[00:01:08]
THAT'S NOT ON, IT'S NOT ON THE MIC.
SEE ONCE, WHERE'S OUR CONDUIT? FORGOT.
WHERE'S OUR LITTLE RECORDER? UM, YEAH, YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA DO IT.
WE'RE GONNA START OUR WORK SESSION, LIOR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, REQUESTING A SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION ON A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS AT SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND HOWARD DRIVE.
UM, BOARD MEMBERS WILL REMEMBER THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SEEN BY US RECENTLY AS A REZONING REQUEST TO GO FROM A C TWO TO AN R THREE ON A SPLIT ZONE LOT BY LABORATORY MANAGEMENT IN ALLIANCE HOMES.
THEIR LAST PROPOSAL WAS FOR A FIVE APARTMENT BUILDING.
UM, THEY ARE NOW GOING TO WITHDRAW THAT REZONING APPLICATION AND FROM THE TOWN IN ORDER TO MOVE ON TO A FULL SPRING PLAN REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT.
I KNOW, LET ME, I CAN, I CAN EXPLAIN IT.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT WITHDRAWING IT.
THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY A SEPARATE APPLICANT.
'CAUSE THE APPLICANT ON THE REZONING IS ALLIANCE HOMES AND THAT THAT'S STILL GONNA GO FORWARD.
CAN WE HEAR YOUR NAME BEFORE YOU? OH, SORRY.
UH, ALSO WE MADE VICTOR RE SO THESE ARE GONNA BE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS DONE.
WELL, THE LAST TIME ROOM FOR ONE.
WHAT'S THAT? THERE'S ONLY ROOM FOR ONE OF THEM WHEN EVERYONE GETS PROOF FIRST, RIGHT? REALLY? OH, I WAS LIKE, ARE YOU, UH, UH, I'LL, SO, SO AS WE'RE PROGRESSING THE REZONING FOR THE APARTMENT PROJECT WE'RE THE REZONING, THE C ONE TO R THREE TO ALLOW ALL APARTMENTS.
WE'VE MET WITH SOME RESISTANCE AND SOME STATEMENTS BASICALLY SAID THAT NOTHING WOULD EVER BE BUILT HERE IF THOSE APARTMENTS GOT DENIED.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE LEGITIMATE TENANTS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE COMMERCIAL, UM, LAYOUT THAT WE HAVE HERE.
SO WE'RE PRESENTING THIS, I GUESS, AS A BACKUP IN THE EVENT THAT THAT REZONING GETS DENIED.
WELL, SO YOU, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT, YOU WANT US TO DISCUSS SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN? WE ALWAYS DISCUSS IT.
YOU THINK IT NOT HAPPEN IF IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED, BUT IT IT'S A BACKUP.
I MEAN, SO YOU, YOU WANT, YOU CAME HERE BEFORE AND YOU WANTED C ONE TO R THREE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT WAS, IT WAS OKAY TO GO TO R THREE BY THIS BOARD AND NOW YOU WANNA GO BACK AND MAKE IT A DOUBLE ZONE.
YOU WANT C WE DON'T HAVE A, WE DON'T HAVE APPROVAL.
WE DON'T HAVE APPROVAL ON REZONING.
SO IT'S STILL C ONE, STILL C ONE.
AND THIS, THIS WOULD, IF THIS PROJECT, COMMERCIAL PROJECT IN THE EVENT OF THE REZONING DOES NOT GET, OKAY, THIS PROJECT WOULD MOVE FORWARD JUST THE C ONE END OF IT LEAVING THE ZONING EXACTLY THE SAME.
RIGHT NOW IT'S C TWO, IT'S R THREE ON THIS SIDE AND C ONE AND SIDE.
CURRENTLY THE WAY IT SITS, THE OTHER APPLICATION IS TO MAKE THIS PORTION R THREE MATCH THIS PORTION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY R THREE.
UH, ON THE ORIGINAL, WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY CAME TO US, THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND IT SHOWED AN ENTRANCE AND EXIT ON HOWARD.
AND, AND IT TALKED ABOUT, IT DIDN'T SHOW IT ABOUT A ENTRANCE AND EXIT ON THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY.
[00:05:01]
ON THE DRAWINGS.WELL, AND AT THE LAST MEETING, SEAN TOLD US THAT THE DOT WOULD NOT ALLOW, WELL WE GOT NEW INFORMATION, NEW INFORMATION SINCE THEN.
THAT'S WHAT OKAY GUYS, ONE AT A TIME.
WE HAD NEW INFORMATION SINCE THEN THAT THE DOT JUST CLARIFIED.
THEY SAID WE, THEY DIDN'T SAY WE COULDN'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY, THEY JUST SAID THEY HAD TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER.
SO WE ARE STILL PURSUING THE DRIVEWAY ON SOUTHWESTERN FOR THIS PROJECT AND ALSO THE APARTMENT PROJECT, BUT WE'RE NOT SHOWING 'EM ON THE PLANS UNTIL DOT COMES THROUGH AND ACTUALLY, UH, GIVES US AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT IF YOU DON'T GET IT, ARE YOU STILL GONNA PURSUE THIS? BECAUSE A HUNDRED PERCENT I DON'T SEE ANYBODY CAN VOTE FOR THAT.
IF, IF YOU ONLY GOT ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT, YOU KNOW I LIVE RIGHT THERE.
SO IF YOU GO DOWN HOWARD, WHEN THE PLOWS GO DOWN, IF, IF THEY DON'T GET THAT STREET FIRST, THOSE PEOPLE WILL NEVER GET OUT.
I MEAN, I WOULD SAY WE, WE WOULD PREFER A DRIVEWAY ON SOUTHWESTERN.
IT WILL WORK A HUNDRED PERCENT BETTER.
BUT THE WAY THE DOT WORKS TODAY, YOU'RE NOT GUARANTEED TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY ON SOUTHWESTERN.
SO I ROAD BEFORE WE'RE LINING IN THE EVENT THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO PURSUE THAT BECAUSE HONESTLY THEY SEEING WHAT'S HERE, I COULD NOT, SEAN, AND HONESTLY YOU VOTE FOR IT IF YOU ONLY GOT ONE, ONE ENTRANCE IN.
SEAN SPOKE TO THEM TODAY ACTUALLY.
SO I WANT TO, I WANT TO KNOW TWO THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, THE PROJECTS IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE LABORATORY FAMILY.
IT DOES, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALLIANCE HOLMES, ANDY ROMANOWSKI.
BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS WITH DOT ONE OF THE NEARBY RESIDENTS REACHED OUT TO THEM AGAIN TO TRY AND GET THEM TO REVISIT THAT ISSUE.
I TALKED TO KEVIN EBERT OF DOT.
