEKER ON THE PUD.
IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT THE TOWN BOARD DID? YEP.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GET THAT ONE OUT OF THE WAY AND THEN AFTER THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT ANY MORE CONDITIONS OF A SECOND.
SO, AND JUST TO MAKE THE FILE COMPLETE, I DID, AS WE DID FOR THE TOWN BOARD, COMPLETED PART TWO AND PART THREE FOR, UH, AUTHORIZING MR. CLARK TO SIGN THAT THOSE FORMS WERE PUT IN THE FILE WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE SUBMITTED BY THE APP.
AND THOSE WERE THEN BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE VERY, VERY SAME AS RIGHT? YES.
VERY FEW OF THE BOXES WERE CHECKED.
LARGE IMPACT WE TALKED ABOUT MOST OF YES.
AND THAT'S NOT IN THE RESOLUTION, SO IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THAT IN THE RECORD.
SO THE ONLY ADDITION I WOULD PUT IS THE, THE FOURTH ONE DOWN.
I THINK THAT'S HOW YOU WRITE IT THAT PROVED BY THE CLAIM.
AGAIN, I WAS GONNA DO THIS ONE FIRST AND THEN ASK ABOUT THAT ONE.
SO WE WERE GONNA DO THE SITE SEEKER FIRST.
SEEKER FIRST, AND THEN THE CONDITIONS ARE ON THE SITE PLAN.
[00:40:01]
OH NO, THE FIRST ONE'S THE NEVERMIND.ALRIGHT, WELL WHAT I DID FOR NOT READING, OKAY.
UH, WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM PEOPLE INC.
TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON VACANT LAND NORTH OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, WEST OF ROGERS ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG TOWN BOARD AMENDED THE B BRIARWOOD PUD TO ALLOW FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT THE TOWN BOARD DETERMINE THAT THE PUD AMENDMENT OF REZONING AND PROPOSED PROJECT DID NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE OVERALL PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE BRIARWOOD PUD, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN EIS AND EVERY PROJECT PROPOSED IN THE PRIOR WITH PUD MUST BE REVIEWED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL EIS AND ITS FINDINGS.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL EIS AND ITS FINDINGS CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE TOWN BOARD AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL EIS AND THAT NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED BASED ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMRICK PLANNING BOARD DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BRIARWOOD P-U-D-E-I-S AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUE AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, WHICH WILL BE PLACED IN THE TOWN FILE.
SO THAT'S A RATHER BREER EIS SHOULD HAVE SAY FINDING STATEMENT.
WHAT'S THAT FINDING STATEMENT? HOPEFULLY THAT'S THE DOCUMENT, THE DRAFT MOTION THAT CHAIRMAN CLARK READ SAID BARWOOD PU OR EIS IT SHOULD BE A TECHNIC A FINDING FINDING.
SECOND ONE REASON I SAY THAT 10 YEARS FROM NOW, THAT'S THE DOCUMENT SOMEONE'S GONNA LOOK BACK AT.
I THINK IT WAS JUST ONE KNOW, PROBABLY SECOND WITH THE ADDITION OF WORD FIND AND FINDING.
SO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IT THOUGH.
I'M NOT READY TO MOVE QUESTION ABOUT THIS BECAUSE ISN'T THE BRIARWOOD PG THE ONE THAT'S LIKE OLDER THAN I AM? YES.
SO I JUST, AND I MIGHT BE CONFLATING PEOPLE INC.
AND DATA, I'M NOT GONNA BE PROBLEMATIC.
THIS IS LIKE A, UM, IT'S OKAY, THIS IS A PAPERWORK.
I JUST, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN SAY THAT THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT FINDINGS DOCUMENT.
WHEN DOESN'T THE FINDINGS DOCUMENT REFERENCE? WELL THAT'S, THAT'S LIKE A WHOLE WELL THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALSO ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE EIS OF FINDINGS.
THEY, THEY HAD ENVISIONED IN THAT AREA, THIS O DEVELOPMENT AND WHATEVER, IT'S, IT'S IN CONFORMANCE, BUT WE KNOW IT'S VERY OUTDATED MM-HMM
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WE CAN'T JUST STAND ON THE 38-YEAR-OLD OR 40-YEAR-OLD, BUT WE DO HAVE TO REFERENCE IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THE PROJECT WAS OVERALL DESIGNED THAT WAY.
AND YOU'RE, UM, SO WE'RE REFERENCING IT AND ISSUING THAT DAY WHEN YOU HAVE A, WHEN YOU HAVE FINDINGS ISSUE IN THE EIS, YOU HAVE CHOICES.
YOU CAN SAY IT'S COMPLETED IN CONFORMANCE TO THE FINDINGS.
YOU CAN SAY IT'S NOT, IT HAS, IT HAS THINGS THAT ARE NONCONFORMANCE, BUT THE, BUT THE IMPACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED IN AN ISSUE IN THAT DECK.
OR YOU CAN REQUIRE A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT ON OTHER BUDGET.
BUT THIS ONE WE THINK BECAUSE WHAT THE TOWN BOARD DID, REFERENCING THE EIS AND REFERENCING THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, THAT IT WARRANTS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WE'RE NOT SAYING IT, WE'RE REFERENCING THE EIS AND IT'S SUBSTANTIATE PERFORMANCE WITH IT, BUT WE'RE DOING A NEGATIVE.
IT IS A LITTLE MORE CONVOLUTED.
UM, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WITH BRIARWOOD BECAUSE WITH ONE OF THE TOWN'S FIRST DSS SO AND SO.
