[00:19:33]
[00:19:34]
ALRIGHT,[00:19:35]
WELCOME[00:19:36]
ON FACEBOOK.THE NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD.
WILL EVERYONE PLEASE RISE IN PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DUE THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[00:20:21]
ALL RIGHT, FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NOT GONNA GO FORWARD TODAY, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA DISCUSS.IT'S NOT DURING CODE REAL ESTATE.
SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS QUICK SERVICE.
REAL COLD REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A NEW TACO BELL RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED AT 4 9 2 3 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
MY NAME'S ADAM OFFICIAL WITH MARATHON ENGINEERING WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER PROJECT.
WITH ME IS KEN SHAW FROM QUICK SERVICE ROCO, THE APPLICANT.
UM, RYAN JORDANS FROM OUR OFFICE, UH, WAS HERE LAST MONTH.
HE'S UNABLE TO MAKE TONIGHT MEETING AS NOT FEELING WELL, SO I'M PLACE.
UM, AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, UH, RAISED ABOUT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN AND OUT OF THE SITE, UH, REGARDING RIGHT TURNS IN FROM SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD.
UM, QUESTIONS CAME TO, UH, EXITING TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS, UH, FROM THE RESTAURANT ITSELF, UH, FROM THE SHARED ACCESS DRIVE ON SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD.
UH, CIRCULATION HAS, UH, RESPONDED TO THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I CAN JUST GET A HIGH, HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW, UM, OF THOSE COMMENTS AND OUR RESPONSES.
UH, ESSENTIALLY THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, THE REGULAR CAPSULE HERE NOW, UH, PROVIDES A BETTER STACKING THAN WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE PROJECT, UM, THROUGH OUR COORDINATION WITH, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WE ALSO, UH, SUBMITTED A MEMO, UH, FROM THEM OUTLINING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO SIGN FOR THE EXIT DRIVE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A LEFT TURN ON ME AND STOP CONTROL SIGNAGE HERE FOR THE DRIVE OF EXITING, UM, AS CARS PULL INTO THE SHARED SHARED ACCESS DRIVE.
AND WE'RE GOING OVER TO THE, UH, MEDICAL FACILITY OVER HERE.
WE HAVE, UH, DO NOT ENTER AND LEFT TURN ONLY SIGNAGE HERE AS THE CAR FACED THE EXITING DRIVE-THROUGH TRAFFIC.
UM, THE DRIVEWAY BYPASS HERE THAT COMES UP TO THE SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY STOP CONTROL AS FAR AS THE DRIVER RECIRCULATION STOP SIGN AT THE DRIVE THROUGH EXIT, AS WELL AS MOUNTABLE CURVE TO PUSH THE DRIVE THROUGH, THE DRIVE THROUGH, UH, BACK AROUND THE SITE TO WHERE I CAN MAKE THE STOP SIGN BEFORE EXITING THE, THE DEPOSIT SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD INSTEAD OF GOING STRAIGHT.
UM, CONCERN AND QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR A CAR TO TURN RIGHT HEADING NORTH ON, ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD SIDE ABOUT 25 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD CURBING AND THE CURBING ON SITE ITSELF.
UM, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, 25 FEET, UH, CHEVY SUBURBAN HAS A TURN RATE IS ABOUT 21 FEET.
SO THAT 25 FEET IS, IS AMPLE ENOUGH TO HAVE A LARGE, A LARGE VEHICLE LIKE A PICKUP TRUCK, BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN AT THE END OF THE SITE? UM, WE HAVE THE ABILITY FOR 10 CARS TO BE STACKED IN THE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE BEFORE ANY ISSUES, UH, MAY ARISE WITH, UH, DRIVE THROUGH EXITING TRAFFIC AND THE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE ITSELF.
UH, AND IF THERE IS A 10TH OR 11TH CAR IN THE QUEUE HERE AND ANY CAR IS ENTERING THE PLAZA WILL BE ABLE TO CIRCULATE AROUND AND PARK AND OR EXIT THE MAJOR TOPICS THERE.
BUT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS DONE? I MISSED THE LAST MEETING, BUT I KNOW THE ISSUE WAS NOT ONLY FOR TRUCK CENTER IN, BECAUSE THEIR TEMPLATE SHOWED THAT THE TRUCK WOULD'VE TO TURN FROM THE LEFT LANE, WHICH IS NOT LEGAL TRAFFIC MOVEMENT, BUT THEN THEY TALKED ABOUT, WELL, THEY COULD HAVE SMALLER TRUCKS.
I MEAN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW US TEMPLATE WISE WHAT SIZE VEHICLE, YOU SAID A SUBURBAN CAN MAKE THE TURN FROM THE RIGHT HAND LANE INTO THE SITE, BUT ANY SIZE TRUCK IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN INTO THAT SITE.
I MEAN, I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED HAVING DELIVERIES OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS.
WELL, SO, SO THAT THE, THE VEHICLES COULD COME IN CYCLE AROUND THE FACILITY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
IT, IT WOULD BE A SMALLER VEHICLE, NOT THE SEMI-TRUCK, BUT, UH, THE WAY WE HAVE IT DRAWN HERE, A SEMI-TRUCK COULD, COULD CYCLE THE, THE, THE FACILITY, BUT WE COULD USE ALSO A SMALLER SMALL NO, I, I, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
I REMEMBER SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE DONE DURING BUSINESS HOURS THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE DONE AFTER HOURS.
YOU WANNA, WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THAT, YOU SAID, UH, DO YOU DO IT AFTERWARDS? I NO, IT WOULD ALL BE DONE DURING THE DAY WHILE THEY'RE STILL WORKING.
[00:25:02]
WE CAN MAKE OUR DELIVERY TIMES WHATEVER IT WANT.WELL, YEAH, I, NOT SAYING I THOUGHT THE CONCERN WOULD BE A TR A A TRUCK COMING ON THE SITE WHILE THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE AND EVERYTHING WAS CIRCULATED.
THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT I ASKED.
AND, AND YOU HAD SAID THAT DELIVERIES ARE MADE DURING WORKING HOURS.
IF THEY'RE NOT ME WORKING DURING WORKING HOURS, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
BUT THE THING IS, YOU TOLD ME THAT DELIVERIES ARE MADE DURING WORKING HOURS, MADE THE DELIVERY TRUCKS MAKE LEFT INTO THERE TOO.
AND THEN THAT'S AN EASIER TURN.
I'M SORRY IF THE DELIVERY TRUCK MADE A LEFT INTO IT, THAT'S A MUCH EASIER ANGLE.
AND WHETHER THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT OH YEAH.
I MEAN I, I WAS, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.
YOU CAN'T GET A, IN NO WAY GET A TRUCK IN THERE IF THERE'S CARS SURE.
AND, AND THAT'S, AND, AND AGAIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, KEN, BUT THERE IS THE ABILITY TO, TO, AS KEN MENTIONED, CONTROL.
SO YEAH, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S, IF, IF WE CAN'T GET, WE, WE NEED TO GET A DELIVERY.
SO IF OBVIOUSLY DURING PEAK HOURS THE CARS WERE INTERRUPTING A DELIVERY, WE'LL SCHEDULE THE DELIVERY FOR ALL.
AND WE HAVE SITES WHERE IT ABSOLUTELY HAS ZERO IMPACT ON DELIVERIES OF IT.
I JUST, I JUST DON'T WANNA SEE DELIVERIES THERE DURING THE DAY.
BECAUSE THAT'S GONNA BACK TRAFFIC UP ON THE SOUTHWESTERN AND CREATE SOME REAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND WE DON'T WANT THAT.
AND MATTER OF FACT, OUR TRAFFIC SAFETY AND ADVISOR WAS HERE AND HE HAD ASKED THE SAME THING.
HE WANTED THE ANGLE OF THE TURN TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY TRUCK COULD TURN IN THERE.
AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT A AN SUV CAN GO THROUGH THERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, HOW ABOUT A TRUCK AGAIN? HOW ABOUT A UTILITY TRUCK FOR HANNER ELECTRIC OR SOMETHING? SURE.
AGAIN, OPERATING UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THE DELIVERIES WE MADE OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS A DELIVERY TRUCK AND COME INTO THE SHARED ACCESS DRIVE, TURN RIGHT INTO THE SITE.
JUST LIKE A BOX TRUCK OR THE FIRE TRUCK, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE TRUCK CAN ALSO MAKE THAT TURN IN THERE.
UM, MAKING DELIVERY DURING BUSINESS HOURS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BLOCK THE DRIVE THROUGH.
SO THAT'S NOT IN THE FACILITY.
DENNIS, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE MINUTES SAY BOTH.
THEY SAY THAT YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERED BY NOTING THAT USUALLY DELIVERIES ARRIVE DURING OFF PEAK HOURS.
SO WHEN THEY'RE OPEN, BUT NOT BUSY OR WHEN THE STORE'S CLOSED.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE ANSWER WAS CLOSED, WHICH WOULD BE CLOSED, MEANING EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER.
'CAUSE 10 O'CLOCK IS CLOSING MM-HMM
AND THEN OPENING AT 7:00 AM RIGHT.
SO IT'D BE BEFORE 7:00 AM OR AFTER 10:00 PM RIGHT.