I THINK JOSH HAS SPOKEN TO DOT AS WELL.
SO WE'VE ASKED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR PROJECT, WHICH IS THE PROJECT REQUIRING A DOWN ZONING MUCH LESS INTENSIVE THAN THIS THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW ALSO WRITE IN, WRITE OUT DRIVEWAY.
BUT WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THEY'LL ALLOW THAT.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT NOTE TWICE BEFORE THEY SAID ON INCLUSIVELY.
NO, YOU KNOW, IF THE PLAN BOARD WANTED ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT WE WOULD, I THINK THAT COULD PROBABLY BE GIVEN TO THEM.
I THINK YOU'RE GONNA BE TALKING THEM IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
SO SPEAKING OF THAT, SO THE DOT, WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH DOT.
THEY'RE LOOKING TO MEET WITH ANNALISE AND I SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BOTH PROJECTS.
SO THIS CONCEPTUAL ONE FROM ATORY GROUP AND THEN ALSO ON THE RE RESULTING APPLICATION.
UM, PREVIOUSLY TWO TIMES, LIKE SEAN SAID, THEY SAID NO TO, UM, A DRIVER ON SOUTHWESTERN.
THEY SAID THEY WOULD REEVALUATE THIS SITE PLAN, THEN THEY WOULD GIVE US SOME COMMENTS ON IT.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVEN'T SEEN YET.
UM, SO WE'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM SOMETIME EARLY NEXT WEEK.
DID WE TRY TO DO A RESOLUTION ASKING DOT TO RECONSIDER A DRIVEWAY IN SOUTHWESTERN DOLLAR GENERAL OR ANY OTHER PROJECT ON SOUTHWEST? BECAUSE THIS IS A RECURRING THING.
WE DIDN'T DO A RESOLUTION, BUT I CALLED AND I GAVE IT.
BUT THAT WAS BEFORE ED RAKOWSKI RETIRED.
AND I I, I WAS IN THE HOLD THE GUY FOR LIKE 45 MINUTES AND I TRIED EVERY WHICH WAY AND THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT.
YEAH, WE, WE'VE TRIED MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES.
BUT, BUT THIS, THIS IS RESOLUTION'S GONNA CHANGE THEIR MIND.
BUT IT'S, BUT I THINK BUT HERE, SO HERE'S WHAT I'M ADVOCATING FOR.
ONE OF THE NEARBY RESIDENT NEWS.
WE'VE ALL THE TIME BEEN TRYING TO PROPOSE THAT, RIGHT? I THINK IF THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD, IT'S NOT CONTROLLING OF COURSE THEN ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL NEIGHBOR SUPPORT, WHETHER THAT'S A PETITION ASKING FOR IT, THAT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH GOT.
I MEAN UNLIKE THE YEAH, I LIKE, UNLIKE THE DOLLAR GENERAL, LOOK AT THE FRONTAGE WE HAVE.
YEAH, THERE'S LOT MORE PROPERTY'S VERY DEEP.
WHEN YOU GO EAST, THEY'RE STILL GONNA WANT THE DRIVE AROUND TO HOWARD.
BUT LET'S AT LEAST GET THE RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ON SOUTHWESTERN.
SO WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING IN THIS? 'CAUSE YOU GOT INTERRUPTED.
SO WHAT'S GONNA BE ON THIS IS, SO YOU NEED TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
OH, SHAUNA, AND AGAIN, NOTING I'M NOT HERE ON BEHALF OF THIS APPLICANT.
I WAS JUST GIVING AN UPDATED VOT ASPECTS.
SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON, ON THE R THREE PORTION, TWO 10 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH ATTACHED GARAGES ON THE C ONE ZONE PORTION, WE ARE PROPOSING THREE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH SECOND FLOOR OFFICE FOR FLOOR COMMERCIAL TO BE DETERMINED.
AND A BANK, UH, LISTED WITH A DRIVE THROUGH.
UM, THEY DO HAVE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS AND, AND POTENTIAL TENANT FOR THE BANK AT THIS POINT.
AND AGAIN, AS WE POINTED OUT, WE DO HAVE, OUR DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS ACROSS FROM DOGWOOD LAKE
UM, WE HAVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR BOTH THE R THREE PORTION AND THE C ONE PORTION.
THE PARKING ON THIS SIDE SUPPORTS ITSELF FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION.
PARKING ON THE APARTMENT SIDE SUPPORTS ITSELF CODE-WISE, I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT, BUT TWO PER UNIT ON THE APARTMENT SIDE.
AND I'M SORRY, HOW MANY APARTMENTS? 20.
WHAT SIZE APARTMENTS DID YOU SAY? UH, TWO BEDROOM WITH GARAGES WITH FOUR GARAGES.
TWO TWO BUILDING, TWO 10 UNIT BUILDINGS.
EACH GARAGE HAS TWO APARTMENTS
[00:10:01]
OR AT TWO, UH, GARAGES FOR THE TOWN HALL UNITS ON UNIT.ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I DO.
COULD ON THIS PICTURE, COULD YOU SHOW ME WHERE YOUR ROAD'S GONNA COME IN? I JUST TOOK THIS ON THE WAY OVER.
NOW THAT'S A LITTLE FARTHER THIS WAY.
THAT LAST HOUSE ON HOWARD AND NOW WE'RE BUILDING HERE AND THERE'S THE POWER LINES, RIGHT? OUR, OUR DRIVEWAY WILL BE RIGHT OVER HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOOD LINE IS THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY, I BELIEVE.
WE'D BE ON THIS SIDE OF THE FRONT.
DO YOU HAVE A DIMENSION HOW FAR YOU'LL BE FROM SOUTHWESTERN? 'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA BE AWFULLY TIGHT WHEN PEOPLE TURN IT, UH, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT IT PROBABLY 200 FEET THE DEPTH OF THE, IT IT ABOUT THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY.
I MEAN IF YOU COULD GIVE ME A A WHEN YOU CAN FIGURE THAT OUT.
I, WELL, I, I DON'T, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
WE LITERALLY PUT IT AS FAR AS WE COULD.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT LITTLE S CURVE IN THERE.
THAT'S THE SAME AS THE OTHER SITE PLAN.
AND THAT WAS TO MEET THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS TO BE AS FAR SETBACK AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INTERSECTION.
AND THEN ALSO THE DOT RECOMMENDS CORRECT THAT YOU CITE DRIVEWAYS OR INTERSECTIONS ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER RATHER THAN EITHER ACROSS OR OFF OFFSET BY THE GOVERNMENT.
SO THIS WOULD MEET, GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS WITH THE PREVIOUS DENIAL OF DRIVEWAY AND SOUTHWESTERN.
AND THIS IS THE MOST VIABLE MEETING, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE LOCATION.