AND SO THE REASONING THAT EVERYONE'S GOING WITH THE WHY IT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE 30 5-YEAR-OLD FINDINGS IS BECAUSE THE INITIAL FINDINGS ANTICIPATED A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND WE STILL HAVE A HIGH DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S OUR LINE PROJECT GOING MATTER FACT, THIS PART OF THIS SITE WAS APPROVED FOR A GASOLINE STATION AND WHATEVER.
AND THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER US TALKING ABOUT, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR IN THE FINDING STATEMENT, WHICH I LEFT AT HOME.
UM, WELL FINDING IS ONE PAGE, WHICH ON WHICH CORNER OF WHICH WAS WHAT, WHICH IS WHY I'M MOURN A CAMP OF, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS, BUT THERE'S STILL NO IMPACTS.
BUT I, IF YOUR REASONING IS HOUSING FOR HOUSING, THEN I SUPPOSE I CAN GET ON THE BOARD THAT WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH SECRET, SECRET HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE.
AND THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY, WHATEVER.
SO WE'VE ALWAYS CONSIDERED IT, BUT FOR BRIARWOOD, WE TEND TO ALSO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECK BASED UPON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT ON OTHER PROJECTS.
NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, THIS 30 5-YEAR-OLD INFORMATION IS GREAT, EVERYTHING IS FINE.
I MEAN, IF IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT, OBVIOUSLY THE RESIDENTS OF THE PRIVATE
[00:45:01]
PUD WOULD SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.IT'S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EIS.
THERE SHOULD BE MORE WORK DONE ON IT.
WE'RE SAYING IT'S KIND OF IN CONFORMANCE BECAUSE IT'S HOUSING PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE, BUT WE'RE BASING IT ON OTHER INFORMATION.
IT'S A VERY CONVOLUTED, LONG, LONG HISTORY OF A PROJECT.
I MEAN, HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, HIGH DENSITY HOUSING I CAN GET BEHIND IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE.
IT WASN'T GONNA YEAH, NO, IT'S GOOD FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT.
I THINK SEAN APPRECIATE THAT TO, BUT THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING CORRECT.
IT'S, IT'S NOT, FOR ME, A LOT OF IT IS THE TOWN BOARD DECISION, RIGHT.
WHERE THEY DID THE SEEKER ON THE PUD, WHICH IS THE PLAN MM-HMM
AND THEY, THE LANGUAGE IS, SHOULD BE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME IN OURS.
SO THEY DECIDED THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE A, THAT THE PLAN AS A PUD MM-HMM
WAS, WAS IN CONFORMANCE ENOUGH AND DIDN'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
SO I THINK OUR ROLE, IF WE WERE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A REALLY SIGNIFICANT REASON.
SO THAT'S FOR ME, IT'S, IT'S NOT SO MUCH OH, THIS IS SO MUCH LIKE THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS.
IT'S NOT, BUT THE TOWN BOARD SET A PRECEDENT ON THIS PROJECT BY SAYING NEGATIVE D ON THE PD, WHICH I DON'T SEE A REASON TO OVERTURN.
EVERY AGENCY HAS INDULGE IN MY HAS HAS TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION WHEN IT SPENT TWO WEEKS.
IT'S NOT LIKE THE LEAD AGENCY IS MAKING A DECISION FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.
EVERY AGENCY HAS TO BE SO TOWN BOARD MADE A DECISION, WE MADE OUR DECISION.
YOU WANT, OH, SO SEPTEMBER, RIGHT.
SO WE, WE HAVE SOME CONDITIONS.
UM, ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT WE THINK NEED TO BE ADDED BEFORE WE GO INTO THAT RESOLUTION? ANYBODY ELSE? CONDITIONS, RIGHT.
BESIDES ADDING INPUT FROM THE CAB ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM PEOPLE INC.
REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO BE LOCATED NEAR SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, WEST OF ROGERS ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED ACTION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMRICK PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE A, THIS APPLICATION AND PROJECT AT SEVERAL MEETINGS AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVED NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WHO RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, TOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND TOWN CONSULTANTS.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HAMRICK PLANNING BOARD GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED AUGUST 3RD, 2022, TWO, ANY NEW LIGHTING WILL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT.
THREE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED AS THEY ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS AT THIS LOCATION.
FOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
A RECIPROCAL MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT IS TO BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
THE HEART TRAIL SHALL BE EXTENDED AND SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED FOR ANY BUILDING.
YOU CHANGE THE DATE OF TAMMY'S LETTER TO AUGUST 15TH.
AND WE ALSO HAVE A QUESTION AFTER YOU, AFTER YOU GET A SECOND.
DID YOU GET A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY.
SO I QUESTION, I READ THE MEETING MINUTES AND I I, AND I DIDN'T KNOW I READ THE MEETING MINUTES AS IN AREA.
I DON'T THINK ROGER WROTE WE ADDED BASED ON YOUR, OKAY.
SO CONSTRUCTION SIDEWALKS IS WAVED OUTTA THERE.
THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE SIDEWALKS IN.
I READ THE MEETING BUT IT'S WRONG.
I THOUGHT MEANT THEY HAD THE SIDEWALKS.
YOU, YOU HAVE PUT THEM ON THE PLANS.
THE SIDEWALKS ARE THERE, SO DON'T WAIT.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO STRIKE THE BULLET ABOUT SIDEWALKS BECAUSE I INCLUDED ON THE SITE PLAN WHAT? RIGHT.
ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANNA DO ONCE AGAIN? NO.
JUST GET RID OF THAT CONDITION'S IT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE PLANT.
[00:50:01]
UH, I WAS GONNA AMEND IT AS CONSTRUCTION SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED ON SOUTHWESTERN AS THERE'RE ALREADY SIDEWALKS AT THAT LOCATION.THEY DON'T HAVE FRONT, WE HAVE NO FRONTAGE ON SOUTHWESTERN.
OH, THE OTHER PROJECT IS FRONTED IN SOUTHWESTERN.
SO WE GOING WITH MY MOTION TO DELETE? DOES SOMEONE WANT US TO SECOND MY AMENDMENT? WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE, OF CAM LETTERS.
YEAH, I DID THAT FIRST ONE AS LONG AS YOU DID THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. CLARK, SECONDED BY MR. MCCORMICK.
AMENDED, SECONDED BY MR. MCCORMICK, AN AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCCORICK, SECOND BY MR. BOB SAND.
I CAN JUST GIVE YOU MY, YOU JUST HAVE TO DELETE THE ONE BULLET CHANGE THE 15.
YOU GOT THAT? WE DO, THERE'S A LOT OF WORDS TO DO.
THE MOTION HAS I, I'LL THANK WE GONNA BRING US ALL SOME OF THOSE LITTLES RULES GUIDES TO ROBERT'S RULES.
THEY MAKE THESE, I JUST MENTIONED IT TO HIM.
WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE, YOU KNOW, YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT FIRST AND THEN YOU APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO THERE'S TWO LOADS INSTEAD OF ONE INSTEAD OF ONE.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AND THEN YOU ATTACH IT TO THE MOTION AND VOTE ON IT AS AMENDED.
YOU LET, YOU'RE GONNA LET THAT RULE SLIDE.
I'LL LET, I'LL LET THAT RULE SLIDE.
THE MOTION TO APPOINT DENNIS IS THE PROBLEM.
WE DID NOT ADOPT, I MEAN WE, ROGER'S RULES ARE GOOD AND ALL, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE OFFICIALLY ADOPTED SO WE CAN DO IT THE WAY WE DID IT.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DATA DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SITE PLAN.
APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT 156 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS RELEASE ON VACANT LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, WEST OF ROGERS ROAD.
READ ME ONCE AGAIN, SEAN HOPKINS IN THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS STORAGE AND MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE AFFIDAVIT UPSIDE.
THIS PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD DURING A PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN LATE JULY.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY CONTIGUOUS TO THE PEOPLE INC.
PROJECT THAT WAS JUST APPROVED.
UM, SAME CONDITIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PEOPLE INC.
WE SHARED EASEMENT OR STORE WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY, SHARED ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS, ANY SHARED UTILITIES.
AND PER THE REQUEST OF THIS AND THIS BOARD DURING A PUBLIC, DURING A MEETING IN JUNE, WE'RE ALSO SHOWING THE RELOCATION AND EXTENSION OF THE GOLDEN POST HEART TRAIL ONTO THIS SITE.
SO WE THINK SIMILAR TO THE PEOPLE IN PROJECT, YOU'RE IN A POSITION THIS EVENING THAT YOU CAN MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS PROJECT IS INDEED GENERALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FINDING STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE TOWN TOWN BOARD NEARLY FOUR DECADES AGO.
ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE THE SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS.
THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS? I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM.
THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON THE FRONT.
THERE ARE SIDEWALKS, CORRECT? THERE ARE, THERE ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS.
AND THEN WE JUST, I JUST WENT OFF TO BILL THAT THE ENGINEERING LETTER 15TH, NOT THE THIRD.
IT'S, AND HANDED ME A COPY AND, AND I WOULD, AND I WOULD POINT OUT FOLLOWING UP ON MARIO'S QUESTION BEFORE, THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS ONE CLEAR AS DAY WAS ALWAYS DEPICTED AS HIGHER DENSITY
NO GAS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE SITE.
ALRIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? WE'RE JUST GONNA HEAD INTO IT.
UH, DO WE WANNA ADD AND ITS FINDINGS? YEAH, LET'S DO THAT.
WHERE IS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG? RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM
[00:55:01]
DTO DEVELOPMENT LLC TO CONSTRUCT 156 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.AND WHEREAS THE HAMFORD TOWN BOARD REZONED PORTIONS OF THE SITE TO PUD TO ALLOW FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND WHEREAS, AND THE TOWN BOARD DETERMINED THAT THE REZONING AND PROPOSED PROJECT DID NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE OVERALL PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE BRIARWOOD PUD, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN EIS AND EVERY PROPOSED PROJECT PROPOSED IN THE BRIARWOOD PUD MUST BE REVIEWED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL EIS AND ITS FINDINGS.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL EIS AND ITS FINDINGS CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE TOWN BOARD AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PUD PLAN AND THE EIS AND THAT NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED BASED ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BREYER WITH P-U-D-E-I-S AND ITS FINDINGS AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
AND THEN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUE AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND WILL BE PLACED IN THE TOWN FILE MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
UM, SAME CHANGES ASIDE FROM THE SIDEWALK ONE ON THIS ONE AS THE LAST ONE.
ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD OR DELETE? THE HEART TRAIL CROSSES ON THIS SPECIFIC, IT DOES THIS PARCEL AS WELL, RIGHT? YEAH, BOTH PARCELS.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM DATA DEVELOPMENT LLC REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A NEW 156 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD NEAR ROGERS ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED ACTION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND PROJECT AT SEVERAL MEETINGS AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVED NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, TOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND TOWN CONSULTANTS.