WELL, IF YOU VISIT A LOT OF OUR RESTAURANTS, TO BE QUITE HONEST, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE ARE REQUIRED BY TACO BELL INTERNATIONAL TO BE OPEN FOR BREAKFAST, BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY A BREAKFAST.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T RUN TO GO TO BREAKFAST AND TACO BELL.
SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE IF ONE OR TWO CARS MAYBE COME TO THE DRIVE THROUGH THERE.
SO THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO ME A NONPEAK HOUR.
NOW LUNCH AND DINNER, THAT'S PEAK.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE CARS IN THE PARKING LOT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH.
SO THAT'S HOW WE KIND OF DETERMINE OUR BUSINESS IS IT'S NOT EVERY DAY, YOU KNOW, EVERY MINUTE OF THE DAY.
WE, WE JUST HAVE TO, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, BE ASSURE, I MEAN, OUR JOB, THEIR JOB AS A PLANNING BOARD IS TO MAKE SURE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE, YOU'RE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT YOU MOVING THE BUILDING BACK, WHICH YOU CAN'T, THAT IS A REALLY TIGHT TURN.
WHETHER IT'S FOR A VEHICLE, WHICH WE'VE PROVEN THAT A VEHICLE CAN TURN IN, BUT A TRUCK CAN'T.
SO YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT YOU'LL CHANGE THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE OF THE TRUCK.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY A TRUCK COMING THERE WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM.
THEY TRY TO, THEY'D HAVE TO GO AROUND THE BUILDING THE OPPOSITE WAY THEY'D RUN IN THE TRAFFIC AND WHATEVER.
IT'S JUST HARD BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THAT ON OTHER PROJECTS WHERE PEOPLE SAID THEY'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING.
IT'S REALLY NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONDITION WE CAN ENFORCE.
NO ONE'S GONNA BE OUT THERE TO MAKE SURE.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THIS IS GONNA OPERATE SAFELY.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND IT'S, AND YOU WANT TO OPERATE SAFELY.
BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, SOME TRUCK COMES ALONG FROM THAT DIRECTION, LIKE I SAID, AND TRIES TO MAKE A RIGHT IN THERE.
THEY'RE GONNA GET, THEY'RE GONNA GET, HOPEFULLY IT'S A SMART TRUCK DRIVER, REALIZE HE CAN'T MAKE THAT TURN.
HE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S NO WAY HE'S GONNA MAKE THAT TURN AND BE ABLE TO TURN AND GO AROUND THE BUILDING THAT THE ONE WAY HE IS GONNA HAVE TO GO THE OPPOSITE WAY, WHERE HOPEFULLY HE OR SHE IS NOT RUNNING INTO TRAFFIC, ONCOMING TRAFFIC COMING AROUND THE, THE TACO BELL.
SO AGAIN, THE PLANNING BOARD IS ASKING, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LOOK STUPID LATER ON.
YOU DON'T WANNA LOOK STUPID THAT WE HAVE TRUCKS GETTING HUNG UP OUT THERE.
I LIKE YOUR SOLUTION FOR THE, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, CONFLICT WITH THE, WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE MM-HMM
UM, IT PROBABLY, IT'S A MOUNTABLE CURVE.
YOU MAY WANT TO PUT SOME METAL POLES IN THERE OR SIGN IT SAYING YOU HAVE TO GO THIS WAY.
[00:30:01]
JUMPERS, NO PERSON WITH A BIG TRUCK TRIES TO GO ACROSS IT AND GO OUT AND BLOCK THAT.SO YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THOSE PEOPLE KNOW THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AROUND THE BUILDING, MAKE THE LEFT AND THEN OUT TO THE, OUT TO THE ENTRANCE.
SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T OBVIOUSLY COME, SOMEONE TRIES TO GO STRAIGHT THERE.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM.
UM, SO THAT, THAT SEEMED TO BE THE BIGGEST ISSUE.
I BELIEVE THEY ADDRESSED THE ONE ISSUE WITH SOME MINOR CHANGES.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE TRUCK ONE.
HOW CAN WE BE ASSURED THAT FOR LARGER VEHICLES WE CAN GET THEM IN AND OUT OF THERE SAFELY.
UM, AND AGAIN, AS YOU SAID, YOU UP TO ABOUT A 25 FOOT VEHICLE PROBABLY COULD MAKE THE RIGHT FROM THE RIGHT HAND TURN LANE, EVERYTHING ELSE BIGGER THAN THAT'S GOING TO EITHER HAVE TO TURN FROM THE LEFT LANE OR COME AT OFF, OFF, OFF BUSINESS TIMES.
AND LIKE I SAID, DOT WOULD NOT WANT US TO APPROVE A PLAN WHERE TRUCKS ARE MAKING A TURN FROM THE LEFT LANE AND NOT THE RIGHT LANE.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT AN ACCEPTABLE TO THE DOT.
AND THAT'S A STATE HIGHWAY THERE.
AND THIS WOULD BE THE SAME TRUCK.
SO IT'S THE SAME LOCAL TRUCK OR IT'S THE SAME TRUCK THAT DELIVERS TO OUR KFC ACROSS THE STREET.
SO THE FAMILIARITY OF THE ROADWAY AND WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM, IT'S NO, SO THEY'RE COMING, IF THEY GO TO THE KFC FIRST, THEY GO STRAIGHT ACROSS.
I DON'T, YOU KNOW, BUT I'M JUST SAYING AS FAR AS THESE ARE NOT LIKE TRUCKERS FROM OUT OF TOWN AND OUR DISTRIBUTION CENTERS DELIVERS TO ALL THE TACOS AND KFCS IN THE AREA.
YOU UNDERSTAND IT'S A TIGHT SITE.
IT'S A VERY TIGHT AND WE'RE COMPLICATED AND I LIKE YOU COMING WITH A SOLUTION.
THE COMBINATION WAS THE JOINT ACCESS TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, WHICH IS A BUSY MEDICAL FACILITY.
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE VEHICLES COMING IN THERE A LOT OF DIFFERENT TIMES.
LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT WAS IN THE MINUTES, UM, ABOUT HAVING, UM, REPRESENTATIVES STANDING OUTSIDE DURING BUSY TIMES.
WOULD THAT STILL BE AN OPTION? ABSOLUTELY.
DURING LIKE HOLIDAYS OR WHATEVER.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER, AND THERE, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT FOLKS WERE GONNA GO SEE OUR GRAND OPENING OVER IN NORTH TONAWANDA.
WE HAD FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE ALL DAY LONG, OBVIOUSLY AT THE GRAND OPENING.
I MEAN THAT'S, WE POLICED OUR OWN.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE NUMBER SINCE I'M STILL HERE, UH, THE NUMBER OF THE ANTICIPATED AVERAGE OF EIGHT CARS WOULD BE IN THE DRIVE.
BUT THERE IS THE ABILITY FOR A 10TH CAR.
THERE'S 10 CARS IN THE STACK HERE BEFORE IT EVEN CAUSES ANY KIND OF ISSUE WITH THE, IF I MAY, THERE WAS ONE ITEM I LEFT OFF IN THE PRESENTATION HERE.
THERE WAS, THE NEIGHBOR WAS CONCERNED, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST WAS CONCERNED ABOUT SNOW BEING PUSHED OVER OF THEIR PROPERTY.
WE'VE ADDED A, A BOARD ON BOARD PRIVACY FENCE, UH, BOARD THAT'S, WELL WE STOCK FENCE ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE THEIR PRIVACY.
HOW FAR FROM THE CURB? UM, IT'S PROBABLY THREE TO FOUR, UH, FOUR FEET OR SO.
I MEAN THE DISCUSSION WAS, THE GENTLEMAN ASKED ABOUT IF THE PLOWS COME THROUGH.
WHAT SIDE PUSH ON HIS PROPERTY.
PRESENTLY HE HAS A, A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT GOES TO WHOLE LENGTH RIGHT AROUND THE PROPERTY.
I WOULD PUT A A A SOLID FENCE FROM FRONT TO BACK.
SO THERE'S NEVER ANY QUESTIONS OF THINGS SHOOTING OVER IN THAT SAME LOCATION WHERE THE FENCE IS NOW.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF YOU'RE GONNA RELOCATE THAT DOCK GATE FARTHER OR WHATEVER.
YOU JUST, IT'S ON, IT'S A FOOT OR SO ON ON OUR SIDE.
WE'RE LEAVING THE CHAIN LINK FENCE.
UH, BILL, ONCE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALL THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED, AND I THINK THE ONLY THING YOU COULD DO TONIGHT IS IF YOU WERE PREPARED, YOU COULD AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ACT ON AT THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE MOST IMPORTANT TO THOSE RESOLUTIONS.
AND THAT'S WHY CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATIONS.
IS THAT WHAT CONDITIONS YOU WOULD PLACE OR MITIGATIONS YOU WOULD PLACE? I SUGGESTED ONE, PROBABLY SOME, SOME POLES THERE MAKING SURE THE PEOPLE DON'T MOUNT AND GO THAT WAY.
AND THAT THEY KNOW THAT TO CONTINUE AROUND THE BUILDING AND IN THE WINTERTIME THERE'S SNOW.
THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO GO STRAIGHT OUT INTO THAT ENTRANCE THAT THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO GO AROUND THE BUILDING AGAIN TO GET OUT TO THAT SITE.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, SO ARE WE COMFORTABLE JUST DOING THAT? KNOWING THAT, LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT THE UH, UH, LAYOUT HERE AT THE EXIT ONTO THE ENTRANCE THAT ON THE EXIT
BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY THE ENTRANCE LANE TO THE, INTO, UH,
[00:35:01]
BOTH PLACES.SEE WHAT I MEAN? THEY'VE GOTTA ACTUALLY GO YEAH.