WHICH IS FAR TO GO AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.
AND AGAIN, FROM THE ALLIANCE HOMES PERSPECTIVE, THIS IN THEIR APPLICATION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GENERATED BY THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH IS A MUCH LOWER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT COMPARED TO A COMMERCIAL PROJECT WHICH WAS STUDIED, THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT'S GONNA GENERATE TODAY, NO, IT'S 700% MORE TRAFFIC DURING PEAK TIMES.
LEMME POINT OUT TOO, WE ARE KEEPING THAT SAME FENCE LINE AND EVERGREEN BUFFER IN THE BACK THAT WE DID PROPOSE FOR THE, THE OTHER APARTMENT PROJECT STEP BACK, SO TO SPEAK.
LET'S STEP BACK DOWN THE, WE'RE WE'RE AT THE MINIMUM SETBACK BILL, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE, WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AND IN THE PAST THERE WAS A TRAFFIC WEIGHT.
WAS IT ON SOUTHWESTERN OR IS THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE? ON CAMPS WHERE THEY WOULD PUT A LIGHT IN.
IT'S ON THE OTHER, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAMP.
CAN PUT THE LIGHT IN, ESSENTIALLY.
SO, WHICH, AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GOES, IT DOESN'T RUN INTO THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD IN OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SOUTHWESTERN WHERE THERE'S A LIGHT IN A CROSSWALK.
SO PEOPLE COULD SAFELY CROSS THE STREET TO GET TO THE COMMERCIAL WHERE THAT LIGHT, THAT LIGHT LINE UP WITH THE CLIFTON HEIGHT DEPARTMENTS.
I I LIKE THE IDEA OF DOING A RESOLUTION TO ASK THE DMT TO RECONSIDER THAT BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAYS ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS, WHETHER IT'S THIS ONE OR ANY OTHER ONE OFF OF SOUTHWESTERN, THEY'RE ALWAYS PROBLEMATIC.
THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE WRAPAROUND ZONING IN A WAY WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE FRONTAGE ON SOUTHWESTERN, BUT THE ENTRANCE IS IN A RESIDENTIAL STREET.
AND I, I DON'T REALLY, IF WE COULD GET THEM TO RECONSIDER SOME OF THE STUFF ON SOUTHWESTERN, THAT WOULD BE, PLUS YOU GOTTA LOT OF, THERE'S A LOT OF S**T CURB CUTS.
AND THIS SIDE IS VERY, VERY DEEP IN THIS DIRECTION WHERE YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL QUITE A WAYS WHERE, RIGHT.
A LOT OF THE OTHER ONES WHERE THEY SAID NO, IT'S JUST ONE BOX.
ON THE CORNER HERE, OBVIOUSLY IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE REALLY THE TRAVEL DISTANCE.
BUT THIS ONE, THIS ONE'S IN A GOOD SPOT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, AND WE'D LIKE TO, IF, IF THIS DOESN'T, IF WE GET THE APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING THIS'S PENDING, WE'D LIKE IT FOR THAT.
SO IF THE RESOLUTION CAN BE EITHER ALTERNATIVE, THE RESIDENTS HAVE ASKED US TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.
WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO IT.
BUT YEAH, WE, WE TRIED A LOT OF STUFF IN THE PAST AND WILLING TO TRY MORE THINGS.
HOW DO YOU FEEL? RIGHT OUT? YEAH.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA GIVE US FULL ACCESS ABOUT ACCESS TO SOUTHWESTERN? NO.
ABOUT A RESOLUTION FOR OH, THE CURB CUT.
I JUST THINK THIS IS A SILLY SPACE TO BE BUILDING IN.
BUT I THINK THAT A CURB CUT WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE STRESS OF THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE I DON'T, I'M, IT DOESN'T WORK ALL GOING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD DO A RESOLUTION.
IRONICALLY, THERE ACTUALLY IS AN EXISTING CURB CUT HERE, BUT THEY WON'T LET US USE IT.
THEY JUST WON'T LET US HAVE A DRIVEWAY.
GNT TAKES THE POSITION IN THE SISTER ROUTE, EVERY PROJECT WEST NORTH AND JOSH KNOWS IS THAT IF IT'S A STATE HIGHWAY, IT'S CONTROLLED ACCESS AND THEY TRY AND PUSH EVERYTHING ON THE SIDE STREETS.
YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN DOWN, YOU DO THE TION.
IS THAT HOW, SO I HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DO A MOTION TO DO THE RESOLUTION.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'RE ASKING OF THEM? I HAVE A, WE GO
[00:15:01]
BACK.SO PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT A WRITE IN, WRITE OUT ONLY CURB CUT AND I, AND FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S ONE AT, UM, TRACTOR SUPPLY, RIGHT.
WHICH IS FURTHER DOWN PEOPLE, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST IS THAT PEOPLE WILL OFTEN IGNORE THE RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT AND THEN JUST TRY TO GO.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT ED MURKOWSKI HAD SAID TO ME IS THAT IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.
SO I WOULD NOT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AWARE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, SURE.
IF WE PUT A CURB CUT, IT IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY TO REALLY IMPEDE ANYBODY'S ABILITY TO TRY TO ATE THE ONE OVER BY LIKE, UH, WHAT'S IT CALLED? I MEAN, I GUESS YOU CAN LOCKED IN, BUT YOU CAN'T LOCK ON MCKINLEY LIKE TRYING TO GET LIKE AS YOU'RE GOING BY THE OLD FRIEND LEAVES.
RIGHT? SO LIKE, THERE'S LIKE A, A CENTERED EYE YEAH.
THAT PLAZA THERE WHERE YOU CAN'T, WHERE LIKE YOU, THIS ONE LIKE CALIN.
WAIT, WE HAVE A LOT, WE HAVE A LOT OF ROOM.
THIS, THIS, THIS DIRECTION ON HERE.
REALLY WHAT WE FIND, THE, THE PROBLEM COMES IN WHEN YOU HAVE A REAL SHORT DISTANCE HERE AND YOU DON'T GET A FULL RADIUS, BUT THE LITTLE ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE IS LIKE SOME TINY LITTLE THING YOU DON'T REALLY SEE.
AND WHEN THERE'S SNOW IN THE FALL, THE DOT THE, IF WE CAN'T GET THE GEOMETRY CORRECT, THE DO T'S NOT GONNA APPROVE IT ANYWAYS.
UM, SO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW KIND OF THEIR GUIDANCE WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY DESIGNING IT.
WE JUST GOT'EM APPROVED ON MILES STRIP ROADS AND PORT TO PARK, BUT THEY APPROVED IT RIGHT IN RIGHT NOW.
THAT WOULD BE MY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ADHERING TO WHATEVER THE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE TO MAP.