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT THE EY PLANNING BOARD GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED AUGUST 15TH, 2022.
ANY NEW LIGHTING WILL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT.
THREE CONSTRUCTIONS OF SIDEWALKS AS WAIVED AS THERE ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS AT THIS LOCATION.
THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH INPUT FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
THE RECIPROCAL MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS EASEMENT IS TO BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF ATTORNEY.
AND SIX, THE HEART TRAIL SHALL BE EXTENDED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO OC CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ARE ISSUED FOR ANY BUILDING.
I'LL SECOND BY, UH, MR. CHAPMAN AND DISCUSSION.
CAN WE JUST TAKE OUT THE CONSERVATIVE SIDEWALKS AS WAVED AS THERE ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS HERE.
10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THEY MAY BE GONE.
AND SO YOU SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT 'EM IN THERE BECAUSE THE PLAN BOARD WAIVED IT.
IF WE JUST SO WE CAN SAY, JUST TAKE IT RIGHT OUT.
I ABOUT JUST SAY THERE ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS AT THAT LOCATION.
WE NEED TO WELL WE HAVE TO WAIVE THE CONSTRUCTION.
WE HAVE TO WA BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY HAVE TO INSTALL MORE SIDEWALKS.
SO WE HAVE TO WAIVE THEM BUILDING MORE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE IT'S A REQUIREMENT TO BUILD WHEN THEY DON'T WAIVE IT.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT.
THAT'S PER PROJECT? IT IS PER PROJECT.
I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT'S A GOOD, IT'S A, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, BUT IT, WE'RE WAIVING IT FOR THIS PROJECT.
IF 10, 15 YEARS FROM NOW THEY HAVE TO REPLACE THE SIDEWALKS, THE TOWN GOES THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS OF REPLACING SIDEWALKS.
IT'S IN THE, WE'RE JUST SAYING WE WOULD MAKE THEM PUT 'EM IN IF THEY'RE NOT.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE'LL WORK WITH THE, I'LL WORK WITH JENNIFER OVER THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE WORDING IS CORRECT ON THAT.
BUT IT IS, WE'RE WAIVING IT BECAUSE THERE ARE SIDEWALKS 15 YEARS FROM NOW, IF THERE'S NEEDED SIDEWALKS, WE'RE WE'RE NOT GONNA GET PEOPLE IN TO DO IT.
THE TOWN'S GONNA GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT.
HOW, HOW IS, HOW IS, HOW IS THE CONDITION, WHAT WAS THE CONDITION AGAIN? THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS AT THIS LOCATION.
I YOU SAY THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED AND THERE, I THINK THAT COVERS DENNIS' COMMENT.
WELL NO, NO, THEY DID TORE UP.
WELL, NO, THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALKS BUT ACKNOWLEDGING SIDEWALKS ARE THERE, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE
[01:00:01]
THE POWER TO I I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT.HE'S SAYING OTHERWISE JUST SOMEONE ION SIDEWALKS ARE AWAY PERMANENTLY.
I THINK YOU SAY THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALKS IS ON THIS PROJECT? YES.
INSTALLATION NEW SIDEWALKS ON THIS PROJECT.
I DO THINK THAT ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERN, WHICH I GET SO, SO ON THIS PROJECT YEAH, BUT SAY NEW YEAH.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SAY WHAT ON THIS PROJECT.
SO THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NUMBER THREE, NEW.
SO IS THIS YOUR MOTION? DENNIS? YOUR MOTION.
OH YEAH, YOU DON'TS ON FOR THE PROJECT.
SO THE AMENDMENT, YOU THE TWO, UH, TWO AS AMENDED BY MR. CHAPMAN IS THE CONDITION NUMBER THREE WOULD BE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS.
THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALKS.
OH, NEW SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED AS THERE ARE ALREADY SIDEWALKS AT THIS.
NO, THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDEWALKS IS WAIVED FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO THAT IS, UH, MR. CHAPMAN'S AMENDMENT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR HIS AMENDMENT, SIR? SECOND MR. HONNEY.
SO THEN WE HAVE THE REGULAR MOTION.
THE MOTION AS AMENDED IS BY MR. CLARK.
WOULD ROGERS RULES LIKE THAT? LIKE THAT WAY? CHAIRMAN ROGER, ROBERT.
ROGER USED TO BE THE ENFORCEMENT GUY.
THANK YOU HAVE GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
IS IT A MUST CONSTRUCT LESS WAVE? YES.
IT'S LIKE A MUST CONSTRUCT LESS WAVE.
MAYBE IN GENERAL, WE JUST NEED TO CHANGE THOSE CONDITIONS.
I I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THAT, BUT WE SHOULD LOOK INTO, BECAUSE IF IT, IF IT'S THAT, THEN WE COULD CHANGE THESE CONDITIONS TO READ THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE WAIVING A REQUIREMENT AND THEN IT'S EVEN CLOSER TO THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT FOR THIS PROJECT IS WAIVED.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT IS MUST.
WE CAN LOOK INTO IT WITH JENNIFER, THINK IT'S WHO CAME UP LAST TIME AND THEY SAID IT'S NOT A US I, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SEND IT BECAUSE WE, I KNOW THE LAST TOWN BOARD CHANGED THAT AND MADE IT A REQUIREMENT.
BUT, BUT I'LL I'LL MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT SECTION OF THE CODE.