WHERE SOMEBODY THAT WE MIGHT TRY GO THIS WAY, THEY GOTTA GO OVER HERE.
THEY GOTTA COME OUT HERE, GO OVER HERE.
THEY CAN'T GO THIS WAY BECAUSE THIS IS, PEOPLE ARE COMING IN.
THAT RATIONALE THAT LEFT ARROW IS NOT SUGGESTING THAT THEY TURN IT DOWN ONCOMING HERE.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THE ARROW OUT IF THAT'S, BUT YOU SEE WHAT WE KNOW.
TURN WHERE THE, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS SHOWING IT'S, THEY'RE GONNA TURN.
SO FOR THE MINUTES, 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO ARROWS AND DIFFERENT STOP SIGNS.
CAN YOU TRY AND CLARIFY WHICH ONE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THE EXIT FROM TACO BELL ONTO THE COMBINED.
COMBINED, UH, UH, ENTRANCE EXIT ROADS.
SO YOU'RE JUST SUGGESTING TAKE THAT ONE OUT BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE CHOICE ANYWAY AND AND MAYBE SOMEBODY WANTS TO GO TO THE MEDICAL CENTER ANYWAY, BUT THEY CAN TURN RIGHT.
BUT THEY CAN TURN BUT THEY CAN'T TURN LEFT HERE.
SO WE JUST WANNA TAKE THAT OFF.
IS THERE ENOUGH ROOM FOR TWO CARS? YEAH.
I DON'T THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING HERE.
NOW WE'RE TURNING HERE TWO CARS SIDE BY SIDE.
LIKE EVERYWHERE YOU, YOU EXIT FROM THAT LANE, THERE'LL BE ROOM FOR TWO CARS, BUT THERE'S NOT ROOM FOR CARS TO COME INTO THAT LANE.
SOMEBODY YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR CARS TO COME INTO THAT LANE.
NO, I THINK THAT'S WHAT DREW SAID.
THERE'D BE A SIGN THAT SAYS LEFT THE FIRST.
WE'RE TALKING IF YOU THAT I THOUGHT THEY THE SIGN SAY LEFT HERE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST SAYING.
SO YOU GO AROUND THE SECOND LANE, RIGHT.
WHAT'S TO STOP SOMEBODY FROM GETTING TO THIS STOP PART ON THE INNER RING AND NOT JUST MAKING A RIGHT.
I MEAN THEY'RE GONNA, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T CONTROL.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO REALLY MAKE THAT TURN, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE, IT'S A MOUNTABLE CURVE.
UM, THAT'S NOT A, A FAIRLY BLUNT EDGE.
YOU'RE GONNA FEEL THE CURVE AND REALIZE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE WAY TO GO.
UM, BUT AS THIS GENTLEMAN OVER THERE HAD MENTIONED, UH, PUTTING ANOTHER SIGN IN POST HERE, THAT'LL BE ANOTHER TURN.
WELL, WE'RE GONNA DO WE WITH THAT BECAUSE IF THEY GO LEFT RIGHT AWAY TO GO AND INTO THE WHAT'S ON THE ISLAND? IS IT JUST FLAT CEMENT? THERE'S SOME LANDSCAPING IN THERE.
WE HAVE A TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE.
SO I, I MEAN I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE EXACTLY IT IS.
I WAS ON VACATION AND WENT TO A STARBUCKS THAT HAS A DRIVE THROUGH LAYOUT SIMILAR TO THIS.
I WAS TELLING PAUL FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY SAID IT WAS CONFUSING BUT NOT DANGEROUS.
THAT WAS KIND OF MY IMPRESSION IT WHEN I, WHEN THEY CAME BACK WITH THIS, IT REMINDED ME OF BEING IN A STRANGE PLACE GONNA A DRIVE THROUGH LIKE THAT.
IT'S LIKE, OH, WHICH WAY? I THINK AT SOME POINT IN TIME I WAS GOING THE WRONG WAY, BUT NOBODY WAS GONNA HIT ME AND I WASN'T GONNA HIT ANYBODY ELSE.
SO THAT'S, THIS WAS LANDSCAPE PLAN, RIGHT? SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST COVERED WITH MULCH, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.
WELL WE CAN ADD SOME LANDSCAPING THERE, I THINK.
YEAH, I THINK WE HAD, WE HAD SOMETHING THERE AT ONE CLIENT AND AT LEAST TO COVER THE TRANSFER, NOT KNOWING IF THIS IS REALLY THE WAY WE'RE GONNA BE GOING DOWN RABBIT HOLE.
WE OKAY, SO YOU THE LANDSCAPING? YEP.
FOR THE, FOR THE MEETING THAT HAS DESCRIBED THAT AREA.
THE ISLAND WITH THE TRANSFORMER.
BUT I DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FURNITURE SO YOU REALLY, ARE YOU PUTTING
[00:40:01]
IN ANY STREET TREES? IS THERE ANY YOU HAVE A PROBLEM PUTTING STREET TREES? VISUAL GETTING YEAH, I KNOW IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC AND THEY CAN PUT TREES IN OTHER LOCATIONS.REMEMBER THE LAW REQUIRES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TREES PER FRONTAGE AND SIDE.
AND THEN THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN PUT 'EM IN OTHER LOCATIONS IF THEY'RE NOT SUITABLE FOR CERTAIN LOCATIONS.
IT IS NOT SUITABLE TO PUT 'EM ALONG THE ROAD HERE.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE SITE OF VISION IS GONNA BE YEAH.
YOU, YOU COULD PREVENT THEM AND NOBODY'S GONNA WANT DRAFTED TREES.
THAT'S NOT A VERY WIDE SPACE AND A LOT OF PLANNING THERE.
IT'S, THEY'RE JUST GONNA DIE OFF.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA LIVE VERY WELL AT, UM, WHAT WE'VE DONE ON OTHER, OTHER, UH, PROJECTS IN DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES.
IF WE CAN'T MEET THE STREET FRONTAGE, AND I THINK YOU'RE ALLUDING TO THAT, IS UM, THAT WE COULD PLANT THEM IN A, A PUBLIC PARK SOMEWHERE IF IT'S FOUR STREET TREES.
THE, THE CON I'LL SPEAK FOR THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
THEY WOULD PREFER THEM TO BE ON THE SITE AND NOT PAY MONEY IN LIEU OF.
IS THERE ANY ROOM AT THE BACK? I DON'T THINK SO.
WE'RE YOU'RE PUTTING THE FENCE UP ALONG THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE.
YOU HAVE ONE BY YEAH, REAR BY DUMPSTER TREE THERE AND THE YEAH, BY THE DUMPSTER.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
ARE THERE ANY TREES THAT YOU BE CUTTING DOWN? SORRY? ARE THERE ANY EXISTING TREES THAT YOU'D BE CUTTING DOWN? UM, WELL I OUT FRONT HERE STAND DUMPSTER BECAUSE YEAH.
SO THAT, THAT WAS STAND, THAT TREE STAND BECAUSE THE URGENT CARE PLACE WE MADE THEM KEEP THE TREE.
AND THEY CAME BACK A FEW TIMES ASKING US TO LET 'EM CUT IT DOWN AND YOU KNOW, WE SAID NO.
SO WE LET, IF WE LET YOU CUT DOWN SOME TREES, WE'D HAVE SOME EXPLAINING TO DO.
WHAT KIND OF DUMPSTERS ARE YOU PUT DUMPSTERS.
THE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED.
WELL YEAH, THEY GOT THAT THERE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY WEREN'T THE WHOLE THING.
SO ARE WE OKAY WITH AUTHORIZING THE CONSULTANTS TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR THIS KNOWING THAT WE CAN ADD CONDITIONS AND WE OFTEN DO EVEN AFTER THE RESOLUTIONS ARE DRAFTED AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON 'EM JUST 'CAUSE THEY'RE DRAFTED? OR DO WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION WE THINK WE NEED BEFORE WE CAN GET TO THAT STEP? QUICK, QUICK.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON THOSE.
SO, UM, SO FOR THE 10TH CAR THAT COMES IN, YOU SAID THAT THEY'LL HAVE THE OPTION OF SCOOTING PASS, RIGHT? THE 10TH CAR OR THE 10TH OR THE 11TH.
SO THE 11TH CAR IN THE STACK, IF THERE IS AN 11TH CAR IN HERE AND THE STACK RIGHT HERE, ANY VEHICLE IS ENTERING THE FACILITY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO STILL SKIRT PAST THAT 11TH CAR.
WE, WE SHOWED THAT 10 CARS A WORST CASE.
I MEAN I DON'T WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THE EIGHT CARS, WHICH IS OUR STANDARD AT THE GLASS MEETING.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE.
THE QUESTIONS WERE WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DO EXCEED? WE, SO WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW NINE AND 10 ON THE THING.
UM, IN THE EVENT THAT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT GOT TO THAT.
BUT YOU KNOW, FOR ALL PRACTICALITY IT'S SIX TO EIGHT CARS STACKING AVERAGE THAT.
BUT WE WANTED TO SHOW IT EXCEEDING IT BECAUSE A CAR WOULD BE IN THE CROSSWALK.