WE HAVE ADEQUATE IES UNDER BOTH SCENARIOS.
DO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE RESOLUTION SECOND? ARE YOU LOOKING TO START COORDINATOR REVIEW? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA ASK.
BUT THEY COULD START, IF YOU GUYS COULD START COORDINATING REVIEW OR AUTHORIZE THEM TO SEND IT ONCE WE SUBMIT THE A, UH, THE ABORTION.
SO HOW DO WE DO IT FOR THE SAME PROJECT? I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, ANYTHING THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT DISCUSS IN OUR DEPARTMENT WAS WILL THIS, WILL THESE TWO PROJECTS BE REVIEWED CONCURRENTLY? I KNOW THAT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER.
I KNOW THEY'RE BY TWO SEPARATE APPLICANTS, BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME, UH, PARCEL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO, UM, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND AGAIN, ALLIANCE HOMES WANTS TO GO FIRST A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN ANY CODE THAT PREVENTS THERE BEING TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.
AND OF COURSE THE OTHER ONE REQUIRES A REONE.
WHAT DO WE ALREADY MAKE A SECRET DECISION? WAS A SECRET DECISION ALREADY MADE ON THE ALLIANCE TERMS. SEE, THIS ONE YOU WOULD BE, WELL THAT, SO THIS IS THE QUESTION THAT I GUESS I WOULD COME BACK TO IF I HANG ON, IS THAT, SO THERE IS ALREADY AT THE TOWN BOARD IS CURRENTLY LEAD AGENCY ON THE REZONING.
WE WOULD WANT TO BE LEAD AGENCY ON THIS.
AND WE MAY WANT TO, DO YOU REMEMBER IN THE PAST WE WENT BACK AND ASKED THE TOWN BOARD TO BECOME LEAD AGENCY? WE DID, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
BUT THE OTHER, BUT SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO CUMULATIVELY HERE OR BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT APPLICANTS.
THEY DON'T, THIS PROJECT WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO TOWN BOARD.
SO I WOULD THINK WE WOULD JUST DO OUR OWN SEEKER.
WE WE WOULD DO IT AS IF WHEN, WHEN THIS ONE'S ON THE AGENDA, IT'S LIKE THE OTHER ONE DOESN'T EXIST AND THE OTHER ONE'S ON THE AGENDA.
IT'S AS IF THIS ONE DOESN'T EXIST.
BUT HOW DOES THAT ACTUALLY WORK? I ACCORDING, HANG ON A SECOND.
I KNOW THAT, I KNOW THAT THERE'S NO, SO NOW IT'S MENT AGAINST THIS, BUT, SO IF THE TOWN BOARD REZONED IT, IT'S LIKE A HORSE WRITTEN AND THIS ONE WOULD END BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE ZONED CORRECTLY.
IF THE TOWN BOARD DOESN'T REZONE IT RIGHT, THEN THIS IS THE ONE THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT'S THE CURRENT ZONING.
AND I THINK WE WOULD, WE WOULD, I MEAN I FOLLOW BILL'S LOGIC ON THIS.
WE WITHDRAW THIS ONE IF IT GETS REZONED.
IF YOU HAVEN'T GET REZONED, THEN WE WOULD, IF IT REZONED YOU COULD NOT GO FORWARD WITH, YOU WOULD NEED A USE VARI OR RIGHT.
AND YOU CAN ONLY GO FORWARD WITH IT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING UNDER THE C ONE.
SO WHY WOULD WE OPEN UP CONVERSATION ABOUT A SECOND PROJECT OR WE'RE WAITING ON A DECISION ON FIRST PROJECT.
APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO PROPOSE A PROJECT AS OF RIGHT.
WE CAN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM APPLYING WE, BUT WE COULD TABLE IT UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE OUTCOME IS.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY NOTES SAY FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I WOULD SAY THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO PUT IN A FULL SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND WE SHOULD DO A COORDINATED REVIEW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
BUT WE SHOULD GET REVIEW AND COMMENTS AND THAT WOULD OPEN US ANOTHER AVENUE TO TALK TO DOT.
WE RUN INTO A TIMELINE AT SOME POINT THOUGH.
AND THOSE NOTES ARE JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
IF THEY HAVE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THEN WE, THERE IS NO, REMEMBER FOR SECRET, WE CAN'T STOP SUBMITTING APPLICATION EITHER.
THIS IS UHT ALL THE WORK SESSION WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR DIRECTION MM-HMM
NOW THEY CAN TAKE OUR DIRECTION OR LEAVE IT.
THEY CAN SUBMIT THE APPLICATION AND WHEN WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IT MM-HMM
AND I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD NOT MAKE A RESOLUTION TO GO BACK TO THE DOT UNLESS WE ARE ACTING RELATIVE TO A PROJECT.
SO THEY WOULD NEED TO PUT IN AN APPLICATION AND NOT JUST A WORK SESSION FOR US TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE OTHER PROJECT IS NOT BEFORE US.
AND A SUBJECT TO REZONING AND SUCH RESOLUTION SHOULD PROBABLY COME FROM THE TOWN BOARD.
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT RESOLUTION WHILE IT'S NOT
[00:20:01]
ON OUR AGENDA.SO I THINK THIS SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL THE OUTCOME OF THE OTHER PROJECT IS NO, CAN'T MISS THE APPLICATION.
WE CAN'T TELL THEM NOT TO APPLY.
APPLY EVEN WE TOLD THEM THAT WE, WE EVEN, WE TOLD THEM THAT THEY, WE THOUGHT THAT THERE'S NOTHING TO DO.
THERE'S NOTHING TABLE DECISION MAKE, IF THEY SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION.
SO WE, THERE IS NO TABLING AT THIS POINT.
THEY WOULD NEED TO FILE AN APPLICATION AND IF THEY FILE AN APPLICATION, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO, WE SHOULD KICK OFF A COORDINATED REVIEW BECAUSE WE KNOW DOT IS AN INTERESTED PARTY.
WELL THEN ONCE AGAIN, I'VE GOT TABLE THE PROJECT INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE APPLICANT KNOWS WHICH DIRECTION THEY WILL PURSUE.
TWO SEPARATE APPLICANTS, RIGHT? THERE'S NO ITEM YET.
THEY HAVEN'T PUT IT IN THE APPLICATION.
SO I WANT, SO YOUR DIRECTION IS DON'T BRING THIS UNTIL WE FIND OUT WHAT THE TOWN BOARD WANTS TO DO.
WE CAN ALL, WE CAN ALWAYS SUBMIT THE APPLICATION.
I MEAN MY, I MEAN THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION IS THEY OWN A PROPERTY.
SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION THEY COULD FILE AN APPLICATION AT SUCH TIME THEN WE COULD STUFF I THINK THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH ENGINEERS AND LAWYERS AND MONEY THAT THEY DON'T NEED MY RECOMMENDATION.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MONEY.