SO, AND I DO LIKE REFERENCING THAT THE SIDEWALKS ARE ALREADY THERE.
IF WE WA IT BECAUSE I TAKE WAIVER TO THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS AND THEY'RE NOT MAKING SOMEONE DO IT.
THAT'S HOW I WOULD, THERE ARE TOO MANY.
THAT'S WHY I LIKE WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT BECAUSE LAST MEETING SAID THAT, REMEMBER SHE SAID IT DOESN'T SAY SO WE'RE INSTRUCTED TO SAY KIM SAID IT OUT.
WE'RE INSTRUCTED TO DECIDE ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.
I DON'T INSTRUCTED TO HAVE, THEY HAVE TO PUT THEM ON ONCE WE LEAVE.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING LAST WEEK.
WHEN SHE SAID IT'S REALLY DISCUSS.
NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS RICHARD MATTHEWS REQUESTING REZONING FROM C TWO TO NC OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 4, 4 9 BIGTREE ROAD IN ORDER TO MAKE THE TWO EXISTING HOMES ON THE PROPERTY CONFORMING.
SO WE'VE GOT A RESOLUTION ON THIS ONE AND WE JUST MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE IT'S A REZONING.
OUR RESOLUTION IS BASICALLY TO PARAPHRASE IT, WE RECOMMEND THAT IT BE REZONED BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE IT CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING USE.
IS THAT EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY? YES.
ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY CHANGES THAT WE WANNA MAKE BEFORE WE JUMP INTO IT? WE'RE MISSING ANY COR IN THIS PARAGRAPH SOMEWHERE.
IF THEY'RE OPEN BUT THEY DON'T CLOSE, THAT'S OKAY.
I THINK WHAT CAN I ACTUALLY, I WOULD TAKE, I'M GONNA TAKE THE FIRST ONE OUT.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I WAS NOT SURE HOW MANY.
SO I FEEL CORRECT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT PROCESS.
WHAT'S A REZONING REPORT? IS THIS JUST LIKE A SYNOPSIS THAT WE GET WHENEVER THERE IS A REZONING REZONING REQUEST? SO WE ISSUE THE REZONING, THE THE, THE LAW SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ISSUE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PANEL BOARD.
SO WE CREATED THIS KIND OF, RIGHT.
[01:05:01]
THIS WHAT'S TITLED REZONING REPORT IS WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING THAT WE ARE ISSUING TO PANEL BOARD.AND YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES TO EVERYTHING I DO IS DRAFT TOTALLY.
JUST WANTED TO FIT THE SQUARE BLOCK IN THE SQUARE BLOCK.
AND THE REPORT IS ACTUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? BECAUSE BECAUSE THAT TELLS THE TOWN BOARD WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE JUSTIFICATION WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE.
RIGHT? AND AND THERE'S TIMES WHEN WE'RE, WE'RE SPLIT MM-HMM
AND WE SEND THE REPORT THAT'LL IT'LL GIVE BOTH SIDES.
SO THE TOWN BOARD KNOWS WHAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT PRO AND CON.
YEAH, I THINK OUR LAST REZONING, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS AND THEN WE WROTE IT UP AND THIS ONE WE DIDN'T HAVE AS MUCH, WHICH MAKES SENSE WHY.
RIGHT? I'M CONFUSED BY THE BACK.
I'M JUST SEEING THANK YOU ALL.
OKAY, SO, UM, AND I'LL READ THE RESOLUTION, BUT NOT THE REPORT, NOT REPORT.
BUT BEFORE, HAS EVERYBODY READ THE REPORT? IS THERE ANY CHANGES ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE TO THE REPORT? NO.
SO MR. MATTHEWS HAS TO RETURN TO DIVIDE SUBDIVIDE AGAIN? HE IF IF HE WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE, YEAH, HE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK.
IF SO, I READ IT, RIGHT? YEAH.
IF HE KEEPS IT HOW IT IS UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEN HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO, THIS IS JUST TO ZONING.
HE COULDN'T SELL THE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, PRESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE WITH THE ZONING THE WAY IT IS, IT'S PART OF THE ISSUE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE ISSUE WE HAD BEFORE WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY.
40 ACRES OF LAND AT ONE POINT AND, AND IT WAS RE IT WAS RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL RIGHT BEFORE SOMEBODY CHANGED THE SEED TOO, BEFORE I LOST.
AND NOW REST OF THE LAND IS GONE BECAUSE THE HOUSES ARE SITTING THERE IN THE WRONG CHANGES DOWN ROAD.
SO WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A REZONING APPLICATION FROM RICHARD MATTHEWS FOR REZONING OF 3, 4, 4 9 BIG TREE ROAD FROM C TWO TO NC IN ORDER TO MAKE THE EXISTING HOMES ON THE SITE CONFORMING NO CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG TOWN BOARD REFERRED THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING APPLICATION.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN ZONING LAW, THE PLANNING BOARD NEEDS TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE REZONING.
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED AT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, HEREBY ISSUES THE ATTACHED REPORT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO THE TOWN BOARD IF A MOTION BY MR. CLARK.
FIND OUT FROM SARAH WHAT THE, ALL RIGHT.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLANNING BOARDS TO DISCUSS AND POTENTIALLY ISSUE FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 6 5 0 5 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
UM, I GAVE YOU, I EMAILED OVER A WEEK AGO OR SO, A GRANT FINDING DOCUMENT THAT HAD JUST BLANK AREAS BASED UPON THE LITTLE BIT OF INPUT I, OF THE INPUT I GOT.