THAT CHRIST PEOPLE WALKED CAR.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK 10 IS FEASIBLE AT ALL.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS WORRIED ABOUT.
BUT IT'S A TEMPORARY CONDITION THAT HOPEFULLY WON'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, BUT IT IS IN THE CROSSWALK FOR SURE.
AND AGAIN, THOSE CARS THAT ARE MODELED ARE WHAT, A 15 FOOT LONG VEHICLE.
SO THERE'RE GONNA BE SOME VARIATION IN THOSE, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW PEOPLE, THEY'RE GONNA GET RIGHT UP TO THE BUMPER IN FRONT OF THEM 'CAUSE THEY DON'T WANNA ANYBODY CUTTING SO
NOW WITH OUR IMPULSE PEOPLE, IF THE LINE IS LONG, THEY'RE NOT WAITING.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING SO THEY HAVE OTHER PLACES TO GO, OTHER THINGS TO DO.
THERE'S NOT THAT NECESSITY WHERE I GOTTA EAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO PLACE OPEN TO EAT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING AND, AND, AND, AND TO BE QUITE HONEST, THAT THAT COVID HELPED IN, IN THE PRACTICES, THE DRIVE THROUGH PRACTICES OF ALL THE QSRS MUCH FASTER.
YOU KNOW, THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S THERE YOU'RE SEEING WITH ALL OUR QSRS IS A, A FASTER DRIVE THROUGH AND EVERYBODY'S GOING WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH.
NOW AS AN ASIDE I THOUGHT WAS, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE WHERE THERE'S A NATIONAL ARTICLE ON, ON THE BEST DRIVE THROUGHS AND TACO BELL WAS NUMBER ONE, IT'S THE EASIEST BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS, I WON'T COMMENT IT, IT'S, IT'S WHAT THIS, I WAS SURPRISED TOO WITH THE OTHER ONES, BUT TACO BELL WAS RATED NUMBER ONE.
CHICK-FIL-A WAS DOWN THE LIST A LITTLE BIT BIT SAY EVERYBODY WHO
[00:45:01]
COMES IN FRONT OF US SAYS THEY DO IT THE BEST.SO
I HAVE KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKENS TOO.
YOU GOTTA MAKE YOUR POCKET OF CHICKEN.
YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT IN 60 SECONDS.
YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE COME THROUGH.
YOU THROW THEM OUT THE WINDOW, HAVE A SIGN THAT SAYS WE'RE BUSY.
UM, WHAT ABOUT IF, UH, YOU GOT A HIGH SCHOOLER WHO WORKS THERE AND WANTS TO RIDE HIS BIKE TO WORK? IS THERE GONNA BE A BIKE RIDE? THEY BIKE RIDE? I THINK IT'S RIGHT.
YOU KNOW WHERE THE CLUB ON W RIGHT BY THE CROSSWALK.
PEDAL A PEDAL BIKE? YEAH, NO, THEY CAN PARK THEIR MOTORCYCLE OVER THERE.
DID YOU HAVE A MOTORCYCLE IN HIGH SCHOOL, DENNIS? BY THE TIME I GOT OUTTA HIGH SCHOOL, YEAH.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
I'LL MAKE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR QUICK SERVICE VEHICLE TO BE RETURNED ON OUR NOVEMBER 16TH MEETING.
SECOND MOTION BY BILL, SECOND BY DOUG.
SO WE'LL SEE YOU GUYS IN TWO WEEKS MUCH.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPARENTLY FRANK RUSO JR.
REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 14 LOT SUBDIVISION AS EXTENSION NILES AVENUE.
I SAY APPARENTLY A LOT OF EMAILS THAT WE GOT, THIS WAS NOT ON FOR SOME STRANGE REASON.
SO, BUT IT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF US BEFORE.
I'M JUST GONNA GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AND WHAT I CHANGED US LAST TIME.
UM, I HAVE THE PLAN FROM LAST TIME, BUT YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T HERE, UM, UH, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO THE 14 LOT SUBDIVISION.
THIS SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED A FEW YEARS AGO AS A 11 LOT SUBDIVISION.
THERE WAS WETLANDS IN HERE AND THERE WASN'T A DELINEATION DONE AND IT WASN'T APPLIED FOR JD THAT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY HAS BEEN DONE AND THEY SENT IN AND IT WAS ISOLATED.
SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS ALONG THE, ALONG THE ROAD FRONT.
UM, THIS IS A PLAN THAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.
IT ENDED WITH A TEMPORARY TURNAROUND AT THE END VERSUS THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AT THE LAST MEETING, I THINK THE FEELING WAS THAT YOU GUYS WOULD PREFER THE CUL-DE-SAC.
WE WENT BACK AND ADDED THE CUL-DE-SAC, A LITTLE BIT CON DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
I THINK THIS IS, THIS WORKS A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE.
THE PREVIOUS ONE CURVED IN THIS WAY A LITTLE BIT AND TOOK UP SOME, UM, UNNECESSARY AREA.
BUT SAME, SAME 14 LOTS, SAME LAYOUT.
WE DID INCORPORATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LETTER AT THE LAST MEETING.
ONE WAS THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE BACK HERE.
THAT WAS ALSO CONDITION OF THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL.
WE PUT THE DETENTION BASIN ON ITS OWN LOT.
IT WOULD BE OWNED BY THE NHOA AND WE PROVIDED ACCESS BACK HERE AND ALSO AN EASEMENT TO THE TOWN SO THAT THE TOWN CAN ACCESS THE SEWER EASEMENT AND ALSO ACCESS THE CREEK.
UM, WE DID ADD A SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD THAT TIES INTO THE TIN TAN TRAIL SIDEWALK.
UM, THERE'S SIDEWALKS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT SIDE OF THAT STREET.
UH, SO NO SIDEWALKS ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THIS SIDE OR WERE THEY ALREADY THERE? THERE THERE'S NO SIDE THE RIGHT, LET ME, LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
RIGHT NOW THE ROAD ENDS RIGHT HERE, RIGHT? THERE'S ACTUALLY A HOUSE HERE AND THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES YEAH, IT'S A LONG DOWN PAPER STREET IN THERE.
UM, THERE IS NO SIDEWALKS CURRENTLY ON, ON THAT SIDE OF UH, NILES AVENUE.
ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS? I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER THAT NORTH OF
ARE YOU GONNA UH, SIDEWALKS ON THE OR THAT BE THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD? THIS SIDE? YEAH.
UH, THERE, THERE'S A SIDEWALK THAT GOES ACROSS CURRENTLY THAT'S TIM TAM RIGHT THERE.
TIM GOES THIS WAY, RIGHT WHERE, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS THAT'S GOES ALONG THE PAPER STREET.
LIKE IF YOU, IF YOU GO TO TIM TAM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A DESCRIBE IT'S A DRIVEWAY THAT COMES OFF OF IT, WHICH GOES ALONG WHERE THE STREET'S GONNA BE.
SIDEWALKS ALONG THAT BECAUSE IT'S GONNA CHANGE FROM A DRIVEWAY TO A STREET SIDEWALK.
THERE WERE LOTS ON THE NORTH THERE THAT WEREN'T THERE BEFORE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT.
YEAH, THOSE ARE PROPOSED LOTS, RIGHT? YEAH.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAVE BECAUSE WE WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE SIDEWALK.
I THINK'S PROBABLY GONNA HAPPEN IS PROBABLY GONNA SIDEWALK GO AROUND THE CUL-DE-SAC AND BACK UP ALL THE WAY BACK UP.
[00:50:02]
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO DO THAT.THAT'S SOME, THAT'S HOW SOME OF THEM, RIGHT.
AND THE REASON WE DID THE CALL IS THAT TOO THOUGH, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT WAS THE SNOW REMOVAL.
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO STORE A LITTLE BIT MORE SNOW, MORE SNOW AT THE END OF THE ROAD AND THEN ALSO FOR THE TRUCK TURNAROUND AND SCHOOL BUS TURNAROUND.
I CALLED HIM, UH, I LEFT A MESSAGE.
I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM, BUT I THINK HONESTLY I THINK THIS IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE.
CAN DID THAT MEET THE TOWN STANDARDS? I KNOW THE TOWN HAS STANDARDS FOR, OR THAT'S, THAT WAS THE ISSUE LAST TIME.
PART OF OUR COMMENT LETTER SAID THAT THE TOWN REQUIREMENT, I BELIEVE IT'S 200 FEET REQUIRED TO CUL-DE-SAC.
IT DOES MEET THAT, RIGHT? I THINK SO.
IN THE CODE IT SAYS, UH, THE PAPER HAS TO BE A RADIUS OF 50 FEET.
WE MIGHT HAVE SARAH SEND SOMETHING TO HIM ASKING JUST DOUBLECHECKING.
SARAH CAN SEND JUST A NOTE TO THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.
ASK HIM, JUST MAKE SURE THEY RESPOND TO SARAH WHEN THEY DIDN'T RESPOND.
NOT SURE WHAT YOU WANNA DO IN THE NEXT STEP.
YOU WANNA SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE SO WE CAN GET INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS? THAT'S WHAT WE GOTTA FIGURE OUT HERE.
YOU KNOW, WE THIS A FEW TIMES.
I THINK HEARING ALL AND MY ONE QUESTION FROM LAST TIME TOO.
AND UH, DREW'S HERE, SECRET WAS DONE THE LAST GO AROUND AND N ACQUISITION.