BUT IF YOU COULD, IF WE DO, AND WHEN WE DO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, IF YOU COULD AUTHORIZE COORDINATOR, I THINK WE NEED A FULL SIDE PLAN APPLICATION.
YOU WE DO AT THE WORK SECTIONS.
I I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT FOR A FULL SIDE PLAN APPLICATION.
I AGREE THAT WE NEED A FULL APPLICATION.
THIS IS JUST THE WORK SESSION AND I THINK THAT WE NEED A FULL APPLICATION AND THEN WE CAN DO THE PROCESS.
AND YOU MAY WANNA MAKE, SO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MAY WANNA CONSIDER IN THAT FULL APPLICATION IS PROVIDING A VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES THE DRIVEWAY THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING OR SOME, SO WE HAVE SOME OF THAT JUST INFORMATION ON THE RECORD.
WELL, WE'LL PUT THE DRIVEWAY IN THERE AND IT'LL SAY THE PENDING DOT APPROVAL LETTER.
CAN WE, CAN WE GET PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR TWO WEEKS AND WE'LL FILE THE APPLICATION BETWEEN NOW AND THEN? OR AS LONG AS YOU HIT THE DEADLINES? HELLO? DO YOU HAVE MY, DO YOU HAVE OUR SCHEDULE FOR TWO WEEKS? YEAH.
AND WHAT DO WE HAVE ON IT SO FAR? ONE PRACTICE, TWO WEEKS.
WELL VERIFICATION YOU HAVEN'T AUTHORIZED FOR EVERYTHING YET UNTIL RECEIVE THE FULL SITE PLAN.
SO JUST AS A RECAP, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA AUTHORIZE ANYTHING UNTIL THEY SUBMIT THE FULL APPLICATION, WHICH WILL COME BACK ON THE, TO THE AGENDA FOR APRIL 3RD.
AND AT WHICH POINT, WE'LL THEN WE'LL START THE PROCESS.
SO WE'RE STILL ON THE WORK SESSION AND, UM, ON OUR, UM, AGENDA TONIGHT, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, I ASKED THAT IF WE COULD TAKE A MINUTE TO DISCUSS THE SUBMISSION, UM, DEADLINES.
UM, I TALKED TO MEMBER CLARK ABOUT THIS AND HE FILLED ME IN A LITTLE BIT.
I ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KAITLIN MCCORMICK ON WHAT WAS IN THE PAST, AND I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE IT.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I AM ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION IS SO EVERYONE, PEOPLE IN THE BACK, IF YOU COULD STEP IN THE HALLWAY IF YOU'RE GONNA TALK SO WE CAN HEAR UP HERE.
HEY GUYS, I GO IN THE CORNER IF YOU WANNA TALK.
SO, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IS THAT WE'VE GOT APPLICANTS, UM, DELIVERING ITEMS AFTER FOUR O'CLOCK, WHICH DELAYS THE HANDLING BECAUSE BOARD MEMBERS ARE ONLY LOOKING FOR THINGS THAT WERE DROPPED IN AT FOUR.
SO, AND THEN IF IT'S DROPPED IN AFTER THAT OR DELIVERED AFTER THAT, NOT EVERYBODY IS GETTING FULL ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION IN OUR SHAREPOINT.
SO IN THE PA, AM I SAYING IT THE RIGHT WAY? BILL? SO YOU, YOU HAD A CUTOFF TIME OF FOUR O'CLOCK, RIGHT? YEAH, I, I, I BASED A RULE ON WHAT I THOUGHT THE MOST OF THE PLANNING, MOST OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS WANTED IT TO BE.
THEY WANTED TO HAVE THE WEEKEND TO REVIEW IT.
SO WE WANTED IT EARLY ENOUGH ON FRIDAY WE MADE IT FOUR.
SO WHOEVER, SARAH OR ANNIE OR WHOEVER WAS DOING IT WOULDN'T GET SOMETHING AT 4 59 AND HAD TO STAY LATE TO UPLOAD IT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID IT AT FOUR O'CLOCK.
SO THEN IT COULD BE UPLOADED BEFORE THE WEEKEND.
PEOPLE THAT WORKED FOR THE TOWN GOT TO GO HOME.
FIVE, WE GOT TO REVIEW OUR STUFF.
THAT'S HOW WE WANTED TO DO IT.
SO WAS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT TO KEEPING IT AT FOUR O'CLOCK? I HAVE A QUESTION OF ABOUT HOW THAT APPLIES TO NEW APPLIC.
I YES, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THERE, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS MY ASSUMPTION WAS IS THAT ALL NEW APPLICATIONS
[00:25:01]
HAVE THE SAME DEADLINE AS PENDING, PENDING ONES.IS THAT TRUE OR NOT? BECAUSE I, LOOKING AT THE, SOME NOTES THAT WE HAD FROM WENDELL AND IT, SEE, THEY, THE IMPLICATION THERE WAS MAYBE THE, THE DIFFERENT DEADLINE FOR NEW APPLICATIONS.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT USED TO BE THE CASE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS ALWAYS FRIDAY BY FOUR FOR ALL NEW OR PENDING? WELL, IT WAS NEVER WRITTEN.
IT WAS KIND OF, UH, GUIDELINES.
SO, I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE PRACTICE WENT, MAYBE SOME, MAYBE SARAH AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IT LET SOME NEW ONES ON THE WORK SESSION.
I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER MUCH COMING UP WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION FRIDAY.
ANNIE, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER? UM, TYPICALLY WE HA NEED NEW APPLICATIONS BY THIS MEETING.
SO IF YOU WANNA BE ON FOR THE, THE, WHEN, LIKE THE APRIL 3RD MEETING, YOU NEED TO SUBMIT BY TODAY BECAUSE DOESN'T BOTHER.
I MEAN, THAT'S ALSO JUST FOR PUBLISHING IN THE PAPER.
OUR DEADLINE TO PUBLISH IN THE PAPER IS TOMORROW.
SO IF WE DON'T GET EVERYTHING BY TODAY, WE CAN'T GET YOU ON THE AGENDA.
I WAS THINKING THAT IT WAS MONDAY, THE MONDAY, LIKE THIS PAST MONDAY FOR WEDNESDAY.
BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S, NO, IT'S THE MEETING THAT MAKES, OKAY.
THAT WAS WHERE I GOT, SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT THE FOUR O'CLOCK DEADLINE YES.
IS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AN EXISTING CASE THAT'S GONNA BE ON THE AGENDA THAT IT CAN'T BE DROPPED IN LIKE OVER THE WEEKEND? I, I MEAN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE IT HELPS US KNOW WHAT WE HAVE AND IT PROVIDES CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHAT'S GOING IN WHEN.