I HAVE DRAFTED A FINDINGS DOCUMENT FOR YOU, UM, BASED ON THE INPUT AND I RECEIVED THIS IS, AND IT'S A START, IS A NEGATIVE FINDINGS.
WE PROBABLY WILL NOT MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, BUT GIVE, GIVE ME DIRECTION ON MAKING FINAL CHANGES TO THIS.
OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE SEEING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT.
SAYING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT.
I TALKED TO JENNIFER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT.
I'LL TAKE A HARD LOOK AT IT AND VOTE ON IT NEXT TIME.
UM, ANYTHING FROM THE APPLICANTS? NO, NOT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN SAID.
FOR AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS BY ANYBODY ON THE BOARD?
[01:10:01]
YOUR ISSUES WERE SUMMARIZING KNOW THE ISSUES WERE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, UM, ISSUES WERE CHARACTER WITH THE DRIVEWAY ON ROAD.A COMBINATION OF THOSE THINGS.
SO THERE WERE THREE ITEMS THAT LED TO YOU BASICALLY SAYING THAT THERE WERE, THAT THEY WEREN'T, THEY WEREN'T MITIGATED ENOUGH THAT THEY HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND THEREFORE YOU WERE FINDING THAT ISSUE A NEGATIVE FINDING, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY, IF YOU ISSUE THAT FINDINGS, THE PROJECT IS OVER, DOES NOT PROCEED WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
AND, AND DREW AND I, WE HAD A MEETING WITH DOT ON MONDAY.
UM, NO REAL CHANGES OCCURRED WITH THAT, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH SOMEBODY, DIFFERENT DOT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CONTACTED YOU ABOUT THAT OR NOT ON AUGUST 29TH.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL 'CAUSE I, I HAD SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT THE PERSON WE TALKED TO COULDN'T ANSWER.
SO WE SET UP A DIFFERENT MEETING WITH SOMEBODY THAT MAYBE CAN ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I HAD.
UH, I DOUBT WHAT WE'LL GET FROM THE DOT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS, BUT IF IT DOES, I'LL LET EVERYBODY KNOW AS SOON AS I FIND OUT.
BUT MY, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA REALLY PUT IN ANYTHING MORE DEFINITIVE THAN THEY ALREADY HAVE AT THIS STAGE.
THE PURPOSE OF YOU ISSUED A-F-B-I-S THE PURPOSE OF THE TIMEFRAME BETWEEN FEIS AND A FINDINGS IS TO COORDINATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES.
MAKE SURE YOU'RE ALL GONNA MAKE THE SAME FINDING IN THE CASE OF DOT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD'VE TO ISSUE FINDINGS IF, IF THERE WAS AN ENTRANCE ONTO THEIR STATE HIGHWAY.
BUT WE DID COORDINATE WITH INTERESTED AND INVOLVED AGENCIES.
WE LOOKED AT THE D'S CORRESPONDENCE.
BASICALLY THE ONLY ONE WAS DOT, WHICH I THE APPLICANT.
AND WE HAVE GONE AROUND AND AROUND WITH DOT ON THE ISSUES OF WHERE THE ENTRANCE GOES AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO THE SITE.
SO DREW THIS THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US AN HARD COPY IS WITH ANY, I'M GONNA EMAIL TOMORROW MORNING TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS A COFFEE.
WHAT'S THAT? IT'S WITH ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WITH THAT YOU GOT ON THE ONE THAT JOSH SENT US A WEEK AGO, THE ONE I SENT A WEEK AGO, IF YOU REMEMBER, A LOT OF 'EM DIDN'T HAVE A CONCLUSION AT THE END, JUST THAT HIGHLIGHTED OR WHATEVER WE'RE AT WHATEVER.
THAT'S WHERE YOU HAD TO GIVE ME INPUT AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT IS YOUR FEELINGS BASED UPON THE FBIS AND THE DEIS? YOU BROUGHT UP SOME THINGS DURING THE FBIS, I GOT SOME ADDITIONAL INPUT.
YOU, THOSE WERE THE CONCERNS YOU STILL HAD.
AND HAVE YOU, AND AGAIN, THE A APPLICANT HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION, OBVIOUSLY, HAD YOU MITIGATED THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL.
ONE THING I DID SAY IN THERE, THERE'S THREE PARTS OF CERTIFYING THE FINDINGS.
ONE OF THEM IS TO SAY, ARE THERE ECONOMIC OR OTHER SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU USE TO OUTWEIGH ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT? I HEARD STRONGLY FROM ALL OF YOU, AND IT WAS REPEATING THE FBIS THAT YOU BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY REALLY ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD OUTWEIGH ANY ENVIRONMENTAL.
SO THAT ONE WE SAID, SO YOU HAVE TO BASE YOUR DECISION ON ARE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT YOU, ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE HERE? KIND OF BEATING THIS ONE? UM, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD? ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD? YOU REALLY HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.
I MEAN, THE SECRET LAW SAYS YOU WAIT A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS.
THE DI THE DIRECTION THE SECRET LAW GIVES YOU IN THEIR TIMEFRAMES IS THAT YOU SHOULD TRY TO MAKE YOUR FINDINGS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE.
THOSE ARE DIRECTORY NOT MANDATORY.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO SAY DIRECTORY IS THAT YOU'VE HAD, YOU'VE HAD OVER 30 DAYS NOW, SO WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE A DECISION THE LAST, THE NEXT MEETING.