SO WE HAVE TO DO SECRET AGAIN.
IF WE'RE ADDING LOTS, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST DO SOMETHING AND EITHER SAY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS STILL GOOD OR REDO THE NEG DECK.
DID YOU SUBMIT A SHORT FORM AF OR NOT? NOT YET BECAUSE WE WERE STILL IN I WOULD DO SHORT FOR ME.
YEAH, IF IT REFER TO THE MATERIALS BEFORE, OBVIOUSLY YOUR, YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT THE WETLANDS AND WHATEVER WOULD BE HELPFUL THAT YOU HAVE NON JURISDICTIONAL THINGS LIKE THAT.
YEAH, WE DID SUBMIT THE D THAT'S THE SAME.
IT WAS THE SAME AMOUNT OF LOT AND THE RECONFIGURATION I WOULD BE, BUT IT'S ADDITIONAL LOT.
NOT THAT IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING FROM 60 TO A HUNDRED OR SOMETHING.
WE'RE NOT GOING FROM 60 TO A HUNDRED, BUT WE ARE ADDING THREE BY FILLING A WETLAND.
THAT'S HOW WE'RE GETTING THREE MORE.
JUST FILLING A WETLAND, NOT JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BECAUSE IT'S ISOLATING, WHICH IS A SLIP IN THE RULES.
AND TECHNICALLY MY DUTY UNDER SEEKER IS WHOLLY SEPARATE THAN THE PERMITS.
AND JUST TO POINT OUT, I MEAN MARGO, THE TOWN DOES HAVE WETLANDS PROTECTION LAW THAT SAYS WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO AVOID, WE DON'T REGULATE WETLANDS.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATE IT.
BUT WE SAY WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO AVOID THAT IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY.
SO I THINK BECAUSE THE NEW LOTS ARE IN THE WETLAND THREE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT JURISDICTIONAL, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET PERMIT.
I THINK A NEW A FE IS A GOOD IDEA OR OR SHORT FORM.
ALRIGHT, WELL AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME RESIDENTS HERE TONIGHT.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED.
I KNOW WHEN WE APPROVED THIS BEFORE LAST TIME, THIS WAS BEFORE US, THE RESIDENTS HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS AND ISSUES ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO PUT IT 11 LOTS WITHOUT THE ONES ON THE WETLAND.
THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY WITH SECRET I BET.
RIGHT? PROBABLY BECAUSE THIS IS THE THREE LOTS ARE ON.
SO JUST THE 10 BASINS ON THE OTHER ONE, WHICH ARE THE LOTS ON THE WETLAND, IT'S FOUR, UH, 12, 13, 14, 12, 3 AND THIS.
SO ONE THREE BECOMES THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA.
AND THEN THESE THREE LOTS ARE THE BIGGEST ONE.
ALRIGHT, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FRANK RUSSO JR FOR NOVEMBER 16TH.
SO FOR THE RESIDENTS EVER HERE FOR THIS PROJECT, WHO WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO TALK AND RAISE COMMENTS, PLEASE REVIEW THE PLAN, PUT YOUR QUESTIONS TOGETHER.
WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DTO DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 96 UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT ON VACANT LAND WEST OF BRIAR CLIFF DRIVE.
SO IT'S BEEN QUITE A FEW MONTHS SINCE WE'VE SEEN THIS.
UM, BILL, THIS IS A CLARIFICATION.
I DID TALK TO SEAN AHEAD OF TIME.
THIS IS, THIS IS A TOWNHOUSE TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S NOT A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.
[00:55:01]
IT WAS A PURE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE TOWNHOUSE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT THEY WOULD'VE TO FOLLOW.IT'S LIKE PEOPLE CALLING PATIO HOMES AND NOT PATIO HOMES.
SO WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A TRUE AND AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS.
THEY'RE NOT APPLYING FOR A TOWNHOUSE APPROVAL BECAUSE WE HAVE SEPARATE REGULATIONS FOR TOWNHOUSES AND HAVE VERY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS ABOUT TOWNHOUSES.
AND PLUS IT'S A SUBDIVISION, NOT A SITE PLAN.
THIS IS A TOWNHOUSE LIKE DEVELOPMENT.
AND I'LL LET SEAN TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE CALLING IT A TOWNHOUSE BECAUSE IF IT WAS TRUE TOWNHOUSE THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND THEY'D BE SOLD AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE FILED AS A MAP COVER IF THEY WERE SOLD.
SEAN HOPKINS FROM HOPKINS MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT DATA DEVELOPMENT.
ALSO WITH ME IS CHRIS WOOD, THE PROJECT ENGINEER FROM CARINO WOOD DESIGN.
AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE LAST PRESENTED TO THIS TO YOU IN CONNECTION WITH SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION ON YOUR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 16TH OF THIS YEAR.
PRIOR TO THAT POINT WE MADE SEVERAL REVISIONS AS A RESULT OF INPUT RECEIVED FROM THIS BOARD AS WELL AS RESIDENTS.
WE WERE ORIGINALLY AT 98 UNITS.
WE INCREASED THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE REAR OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES TO 25 FEET.
WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED SOME LANDSCAPING AND BERMS, ET CETERA.
WHOLE, WHOLE HOST OF BERMS, NO BERMS LANDSCAPING BASED ON CHANGES WE MADE.
SUBSEQUENTLY LAST MONTH, I BELIEVE ON OCTOBER 7TH, WE DID SUBMIT A SITE PLAN APPLICATION THAT INCLUDED A COMPLETE SET OF FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN, LIGHTING PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE APPLICATION WITH EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH FOUR AS WELL AS PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY A STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN WITH A COPY OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED BY CHRIS AND HIS TEAM DETAILING ALL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SEWER WATER CALCULATIONS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
OBVIOUSLY THE NEXT STEP IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT, GIVEN THAT WE'RE SEEKING SITE PLAN APPROVAL, IS TO SCHEDULE AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE WE HANDLED THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY GIVEN THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST AND PREVIOUSLY WE DID SUBMIT PART ONE OF THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AGO A LEAD AGENCY LETTER WAS ISSUED ON YOUR BEHALF AND I BELIEVE THE 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD ACTUALLY EXPIRED IN DECEMBER OF 2021.
ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT DREW MENTIONED IN HIS INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS IS THAT THE UNITS THEMSELVES WERE SHOWING 96 UNITS.
THEY CONSIST OF I BELIEVE THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE UNIT BUILDINGS ARE TOWN HOME STYLE.
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THEY ARE FOR SALE, THEY'RE UNITS THAT INCLUDE ATTACHED GARAGES, BUT THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO BE WHAT THE TOWN DEFINES IN THE ZONING CODE AS A TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION.
SO THE, JUST A STATE OF ART OR JUST A TERM THAT WE USE FOR THAT TYPE OF UNIT.
WE ARE SHOWING PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TWO CONNECTIONS TO BRIARCLIFF DRIVE AT THE ONLY TWO ACCESS POINTS AVAILABLE.
AND THEN AS CONNECTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PREPARED BY SL ASSOCIATES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
TWO FINAL NOTES JUST TO THINK ABOUT IS THERE WERE TWO TOPICS THAT PREVIOUSLY CAME UP DURING A SERIES OF THREE MEETINGS BEGINNING IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
AND MANY OF YOU MAY RECALL THAT ON FEBRUARY 11TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS, OR JANUARY 30TH, CHRIS WOOD DID PREPARE A CORY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CORY DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AND IT CLEAR AS DAY SHOWS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED AND WHAT'S NOTED AS AREAS IJ AND K.
THIS WAS BASED ON QUESTIONS WERE ASKED.
WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BASED ON THE 98 PLAN WAS 338 DWELLING UNITS FOR THAT AREA.
WHAT WE'RE SHOWING CURRENTLY NOW, 'CAUSE WE REMOVED WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENVISIONED AS 88 APARTMENTS IS A TOTAL OF 231 DWELLING UNITS.
SO THAT FULL BUILD OUT OF THIS, THESE COMPONENTS WILL ACTUALLY BE DOWN 107 UNITS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY CLOSED.
I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT EVEN BEFORE WE PRESENTED THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THIS PROJECT, ASK YOU A QUESTION BEFORE YOU MOVE.
SO THIS IS FOR AREAS I, J, AND K RIGHT.
IS THAT HEARING, LEMME, LEMME SEE.
YOU THINK, I THINK THE SHAPES MATCH UP.
IT'S KIND OF HARD TO PUT ALL THIS IS PART OF PART OF AREA K YEAH, PART OF AREA K.
SO IF AREA K IS AT 98, THEN WE ACTUALLY NEED THE DENSITY NUMBERS FOR IJ AND K TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE THIS TO THE NINE.
THE SUMMARY IS, I'M JUST GONNA, SO THE 98 OF K, WE HANDED THIS OUT, BUT JUST PREVIOUS ONE OH YOU HAVE IT? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT.
SO THE, IT'S JUST NOT THE 98 OF K IS INCLUDED IN YES.
THE, THESE NUMBERS WOULD INCLUDE YEAH,
[01:00:01]
IJK, IJK.SO WHAT IS IJK TODAY THEN? K HAS 98 IJ.
THAT THAT, THAT'S WHAT IJK OKAY, GOT IT.