SO YEAH, A LOT OF US HAVE FULL-TIME JOBS AND FAMILIES AND THINGS, SO IT'S NICE TO HAVE, HAVE THE WEEKEND, I WOULD ALMOST SAY THREE O'CLOCK SO THAT WE ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING GETS UPLOADED AND THAT IT'S WORKING WELL.
I WAS GONNA SAY NOON, BUT
UM, BUT SO IS THREE O'CLOCK, IS THAT A GOOD TIME AS WELL? I WOULD SAY THREE IS IS A GOOD TIME AND IT MIGHT BE ACTUALLY BETTER BECAUSE FOUR 30 HAPPENS TO BE THE, UM, END TIME AND YEAH.
WELL, I LIKE TO STAY AND I GOTTA STAY TILL FIVE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, COULD YOU PLEASE GO OUT TO THE HALL TALK? WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING A MEETING HERE.
SO I THINK THE ADVANTAGE OF THREE THOUGH IS ALSO IF YOU CAN'T GET A FILE TO OPEN OR IT'S CORRUPTED, THAT GIVES YOU ENOUGH TIME TO GET BACK TO SOMEBODY ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON YES.
TO GET A NEW VERSION OF THE FILE.
YEAH, I WOULD SAY THREE O'CLOCK WATCH CAMERA.
UM, AND THEN I DO ALSO JUST WANNA MAKE THE NOTE THAT, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE DOING DIGITAL FILES, IT WOULD BE A LOT FOR ME TO RECEIVE THOSE AND THEN PUT THEM IN A SEPARATE FILE FOR ME TO UPLOAD AFTER THE MEETING.
SO I WILL STILL PUT THOSE IN YOUR SHAREPOINT FILE.
BUT I'VE BEEN DATING EVERYTHING NOW.
SO IF YOU RECEIVE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MATERIAL ON MONDAY AND IT IS DATED OR TUESDAY AND IT'S DATED MONDAY, IT'S NOT, IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY.
WE RECEIVED IT AFTER YOU HAVE IT THERE BECAUSE WE'RE JUST STORING THINGS ELECTRONICALLY RIGHT NOW.
AND I'M NOT GONNA, IT WOULD BE A LOT, ESPECIALLY ONCE LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE GET SOME PRETTY FULL MEETINGS TO SAY THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS FILE, PUT THIS IN ON THE DATE JUST FOR ORGANIZATION PURPOSES.
IT'S MY PREFERENCE TO PUT IT INTO THE SHAREPOINT WITH THE DATE.
AND IF IT'S AFTER THAT FRIDAY DATE, IT'S NOT TO BE CONSIDERED.
IS THAT, CAN YOU PUT IT, THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO IF, RIGHT, SO WE GO TO MEETING MATERIALS IS THREE 20 AND THEN THE QUICK LINKS THEN TAKES YOU TO THE PROJECT FOLDERS, CORRECT? RIGHT.
SO THEN, UH, LET'S GO WORKING.
SO, BUT UH, IS, DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT A, UM, RECEIVED AFTER YES.
A FOLDER SO THAT IT'S ANYTHING SO THAT IT'S JUST LIKE CLEARLY JUST SAYING LIKE, YEAH, B YOU THE DATE OF THE MEETING SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE, SO THAT IT'S NOT BEING MISCON TRUE.
YEAH, THAT'S DEFINITELY, AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT TO PUT IN FOR THE NEXT WEEK.
I JUST WANT TO AVOID ME HAVING TO PILE LIKE, YOU KNOW, COMPILE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED.
AND THEN ON A CERTAIN DAY I HAVE TO PUT IT IN AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST SEE IT ROOM FOR ERROR THERE.
NO, BUT I THINK THE SEPARATE FOLDER OF, UM, AFTER DUE DATE MM-HMM.
FOR EACH FILE AT LEAST WE'RE CONSISTENT FOR EVERY CASE.
SO THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA THAT WAY.
AND THEN WE CAN WE, AND THEN IT WOULD JUST BE TRANSFERRED RIGHT? TO BE REVIEWED AT THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, SO THREE O'CLOCK FOR YOU IS OKAY.
UM, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE SOMEPLACE
[00:30:01]
NOTED EITHER ON THE WEBSITE, I I, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE WEBSITE, I THINK IT DOES SAY THAT WHEN THE APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE PUT IN, WELL, CAN THIS BE AN ADDED NOTE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE GONNA PUT THAT THEY HAVE TO GET IT TO US BY THREE O'CLOCK? YEP.THAT CAN BE ADDED OR IS THAT ON? YEAH, THAT BE ADDED.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING TO DISCUSS? WE'VE GOT 30 SECONDS, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON.
I THINK WE'RE ALL IN SYNC WITH IT.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE A PART OF, UM, OUR PROCEDURE EVENTUALLY, UM, OUR ATTORNEY IS GONNA BE HELPING US WITH SOME PROCEDURES FOR THE BOARD AND WE'LL WRITE IT AT THAT TIME.
SO, UM, IF THERE'S ANY, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO OPENING UP THE REGULAR MEETING.
IS IT SEVEN O'CLOCK? ACTUALLY, LITTLE SEVEN.
SO HOW
WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL, UM,
SHE NEEDED TO GO GET HER CHARGER FROM HER LAPTOP.
OH, SHE'S, SHE'LL BE BACK MOMENTARILY.
OUR FIRST, UM, CASE IS ON BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT, LLC REQUESTING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FREESTANDING CITIZEN BANK ITM INTERACTIVE TELLER MACHINE TO BE LOCATED AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
UM, AND TONIGHT WE'RE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD SOMEBODY MIND SENDING THE DOOR SOMEBODY IN THE BACK, BACK THERE.
WE DID IT THAT BACK UP JUST NORTH.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
JAMES BOG, OLI FIVE 70 DELAWARE AVENUE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK FOR PREVENTERS SUB DEVELOPMENT FROM THEIR INHOUSE COUNCILS.
I KNOW THEY PRESENTED THE PROJECT LAST MONTH, BUT I'LL JUST QUICKLY WALK THROUGH.
THIS PUBLIC HEARING BOARD IS FAMILIAR.
WELL, WITH THE BUILDING THAT WE RECENTLY GOT APPROVED, WE ARE ADDING A, UM, ITM, WHICH DOESN'T SHOW UP ON THE RIGHT HAND CORNER BY THE VERIZON PART OF THE BUILDING.
UM, THAT AREA IS APPARENTLY PAVEMENT AND ITM AS YOU KNOW, IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT ATM 'CAUSE YOU CAN ACTIVATES TELLER, AN ACTUAL TELLER.
IT TAKES UP ABOUT SIX PARKING STALLS.