SO I WAITED, WE GOT ALL THE INPUT, WE HAD MEETINGS WITH DOT, WE MADE SURE THE OTHER AGENCIES AGREED WITH, WITH THE THINGS THAT WERE CONCLUDED IN THERE.
UM, YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION NOW.
DO YOU NEED ANYTHING MORE FROM US OR THE APPLICANT? I MEAN, IT'S ALL GOTTA BE ON THE RECORD ANYWAY FOR YOU TO MAKE, IF YOU REALLY MAKE THE DECISION BASED UPON YOUR FEIS AND YOUR EIS AND ANY INPUT YOU GET FROM THOSE OTHER AGENCIES.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? YOU WE CONTACTED THE DOTI CONTACTED THE DC REALLY? OTHER AGENCIES WERE REALLY NOT.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WAS ABOUT SEPARATE SYSTEM.
IT SEPARATELY APPROVED THE SEP SYSTEM ANYWAYS, RIGHT? WHAT'S THAT? THIS HEALTH DEPARTMENT SEPARATELY APPROVES AND INSPECTS ACCEPTANCE.
RIGHT? AND YOU DIDN'T RAISE ANY BIG ISSUES.
THE OTHER ISSUE YOU BROUGHT UP, AND THEY OFFERED THE MITIGATION WAS IN CASE THEY FIND CONTAMINATION, THIS IS AN OLD, OLD GASOLINE SITE, THEY FEEL FAIRLY STRONGLY THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA FIND CONTAMINATION
[01:15:01]
ON THE PROPERTY BASED UPON, BUT THEY ALSO AGREED TO A MITIGATION THAT IF IT WAS FOUND ON THE PROPERTY, THAT THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY REMOVE IT AND REMOVE IT TO STATE STANDARD.SO THAT WAS A REASONABLE CON CONDITION.
I THINK THAT ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TWO FINDINGS ON THE FIRST ONE WAS JUST BLANK IN SOME AREAS AND WHATEVER.
AND THIS IS THE ONE BASED UPON THE COMMENT.
SO CAN WE BRING THIS ONE BACK ON THE 21ST? YOU'RE, YOU'RE, I I I WOULD TRY TO DO IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
WE HAVE SIX THINGS ON THAT ONE.
WELL, IT SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE A VERY QUICK ITEM, AGENDA ITEM.
YOU SHOULD GET ME ANY COMMENTS AND YOU'LL JUST READ THE RESOLUTION AND PASS AND PASS THE RESOLUTION.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE A, NOT A CONVERSATION.
IT'S GONNA BE YOU'VE HAD ONE DRAFT AND NOW YOU HAVE THE SECOND DRAFT BASED UPON THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED.
REALLY SHOULD BE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS AND THEN YOU NEED TO ADOPT IT.
REALLY NOT GONNA BE A LOT OF CONVERSATION THAT, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICANT ARE GONNA SUBMIT PROBABLY SOME, SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU BASED UPON THIS DRAFT, BUT IT'S NOT A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FROM AN FEIS, THE FINDINGS.
BUT THAT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE AND IN THIS CASE YOU HAVE A DRAFT FINDINGS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW.
IT IS AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SEE THAT IT IS A DRAFT THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.
AND YOU DID GET THE EMAIL I SENT YOU FROM THE, THE NEIGHBOR, MR.
I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU PLACE IT ON TWO WEEKS AND, OR IT'S ACTUALLY THREE WEEKS.
IT'S THREE WEEKS BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THAT.
AND THEN YOU GET ME ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYBODY SUBMITS? YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
I'D LIKE TO TRY TO STAY WITHIN THE SUGGESTED TIMEFRAME.
THE IT'S 30 DAYS AND HOW FAR WE'RE PAST.
I GUESS UNDER THOSE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, WE'LL SCHEDULE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, TABLE DOLLAR GENERAL TO SEPTEMBER 7TH.
I'LL EMAIL A WORD DOCUMENT TO YOU SO YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES OR SUGGESTIONS OR IF THERE'S, AGAIN, THERE'S, IT'S A DRAFT, SO IT COULD BE A TWEAK LANGUAGE OR WHATEVER.
YOU'RE ISSUING THE FINDING AND WE'LL HAVE THE RESULTS OF BILL'S SECOND PHONE CALL NEXT MEETING OR AT NEXT MEETING IF THEY CALL YOU.
NO, THEY PROMISE THEY WOULD CALL, UH, FIRST CALL.
I MEAN, WE'LL, WE'LL CALL, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THEY SAY ANYTHING.
THE GOVERNMENT MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN I WAS WHEN I WELL, THEY WON'T PUT IN WRITING, RIGHT? WHAT WAS THAT THEY'LL PUT IN RIGHT?
BILL PUSHED AND PUSHED ABOUT GETTING SOMETHING IN WRITING.
I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING YOU'RE RIGHT.
BILL IN WRITING WOULD BE VERY, YEAH, I, I ASKED FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC AND I ASKED FOR SOMETHING IN WRITING AND I GOT A SECOND PHONE CALL.
YOU HAVE THREE SETS OF MINUTES? YES, WE HAVE THREE SETS OF MINUTES.
I MAKE A MOTION TO THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 6TH MEETING.
SECOND MOTION BY MR. MCCORMICK.
WE ALSO HAVE MEETINGS FROM JULY 20TH.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JULY 20TH.
WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE? AUGUST MARGO.
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 3RD.
SUSTAIN ONE ABSTENTION MOTION CARRIED.
YEAH, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT, BUT AS YOU KNOW, YOU, WE HAVE RECEIVED THE DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE AL ASPHALT PROJECT.