I'M SORRY, I THREW EVERYONE OFF THERE BY TRYING TO DO MASKS.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE GOING BACK AND THEN, UH, OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS DURING THE INFORMATIONAL SESSION THAT WAS HELD WAY BACK ON FEBRUARY 16TH, WAS THERE WERE SOME CLAIMS THAT THE SITE COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNATED FROM AN OPEN SPACE.
WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION DURING THAT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 16TH.
AND ULTIMATELY THERE WAS A PLAN SIGNED BY THE PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN 2003 THAT CLEARLY NOTES THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE OR INTENDED TO BE AL SPACE.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PLAN WE'RE PRESENTING AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS DESIGNATED AS FUTURE SENIOR HOUSING.
I BELIEVE A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER CAME IN IN 2010 AND PROPOSED APPROXIMATELY 80 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS THAT WAS NOT VERY WELL RECEIVED BY THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
BASED ON US TAKING A LOOK AT ALL OF THAT PREVIOUS INFORMATION.
WHILE IT WASN'T VISIONED, THIS WOULD BE APARTMENTS, WE THOUGHT IT WAS PROBABLY BEST TO DO, UM, RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR SALE.
AND THAT THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE LAYOUT.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE'LL REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING EVERYONE BACK UP TO WHERE WE WERE.
WE LEFT OFF ON FEBRUARY AND WE'RE HOPING IN THE NEAR FUTURE, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN APPROVE THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN AGAIN, WE WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING, I, I HANDED OUT A PACKAGE TO YOU JUST CONSOLIDATING WHAT THE PD LAW IS.
UM, AND THEN, UH, ISSUES ABOUT TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH MAY NOT APPLY.
THEN SOME MAPS THAT WERE GENERATED THE LAST MEETING AND ALSO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD BACK WHEN BRIARWOOD WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
SO JUST GETTING SOME BACKGROUND, IS THAT 1992 OR WAS THAT BEFORE THEN? ORIGINAL ONE, THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL GOES BACK FURTHER, RIGHT? 1988, I BELIEVE.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE HARD PART ABOUT BRIARWOOD IS THAT THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL APPROVAL WITH FINDINGS.
THEN THERE WERE SUBSEQUENT STUDIES AND WHATEVER DONE OVER THE YEARS AFTER THAT AND BRINGING IT ABOUT.
UM, SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GO TO THE, THE FINDINGS ARE VERY SMALL AND THERE'S NOT MUCH DIRECTION.
SO WE HAVE TO PULL OUT OTHER STUDIES AND REPORTS LIKE THIS.
WAS THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN BACK THEN SAID, WELL I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT SAYS WHERE ALL THE GREEN SPACE IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
SO WE MADE 'EM PUT TOGETHER A PLAN FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO SIGN IT TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ALL THAT PLAN IS ABOUT GREEN SPACE.
RIGHT? IT'S NOT ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE BUT WHERE THE GREEN SPACE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ORIGINAL EIS.
SO THAT WAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED LATER WHEN WE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE THE ACTUAL GREEN SPACE WAS AND THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE IN EIS, THE ORIGINAL EIS STILL HAS THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WAS APPROVED.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY TRIED TO DOCUMENT IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR WHAT IS CALLED THE QUA DEVELOPMENT, IJK OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO I TRIED TO GIVE YOU THAT BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GONNA MAY ASK FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR ME TO DO FURTHER RESEARCH AND GET MORE INFORMATION.
THE ONLY OTHER HANDOUT I HAVE FOR YOU IS, AND YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT ENOUGH, IS WHAT THE SECRET LAW SAYS.
THIS WAS SUBJECT TO A-G-E-I-S.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE ONE OF FOUR DECISIONS THAT IT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GEIS ISSUE.
AN AMENDED FINDINGS ISSUE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
THE PROJECT IS DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE WHAT WAS FIRST IMAGINED, BUT YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WARRANTS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
OR FOURTH AS FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, THE LAST TWO PROJECTS YOU DID IN BRIARWOOD, WHICH WERE THE PEOPLE INC PROJECT AT THE OTHER END AND THE DEVELOPMENT, WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPMENT? FIREWOOD APARTMENTS.
THE TOWN DETERMINANT WASN'T CLEARLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FINDING, BUT THEY ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ONE BY YOU GUYS, ONE BY THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE IT WAS A TOWN BOARD DECISION ON THE REZONING OF, WELL ACTUALLY ON THE APARTMENT, ON THE, ON THE APARTMENTS AND ON PEOPLE.
RIGHT? SO AGAIN, THAT'S GONNA BE YOUR BIG DECISION AND YOU'RE GONNA ASK FOR INFORMATION TO DOCUMENT ONE OF THESE FOUR DECISIONS.
UM, I THINK WE CAN CLEARLY STATE THAT IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS.
WE VERY RARELY HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE THE FINDINGS DON'T GIVE MUCH DIRECTION.
UM, SO YOU CAN'T, UH, AND IT'S BEEN FOUR OVER 40 YEARS OLD.
SO THE OTHER DECISIONS ARE A AMENDED FINDINGS AND THERE'S A PATH FOR AMENDED FINDINGS OR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT'S SUBMITTED.
AND THEN THE OTHER SCENARIO IS THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THEY SUBMITTED, WE STILL THINK IT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT WE WANT A FULL SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FOR.
I'LL JUST GIVE YOU BO YOU WITH A COPY OF THE LAW.
BUT THAT'S THE BIGGEST DECISION YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY OUR POSITION, AND
[01:05:01]
AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THIS SAME TOPIC DISCUSSED.AND AGAIN, AGAIN, I THINK THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF RECORD KEEPING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT 1988 FINDING STATEMENT IS NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IS ISSUANCE OF AN AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS WE GOTTA KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE ACTUALLY PLANS THAT SHOW TWO RELATIVELY LARGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS HERE.
AND WE KNOW SOMEONE WENT DOWN THAT PATH IN 2010.
WE VIEW THIS AS BEING A CONCESSION TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED THERE IN TERMS OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
IF MR. BURKE HAD HIS CHOICE, HE WOULD STICK WITH THAT PLAN AND PROPOSED ATTACHED UNITS FOR SALE FOR RE FOR RENT.
WE KNOW THAT WILL NOT BE WELL RECEIVED.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING, AGAIN, TWO STORY ATTACHED TOWN HOME STYLE BUILDINGS WITH UNITS FOR SALE.
SO WE THINK IF YOU COMPARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THAT TO MUCH LARGER MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS FOR USE, WE THINK ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
AND SO WHY DON'T TOWN HOME STYLE BUILDINGS FALL UNDER THE, THE REGULATIONS RELATED TO TOWNHOUSES? WELL, WE'RE NOT DOING A TYPICAL IN THIS PROJECT.
WE'RE NOT, EVEN THOUGH WE COULD, IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.
WE'RE NOT DOING WHAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY DO, WHICH WOULD BE A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION WHICH RESULTS IN THE DEVELOPER RECEIVING A TAX BREAK.
INDIVIDUALS WILL RECEIVE DEEDS TO THE ENTIRE Y AND WE'RE GONNA ASK JENNIFER TO LOOK INTO THAT.
I BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE THE RESIDENT ASKED BEFORE THE MEETING RIGHT.
SO, UH, I THINK JENNIFER'S GOTTA LOOK INTO IT.
I UNDERSTAND SEAN EXPLAINED IT TO ME, BUT WE DO HAVE TO REVIEW IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCESS.
AND, AND I I ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DETAIL TOO.
SO MEANING THAT IF IT TURNS OUT WE DO FALL WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THAT DEFINITION, WE WOULD SIMPLY AMEND OUR APPLICATION, INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLATY RULE.
WHAT I DON'T WANT END UP HERE IS WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT WE FILE A MAP COVER.
'CAUSE A MAP COVER FOR THIS TYPE OF LAYOUT MAKES NO SENSE.
SO LET'S, WE'LL DISCUSS THAT TOPIC FURTHER AS WE GO.
SO PEOPLE BUY THE LOTS, WHERE ARE THE LOTS TYPICALLY? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT IS WHAT EXACTLY WILL, WILL SOMEONE BE BUYING? BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A CONDO WHERE YOU BUY JUST WITHIN THE CONFINES OF YOUR WALLS.
AND SO WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF THE TOWNHOME DEFINITION HAS A SECOND PRONG BASED ON SHIP AND STYLE.
NOT JUST THE OWNERSHIP CONDITION.
AND THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO RELEVANT SECTIONS IN YOUR CODE.
ONE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A DEFINITION OF THE TERM TOWN HOMES I BELIEVE IT SAYS.
AND THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY REQUIREMENTS THAT SAY TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION.
SO WE'LL LOOK AT THOSE AND WE'LL BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING.
AND I CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP WITH JENNIFER AND JU AS WELL.
BUT AGAIN, IF IT TURNS OUT WE DO NEED THAT, THEN WE'LL, SO THE LAST TWO QUOTE UNQUOTE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE WITH ONE IN BRIARWOOD AND THE ONE OVER MR. MANKO DID AT WHATEVER WERE WERE FOR, FOR LEASE AND RENT.
THEY WEREN'T, THEY WEREN'T SALE HOMES.
SOMEBODY'S ASKING ME WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OTHER ONES.
THEY, THEY WERE CALLED TOWNHOUSES, BUT THEY WERE FOR RENT OR FOR YEAH, THESE ARE, YEAH, THESE ARE DEFINITELY CLEARLY FOR SALE.
WHICH WE THINK THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE FOR LEASE VERSUS FOR SALE, I THINK THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE FOR SALE.
IT WAS A GOOD QUESTION ASK BY.
AND THERE'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR THOSE.
IT'S THE SAME APPROVAL, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
SO YOU CAN ENTER AND EXIT ON, ON THE BRIAR CLIFF, BUT THERE'S, YOU CAN'T, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET OUT ON CLOVER BANK.
AND REMEMBER THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE RAILROAD CROSSING AND WE ACTUALLY HAD SRF ASSOCIATES LOOK AT THAT AND THEY WERE ENTIRELY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SAFETY OF PROVIDING THE DRIVEWAY THERE.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
YEAH, I KNOW WE'RE GOING BACK MONTHS AND MONTHS ON THIS.
AND THIS IS ABOUT UPDATING THE BOARD.
YOU HAVEN'T SEEN, I DON'T REMEMBER LAST TIME WE SAW THIS WAS BACK IN FEBRUARY, RIGHT.
SO I DID LOOK AT THE, UM, THE EIS WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHY I KEEP TELLING, TELLING PEOPLE THIS TODAY.
SECOND PERSON TO DO THAT TODAY.
IT WAS 30, 40 YEARS AGO, NOT 40.
IT STARTED ALMOST WHERE IT TOOK US SEVERAL YEARS TO GET THIS APPROVED.
NEVER SAID TO SUGGEST A FEMALES MORE THAN SHE'S WELL, IT'S JUST THAT WAS ATTENUATED
BUT I HAVE SOME, SOME QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE TO DO WITH THE CHANGE IN SIGHT.
SO IN 1988, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY HERE WAS ON WELL WATER AND NOW THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT CAME FROM THIS BOARD WERE, UM, TO THE IMPACT ON EXISTING WELLS.
A SEPARATE ENGINEERING FIRM LOOKED AT THIS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON GROUNDWATER LEVELS.
NOW I IMAGINE WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT GROUNDWATER LEVELS BECAUSE THIS IST ALL WELLS ANYMORE.
THAT'S IN THE 1988 FINDING STATEMENT OR DID THAT PERTAIN TO SITE'S OFFSITE THAT HAD WELL WATER, I THINK IT WAS OFFITE.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT.
WELL, ONE, WELL, AND THEY MENTIONED THE, THE IKA,
[01:10:01]
UM, IKA WATER.MONICA WATER BEING THE WATER PROVIDER.
AND THEN YOUR, UM, FIEF MENTIONS IT'S THE WATER AUTHORITY WATER AUTHORITY.
SO THEY MUST BE ON MUNICIPAL WATER.
AND THEN WE'VE ALSO GOT, UM, ERIE COUNTY DEP WAS CONSULTED ABOUT THE SANITARY SEWER CAPACITIES.
DO THEY NEED TO WE DID A BE CONSULTED, WE DID NEW DOWNSTREAM SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS.
AND WE HAD TO DO THAT FOR ANY PROJECT THAT GENERATES 1 25 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT GENERATES ONE THAN 2,500 GALLONS.
YOU HAVE TO DO YI REMEDIATION.
REQUIRED DCI AND I, UM, MITIGATION.
WHICH LEADS ME TO A COUPLE OF OTHER SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS.
THE, ONE OF THE ORIGINAL 1988 CONSIDERATIONS WAS AN INCREASE IN STORMWATER RUNOFF, WHICH IS COULD CREATE DOWNSTREAM FLOODING.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NATURE OF THIS SITE, AND YOU'VE GOT DEPTH TO BEDROCK, IT'S JUST OVER FIVE FEET, WHICH IT JUST SAYS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET GREATER.
SO WHAT IS THE DEPTH TO BEDROCK? WE TALKING SIX FEET OR WELL, SO WHAT, 12 FEET.
SO WHEN WE PREPARED THE AF OBVIOUSLY WE HADN'T DONE THE ENGINEERING PLAN.
SO CHRIS, YOU HAVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF HOW STORM WATERS HANDLED WELL, AND AGAIN, BACK IN 1988, THE STORM WATER REGULATIONS NOW ARE WAY STRICTER THAN THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY BACK IN.
SO AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE, THE DEC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN OUR SPEEDIES PERMIT, WHICH REQUIRES ATTENUATION OF THE VOLUME AND TREATMENT OF THE TREATMENT OF THE STORM WATER BEFORE IT GETS DISCHARGED.
WE CAN'T DISCHARGE ANY MORE THAN WHAT CURRENTLY GOES OFF SITE FOR THE ONE YEAR THROUGH A HUNDRED YEAR STORM PERMIT.
AND KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE FINDING STATEMENT FROM 1988, IT SAYS RESPONSE AND MITIGATION.
THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO SUFFICIENT ONSITE DETENTION TO PRECLUDE INCREASED OFFSITE VOLUME.
SO WE'RE STILL COMPLYING WITH THAT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING WHAT WAS PROBABLY ENVISIONED THEN.
BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE STORMWATER QUALITY, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE YEAH.
SO THE, THE STORMWATER CAN BE MORE APPROPRIATELY MANAGED.
MORE, PRESUMABLY THIS IS A RELATIVELY MARSHY AREA BECAUSE YOU HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE SITE IS POORLY DRAINED.
THE DEPTH TO BEDROCK IS OVER FIVE FEET, WHICH TELLS ME IT MIGHT BE SIX FEET.
IT'S, WHICH MEANS THE WATER TABLE'S GOTTA BE HIGH.
SO OVER FIVE ISN'T SUPER HELPFUL.
WELL, THE, IF YOU LOOK ON THE, WHERE THAT COMES FROM WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A GEOTECH REPORT, RIGHT.
IF YOU GO ON THE SOIL SURVEY, WEB SOIL SURVEY ONLINE, IT SAYS IT, IT'LL SAY GREATER THAN FIVE FEET.
WHICH IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM THAT IT'S UNHELPFUL, BUT I'M HOPEFUL FOR EVERYBODY.
SO THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT ANY WETLAND, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'VE GOT, UM, QUESTION UP IN SECTION D.
IS YOUR ACTION CAUSING AN ALTERATION INCREASE, DECREASE INTO ENCROACHMENT? YOU SAY NO, BUT THEN WE GET TO SECTION THE SURFACE WATER SECTION AND WE'VE GOT YES.
THE PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITES IN THE WETLANDS AND THERE ARE WETLANDS THAT ADJOIN THE SITE.
BUT YOUR NOTE HERE SAYS THAT THEY'RE NOT JURISDICTIONAL.
SO LET, LET ME CLARIFY THAT ON THE SITE.
SO CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN, YEAH.
SO THE AF MAPPER, AS YOU KNOW, IS A FORM THAT YOU STARTED AND, AND IT FILLS IN ANSWERS THAT ANSWERED YES THERE.
THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ON THIS SITE.
ARE THERE ANY WETLANDS AT ALL OR IS IT JUST THE NATURE OF THE NO, NO WETLANDS, JURISDICTIONAL, NON-JURISDICTIONAL.
BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE, AS PART OF THE COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THE DEC DAVID DEKIN, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST DECEMBER, DID ISSUE A RESPONSE LETTER.
AND THOSE OF US WHO KNOW THE DC WELL NO.
THAT IF THERE'S ANY INDICATION THERE MIGHT BE WETLANDS, THEY POINT OUT THAT THERE'S A NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SO THEY, THEY AGREE THERE'S NOT WETLANDS TEXAS.
SO THERE IS A LETTER FROM THERE.
IS DAVE FROM AT LEAST DEC FROM DAVE? THERE IS, YEAH.
THERE'S A LETTER LEAD AGENCY LETTER SAYING YES, HEY, WE AGREE THE PLAN BOARD SHOULD BE WITH AGENCY AND ONE OF THEIR STANDARD COMMENTS MM-HMM
IS IF THERE'S ANY INDICATION OF WETLANDS CONSULT WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THEY, THEY DID NOT REQUEST IT.
I, I LOOKED AT THE NWI TODAY, THE NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY.
THERE WAS FISH WILDLIFE THAT RUNS AND THERE WAS NOTHING.
SO NO, THERE'S NOTHING I JUST WAS HAVING LOCATING WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
'CAUSE IT SAYS IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT POORLY DRAINED AND IT'S PROBABLY GOT A HIGH WATER TABLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ACTUAL, THE, EVEN NON-JURISDICTIONAL, IF YOU LOOK AT BEFORE BEEN, IT'S BEEN, AGAIN, THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED THE QUARRY SIDE.
I THINK IT'S BEEN MINED AND FILLED BACK IN AND PRETTY WELL DISTURBED.
BUT I, BUT I WILL, I, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE, GIVEN THAT WAS AN ANSWER FROM THE AF MAP, I WILL MAKE A SUBMISSION ADDRESS ON THAT POINT.
AND DO A LITTLE BIT MORE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACCURATE IN WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
BUT I, I'M 99.9% WE'RE, SO IT SEEMS LIKE TO, TO DREW'S POINT, AT LEAST FROM MY OPINION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE OF THINGS, THAT THE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN AND THE TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING HERE OVER THE LAST THREE, FOUR YEARS.