I THINK SARAH HAS SENT YOU A SCOPING DOCUMENT.
I WILL GET YOU A, A WORD COPY OF THE SCOPING DOCUMENT.
[01:20:01]
I'M ALSO GONNA, LIKE YOU DID FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, I'M GONNA TAKE THE SCOPING DOCUMENT, TURN IT INTO A CHECKLIST.FIRST JOB IS TO DETERMINE COMPLETION OF THAT DOCUMENT.
NOW, DOES THAT HAVE TO BE ON FOR THE SEVENTH OR CAN WE PUT THAT ONE ON THE 21ST? YOU CAN GO TO THE 21ST ON THAT.
SO LET'S PUT THAT ONE ON A 500 PAGE DOCUMENT.
THINK YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A DECISION ON THAT.
SO ON THAT, JUST TO BE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT ARE THE, YOU SENT US AN EMAIL TODAY.
WHAT ARE THE TIMEFRAMES? I HAVE IT IN YOUR, I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF WHAT I SENT YOU.
I'LL SEND YOU THE ACTUAL PUBLICATION FROM D EEC.
ANY YOU THE HARD COPY WILL BE READY.
NO, I HAVE TO TELL HER TOMORROW.
KEEP IN MIND, EVERY ONE OF THOSE TIMEFRAMES IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MANAGER.
I'M TALKING LIKE AN ATTORNEY HERE.
BUT THAT IN COURT ENOUGH, IT IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY.
THERE'S NO SOONER THAN 10 DAYS.
FOUR OR FIVE FOR THE, SO, SO LONGER THAN 10 DAYS IS ALL RIGHT.
BUT NOW AS FAR AS THE, THE NEW DEIS, YOU JUST GOT, THE AGENCY HAS 30 DAYS TO DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF A RESUBMITTED, UH, 45 DAYS TO DETERMINE WHETHER DOCUMENT IS ADEQUATE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN TERMS OF SCOPE AND COMMENTS.
SO AUGUST THE NINTH WAS THE DAY THAT WE START.
SO WHEN IS 45 DAYS YOU TOOK 90 DAYS.
BUT IS AUGUST 9TH THE DAY DATE? AUGUST 9TH IS WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE DOCUMENT? YES.
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT.
YES, NO PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID.
BUT IT WAS VIA WELL, AND THAT'S, IT WAS, YEAH.
I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY AROUND SEPTEMBER 23RD IS 45 DAYS.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, I'LL SAY, SO IS THE 45 DAYS DIRECTLY NOT MANDATORY? IS 45 DAYS REQUIRED OR SUGGESTED? SAYS NO.
SUGGESTED IT'S DIRECTORY NOT MANDATORY.
CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT FOR US, JENNIFER? AND LET US KNOW WHAT'S YOUR READING? WHAT'S YOUR READING IS WHAT THE, WHAT THE SECRET, UH, WHAT THE SECRET.
IF YOU CAN JUST PROVIDE A VERBAL, OFFICIAL LEGAL OPINION ON THAT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT, AND NOW EITHER WAY, WE SHOULD PLAN TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 21ST.
AND BY IT WE MEAN THE CONTENT DISCUSSING, DISCUSSING THE CONTENT OF THE DIS NO, DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT IT MATCHES THE SCOPING DOCUMENTED IS ADEQUATE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.
SO THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE SURE AND DREW OUR NEXT MEETING YOU CAN PROVIDE US, EVEN THOUGH WE WANNA DISCUSS IT, THAT CHECKLIST, I'LL GO THROUGH IT.
SO IT'S, I JUST WANNA, I JUST WANNA ADD A LITTLE MORE, I, I SPENT SIX MONTHS IN ALBANY WHEN THEY REWROTE THE SECRET REGULATION.
AND IN THAT TIME PERIOD THEY TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE SECRET TIMEFRAMES MANDATORY.
AND EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE SAID NO.
BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT THE DEFENDANT BE ANY MANDATORY APPROVALS OF ANYTHING.
AND BASICALLY, DEPENDING UPON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT, YOU COULD TAKE 90 DAYS OR 120 DAYS TO REVIEW A 2000 PAGE EIS OR WHATEVER.
SO THEIR DIRECTORY, AND NOT MANDATORY, THEY, THEY REFUSED TO MAKE THEM MANDATORY.
THEY, THEY KEPT THE LAW THE SAME, THAT THE DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON IT FOR SIX MONTHS IN ALBANY ABOUT THAT.
THEY LEFT IT THE SAME BECAUSE OF THIS.
THERE'S NO WAY WITHIN 30 OR 45 DAYS YOU'RE GONNA DETERMINE IT'S COMPLETENESS.
WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD TOO, THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 9TH, BUT THEY WEREN'T RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD UNTIL THIS AUGUST 17TH.
AND I YES, THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA HANDLE THAT INTERNAL.
I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.
THE, THE TOWN ALSO HAS TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND THIS ONE.
WE HAVE IN THE PAST HIRING INDIVIDUAL, UH, OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERTS IN CERTAIN THINGS.
I'M NOT AN AIR QUALITY EXPERT.
NO ONE IN THIS ROOM IS AN AIR QUALITY EXPERT.
SARAH, YOU'RE GONNA PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN GET MATCHES AS WELL, AGAIN, LIKE YOU DID WITH THE LAST, RIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO DO TODAY, RIGHT? YEAH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PAPERWORK BOTH BEHIND THAT, SARAH? NO.
ZACH, MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.