UM, SO MAYBE WE AS A BOARD DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT, UM, SOME SUPPLEMENTAL, SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE ENVIRONMENT'S, THE HUGE HITTER IN THIS LITTLE CORNER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU FOR INDULGING MY LINE OF QUESTIONING.
[01:15:01]
DIFFICULT THING WE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT A LOT OF TIMES WITH A PD THERE'S ACTUALLY LAYOUT SOMEWHERE OVER THE YEARS, THERE'S BEEN DIFFERENT KIND OF EITHER NOTHING SHOWN ON THIS SITE OR A SCHEMATIC OF THIS OR A SCHEMATIC OF THAT.SO IN YOUR, IF YOU'RE GONNA APPROVE THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE GONNA DO IS APPROVE THE LAYOUT.
AND WHAT, WHAT ZONING ARE YOU GONNA USE TO APPROVE THAT? I THINK AT THE FIRST MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT USING THE R THREE, YOU KNOW, THIS R THREE OR WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SET SOME STANDARDS.
THERE WAS NO STANDARDS SET IN EIS AND THERE WAS NO PLAN SHOWN IN THE EIS FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO SAY THIS IS THE LAYOUT.
OVER THE YEARS THERE WAS DIFFERENT ONES SHOWN WITH DIFFERENT THINGS OR WHATEVER, BUT THERE'S NO, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO ESTABLISH IN THAT, IN YOUR PLANNING DECISION OF IS THIS A GOOD LAYOUT AND WHATEVER DOES THIS MAKE, DOES THIS MEET SOME CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OR I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE CAME WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
IT'S, AND THEN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM WHERE I WROTE.
THAT WAS, WE WERE ASKED TO USE THAT AS A GUIDELINE.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THE PLANNING BOARD IS GONNA HAVE TO DETERMINE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE, TYPICALLY I FALL BACK ON THIS IS THE APPROVED PLAN.
ARE YOU MEETING OR THERE'S REQUIREMENTS.
USUALLY WHEN I DO A-G-E-I-S THERE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE HAVE TO USE GOOD PLANNING JUDGMENT.
WHAT'S THE RAILROAD SETBACK RULES? 50 FEET TO THE, TO THE EDGE OF RIGHT TO THE, TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THE, THE OTHER STUFF THAT IS IMPORTANT TO RECALL IS, REMEMBER THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
I BELIEVE WE ADDED 48 VISITOR PARKING SPACES.
WE WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER ADDING PLAYGROUND AREA FOR ACTIVE RECREATION.
WE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE ALL THOSE CHANGES.
AGAIN, WE WERE, THIS WAS A RARE PROJECT IN THAT WE WERE AT THE SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION REVIEW STAGE FOR OVER A YEAR.
AND THESE ARE ALL PRIVATE ROADS, RIGHT? PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE, PRIVATE ROADS, YEAH.
THERE'S PUBLIC, THERE'S PUBLIC SEWER THAT COMES THROUGH HERE AND AN EASEMENT.
AND THEN ONE THAT COMES DOWN HERE IN EASEMENT.
THOSE ARE EXISTING THOUGH, NEIGHBORHOOD BIKE RACKS.
AND YOU'VE GOT ME IN THE SITE PLAN.
WE'D BE WILLING TO ADD THOSE PLAYGROUND.
WE'LL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT AT THE RECREATION AREA.
YEAH, I THINK AT THE RECREATION AREA MAYBE.
I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
AND IS THE, IS THE GUEST PARKING JUST 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET? LIKE IS THIS GONNA FEEL MORE LIKE YOU'RE DRIVING INTO THE CONCERN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AS OPPOSED TO LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD OF HOMES? WELL, THE CONCERN, TWO CONCERNS WERE RAISED.
THE CONCERN WAS RAISED BY THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE EITHER OCCUPANTS OR VISITORS PARKING ON THEIR STREETS.
AND THEN SECOND OF ALL, YEAH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE PROBABLY COULD ALLOW AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, BUT KEEP IN MIND WE HAVE WINTER MONTHS AND ET CETERA.
WE THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE DESIGNATED OFF STREET VISITOR PARKING IF WE FIRE LANE'S SUPPOSED TO BE AT LEAST 20 FEET WIDE.
SO IF WE PARKED ON ONE SIDE, THAT WOULD BLOCK THE DRIVEWAY IS 24.
SO THAT WOULD, AND THEN WHEN THERE'S LESS THAN, YEAH, SO WE WOULD PREFER TO DESIGNATE PEOPLE PARK IN THE DESIGN PARKING AREAS AND, AND YOU CAN SEE CHRIS MADE AN EFFORT.
SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE SOMEONE JUST PUT 'EM ALL IN ONE PLACE WHERE IT'S JUST NOT PRACTICAL.
SOMEONE'S GONNA WALK HERE, THEY'RE DIVVY ALL THE WAY.
TABLE THIS TO THE 16TH SO WE CAN GET FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE, THE ISSUE.
UM, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TABLE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT TO NOVEMBER 16TH.
DENNIS, ALL IN FAVOR? CAN I QUICKLY, QUICKLY JUST SUMMARIZE WHAT THE FOLLOW-UP ITEMS ARE? JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED.
SO I THINK WHAT THE FOLLOW-UP ITEMS ARE IS CLARIFICATION ON THE WETLANDS.
CLARIFICATION, UM, TOWN HOME DEFINITION.
I THINK THOSE WERE THE TWO EXPLICIT FOLLOW-UP THINGS.
AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL MAKE SURE WE PROVIDE THAT IN WRITING BEFORE THAT MEETING.
AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL BE HEARD.
AND I WOULD, FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, I THINK YOU'VE DONE THIS ALREADY, BUT GO THROUGH WHAT THE ISSUES IN THE EIS WERE AND SAY HOW YOU ADDRESSED THEM.
UPDATED TIS YOU HAVE UPDATED INFORMATION ON WETLANDS, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT MARGO WAS STARTING TO TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DOCUMENT.
SO WOULD YOU PREFER TO HAVE THAT BEFORE YOUR NEXT MEETING OR WAIT UNTIL IT'S PUBLIC HEARING? I JUST, I DON'T WANNA BE REDUNDANT, THAT'S ALL.
WHENEVER YOU, IF WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT IT SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE, YOU CAN START LOOKING AT IT.
IF THE RESIDENTS HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ADDRESS THOSE.
I'M GONNA USE THE FINDING STATEMENT AS THE MODEL FOR THE SUBMISSION LETTER.
HAVE A GREAT EVENING EVERYONE TOO.
FINAL ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PLANNING BOARD TO RENDER A DECISION ON PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR A DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 6 5 0 5
[01:20:01]
SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.THIS IS KIND OF JUST A FINAL CLEANUP OF THE DECISIONS WE WERE MAKING EARLIER.
UH, TOWN ATTORNEYS RECOMMENDED WE MAKE A DECISION ON SITE PLAN EVEN THOUGH WE DID ALREADY MAKE A DECISION ON SEEKER.
DREW SENT US DID YOU SEND IT TO EVERYBODY OR JUST, JUST TO YOU? OH NO, I SENT IT TO EVERYBODY.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO I'LL JUST, I'M JUST GET INTO IT AND READ IT HERE.
WHERE'S THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM THE BROADWAY GROUP LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOLLAR GENERAL RETAIL STORE AT 6 5 0 5 SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SIX N-Y-C-R-R PART 6 1 7 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW SEEKER, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD OF SEEKER LEAD AGENCY HAS ACCEPTED A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FEIS FOR THE PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL PROJECT ON JULY 20TH, 2022.
AND WHEREAS THE ACTION TO BE CARRIED OUT IS THE ONE THAT DOES NOT AVOID OR MINIMIZE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DISCLOSED IN THE DEIS AND THE FEIS AND THAT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL NOT BE MINIMIZED OR AVOIDED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL BY INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS TO THIS DECISION.
THOSE MITIGATING MEASURES AS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED NEGATIVE FINDING STATEMENT.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMRICK PLANNING BOARD ACTING AS SECRET LEAD AGENCY ISSUED A NEGATIVE FINDING STATEMENT ON THE GENERAL GENERAL PROJECT.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT APPROVE A SITE PLAN FOR A PROJECT THAT HAS RECEIVED A NEGATIVE FINDINGS BASED ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, AND NO AMENDED PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD DISAPPROVES THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE DOLLAR GENERAL STORE PROPOSED AT 6 5 0 5 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
I SEE THE SEEKER FINDING STATEMENT.
SO THAT IS A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY BY DENNIS.
YOU OPPOSED? I KNOW YOU WERE OPPOSED.
THE I SHOULD HAVE, I SHOULD HAVE DONE THE, I'M SORRY.
ALRIGHT, SO I WILL OFFICIALLY LET THEM MOVE ON TO THE NEXT STAGE.
UM, ANYTHING FURTHER? WE'VE GOT MINUTES MOTION.
SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY BOB SECOND BY FOUR MINUTES.
SO IN A MOTION CARRIED, BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THE MEETING, I ALSO JUST WANNA MENTION THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT AL ON THE NEXT AGENDA, JUST SO, ALRIGHT.
CAN WE PUT IT LAST, NOT YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO.
YOU WANT ME TO LEAVE AND COME BACK? YOU CAN STAY, YEAH, WE CAN, UM, MAKE IT LIKE A SPECIAL CHAIR FOR YOU.
WE ADJOURN OUR MEETING MOTION BY DOUG.