IT STACKS ABOUT FOUR CARS AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN.
UM, IT OPERATES VERY SIMILAR TO AN ATM.
I KNOW THE BOARD HAS SOME QUESTIONS.
UM, IS THIS LOCATION REPLACING ANOTHER LOCATION? TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, IT'S NOT.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CUSTOMERS USE THE ITM VERSUS THE ATM FEATURES? ONLY 2.5% OF THE CUSTOMERS USE THE ITM.
MOST OF THEM JUST USE IT AS AN ATM.
UM, HOW LONG DOES THE TYPICAL ITM CUSTOMER STAY AT THE DRIVE THROUGH? AN ITM IS USUALLY AN AVERAGE OF THREE MINUTES.
AND AN ATM IS ONE MINUTE 30 SECONDS.
AND THEN HOW MANY AN HOUR DO THEY TYPICALLY EXPECT ON A, THEY DID IT ON A 15 DAY.
SO TYPICALLY PEOPLE GO DIFFERENT TIMES.
IT'S ABOUT SIX AN HOUR, SO IT'S, IT'S ONE EVERY 10 MINUTES, MAYBE TWO AT A TIME.
SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A BIG STACK.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF STACK FOR IT.
UM, I KNOW THE BOARD WANTS ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
I DIDN'T WANT TO AMEND THE PLAN TO ADD THAT, BUT WE HAVE NO PROBLEM ADDING LANDSCAPE THATS IN FRONT OF IT AND WE WILL DO THAT.
AND WE JUST WANTED TO SEE THEIR COMMENTS.
CAN I ASK ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION WHERE THE PARCEL, AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE THIS IN THE DECK, JUST CONFIRMING IS THE, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHERE THE PARCEL BOUNDARY WAS.
SO THE BUILDING, IS THIS ON THE SAME PARCEL AS THE ACTUAL HEIGHT? I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
IT'S ON A SEPARATE BUILT PARCEL.
SO I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE IT ON MAP TO GO BACK.
SO, OH YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE PARCEL LINE IS THERE.
IT'S ON A SEPARATE PARCEL AS THE, UM, IT NOT ON SIDE AS THE, UM, BUILDING.
AND YOU OWN BOTH PARCELS? WE OWN BOTH PARCELS QUESTIONS.
I GOT A QUESTION BEFORE I MOVE ON.
NOW YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANYTHING OF OFFENSE OR ANYTHING HERE, ARE YOU? NO.
LIKE THEY PUT UP AT THE, THE OTHER BANK THAT'S HAD IT COME DOWN? NO, NO, THERE'S NO OFFENSE OR ANYTHING WE'LL READ.
DENNIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE, UH, PUBLIC NOTICE? SURE.
LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARING
[00:35:01]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR A FREESTANDING CITIZENS BANK INTERACTIVE TELLER MACHINE TO BE LOCATED AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 20TH, 2024 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL.
SO AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE DO HAVE A NEW PROCEDURE, AND I'D LIKE TO READ, A PUBLIC HEARING IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SHARE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU ARE IMPACTED BY A PROJECT.
A THREE MINUTE RULE WILL APPLY DURING A PUBLIC HEARING TO ENSURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS ARE HEARD DURING A REASONABLE HOUR.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD.
ALL STATEMENTS MADE DURING A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL AS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE PROJECT SENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE APPLICANT.
AND IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS CASE THIS EVENING? CALLING FOR A SECOND TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON BEON DEVELOPMENT? LLC AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE, CALLING FOR A THIRD TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? SEEING NON BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? WHO'S IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? I'M SORRY? PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ENGINEERING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NOTHING TO ADD.
BOARD MEMBERS? I JUST WANNA SAY I, I LIKE THIS, THIS PARCEL.
I LIKE PROJECTS THAT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE ALONG THE SIDEWALK AND THIS DOES THAT.
SO ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA DO IN THIS PARKING LOT? JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND, PLEASE.
I'LL, I WILL OFFICIALLY CLOSE THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS AGAIN IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.
IF WE WERE GONNA DO RESOLUTIONS, I WOULD ASK THAT WE ADD A CONDITION SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN BEFORE US, THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BEING APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH A REVIEW, AN OPT OPTION TO COMMENT BY THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD, BE A CONDITION ON THAT.
WE AGREE TO THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN, BE REVIEWED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
WE, I'VE, WE'VE DONE THEM WHERE INSTEAD OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE HAD THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD APPROVE IT IN GENERAL IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TOO.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.
COMFORTABLE WITH, YEAH, I THINK IN THIS CASE, YEAH.
'CAUSE I MEAN THEY HAVE, RIGHT, BECAUSE QUALIFIED ONE, THEY'VE GOT A LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPER ON THAT CAB.
SO EITHER WAY I'D BE OKAY EITHER WAY.
AND THE MOST LIKELY ONES TO PROVIDE THE CABINET, WHERE IS WELL, WE'VE GOT THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DISTRICT.
IS SHE SHAKING HER HEAD YES OR NO ABOUT THIS? LEONA? LEONA, YES.
WOULD THE CAB BE OKAY WITH APPROVING THE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THIS, UH, TELLER MACHINE? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
UM, WE'LL GET IT, WE'LL GET THE PLAN.
THEY NEED TO PREPARE IT AND THEY'LL SUBMIT IT FOR, UH, REVIEW.
AND JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, UM, WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING RECENTLY JUST STARTED WAS, UM, I SEND IT TO
SO I I DO WORK WITH THE CAB SO IT GETS SENT THE CAB ANYWAYS.
YEAH, I MEAN, WHICHEVER WAY IT WORKS, BUT JUST SPARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
UM, IS THERE A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LETTER DATE? UH, THREE 15.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE WE DON'T NEED TO CEASE TO OFFER DARK SKY COMPLIANT, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THAT'S IN YOUR LETTER.
NO, THERE NO, THERE'S NO LIGHTING.
USUALLY YOU HAVE IT AS A SEPARATE CONDITION IN YOUR, UM, RESOLUTIONS, BUT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL, BUT I, THERE'S NO LINE, NO ADDITIONAL LINE.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I'M GONNA HAVE MY VICE CHAIR, MR. DAN READ, DO THE RESOLUTION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUD NURSE AND ITM IN THE TOWN HALL PLAZA, WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVING SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM BENTON, LLC REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A FREESTANDING ITM INTERACTIVE TELE MACHINE AT 6,006,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE.
AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT AND NO FURTHER REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
[00:40:01]
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN ADVISORY TOWN'S ADVISORY BOARDS, AND WHEREAS A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON THE PROPOSED ACTION ON MARCH 20TH, 2024 WITH NO COMMENTS BEING RECEIVED AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD PROVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED ITM TO BE LOCATED AT 6,000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED 3 15 20 24 2.
THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE CAP.
WHAT, DO YOU GUYS MAKE EDITS SHARE POINT AS WE WERE DOING IT? I DID.
I JUST NOTICED THAT THEY RE RETAINED ALREADY.
UM, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY, UM, MEMBERS SELECT SECOND BY MEMBER MCCORMICK.
OKAY, OUR NEXT CASE IS HAMBURG RETAIL LLC REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NINE MINUTE MULTI-FAMILY GROUP PROJECT, UM, NINE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT 4 1 0 0 ST.
UM, AND I'LL LET THE, I'LL LET MR. HOPKINS GIVE US THE BACKGROUND.
SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE PRESENTED THIS TO YOU MOST RECENTLY, TWO WEEKS AGO.
AT THAT MEETING, YOU AUTHORIZED SCHEDULING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING AND THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION YOU WANTED, WHICH WAS A LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH WE'VE NOW SUBMITTED.
SO BASICALLY ALL WE'RE ASKING YOU THIS EVENING IS, UM, APPROVED THE SITE PLAN AND SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS.
WE DID DO A BRIEF POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
I DON'T NEED TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH IT, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND ESPECIALLY, UM, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, I DO WANNA NOTE, AS YOU'LL RECALL, THE REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT STARTED ALL THE WAY BACK IN JANUARY OF 2023.
ULTIMATELY, YOU ISSUED A SECRET DETERMINATION DURING THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 20TH.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED A USE VARIANCE AND THE THREE REQUESTED SETBACK VARIANCES DURING THIS MEETING EARLIER THIS MONTH.
SO WE THINK WE'RE FINALLY IN A POSITION 15 MONTHS INTO THIS RELATIVELY SMALL PROJECT THAT WE CAN RECEIVE APPROVAL.
AND I DO WANT TO NOTE ONE OTHER THING.
WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME.
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A MAP COVER WITH ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
WE'RE NOT CREATING RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR SALE.
THIS HAD ZONING OR THIS WAS A ZONING BOARD, RIGHT? THIS WAS ZONING BOARD.
I'M GETTING CONFUSED BY ALL THE YEAH, I DON'T IF YOU WANT CALL BRANDON PRESENTATION THAT HAD A PANIC THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER ONE, BUT WELL, TONIGHT WE'RE ONLY DOING, HANG ON.
SO TONIGHT WE'RE DOING A PUBLIC HEARING.
TONIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THEY DID, YOU WERE ISSUED A VARIANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD.
WE WERE ISSUED ON MARCH 5TH A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS IN THE AREA VARIANCES.
AND WE DISCUSSED THAT WHEN WE WERE HERE TWO WEEKS AGO.
SO WHAT WE REALIZED IS THAT YOU HAD NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING YET.
SO THEY DID RECEIVE THEIR APPROVAL FROM, UM, THE ZBA AND TONIGHT WE ARE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH THE SITE PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL.
UM, SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON NO SITE PLAN? I JUST WANNA NOTE SITE PLAN AND MINOR SUBDIVISION TOOL, SITE PLAN AND MINOR SUB, NOT PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE.
IT'S THE SIZE UNDER YOUR CODE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE MAP COVERS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THAT NOTICE LEGAL NOTICE TOWN HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY HAMBURG RETAIL LLC TO CONSTRUCT A NINE UNIT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AT 4 1 0 0 ST.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS BE HELD ON MARCH 20TH, 2024 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL.
WOULD YOU TWO LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT CALLING FOR A SECOND TIME? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO MAKE COMMENT ON HAMBURG RETAIL LLC AT 4 1 0 0 ST.
DO WE HAVE SIGNUP SHEET? I NO.
YOUR NAME PLEASE, BUT YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE.
AND UM, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS WITHIN TWO MILES OF MY HOME.
AND BASICALLY WHAT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS, ORIGINALLY WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS INTRODUCED, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE GAS STATION ON ST.
FRANCIS DRIVE WAS GOING TO BE REHABILITATED AND THE GAS TANKS WERE GOING TO BE REMOVED.
[00:45:01]
APOLOGIZE THAT I DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND IF THAT HAS BEEN THE CASE, BUT I SENSE THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS TAKING THE GAS STATION AWAY FROM THE APARTMENTS.AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO STATE AS A, UM, PRIVATE CITIZEN.
AND I FEEL THAT ORIGINALLY WHEN JOHN HAWKINS PRESENTED THIS AND SAID THEY WOULD CLEAN UP THE GAS STATION, I WAS SO IMPRESSED AND PLEASED AND IT SEEMS VERY DISCOURAGING IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE AND IF THEY WANNA SUBDIVIDE AND LEAVE THAT OFF FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO, UM, MAKE COMMENT CALLING FOR THE FINAL TIME TO, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON HAMBURG RETAIL LLC AT 4 1 0 0 ST.
SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? NO.
CAN I RESPOND TO THE ONE QUESTION? HANG ON.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NOTHING.
YES, MR. SO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC PREVIOUSLY, THE FACT THAT THERE IS CONTAMINATION ON THE GAS STATION PARCEL, THE TANKS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED, BUT THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL CONTAMINATION.
WE'RE AWARE OF IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SEEKING MINOR SUBDIVISION, THAT CLEANUP WILL OCCUR.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
THAT IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT AND I THINK TOM CAN CONFIRM THE STATEMENT.
SO I'M, I JUST DIDN'T WANNA GO OVER EVERYTHING WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, BUT THE CONTAMINATION WILL BE CLEANED UP.
UM, SO WE NEED TO DECIDE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE FURTHER THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS NEED ON THIS PROJECT TO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE RESOLUTIONS FOR TONIGHT.
WAS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CAB ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN? OH, THERE YOU GO.
DID THEY GET IT YET? UM, GET IT? NO, THEY HAVE, HAVE NOT RECEIVED THOSE.
THEY, I WOULD PROPOSE WE HAVE THE SAME CONDITION TO A RESOLUTION THEN THAT ANY, AGAIN, THAT ANY, UH, LANDSCAPING PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CAM.
DID WE, WE ALREADY HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN.
I WOULD SAY WE THAT THEY, THAT WE REFERRED TO THEM, BUT NOT ANY APPROVED BY THEM.
DO YOU HAVE YOU WANT IT THE SAME AS THE LAST ONE? NO, THE LAST ONE WE SAID NOT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUT THE CAB.
THIS ONE I'M SAYING PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND REVIEW BY THE CAB.
OKAY, SO PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.
LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, SO WE'VE ALREADY REVIEWED IT.
UM, AS PART OF CYCLING, YOU'LL NOTICE THERE'S A CONDITION ABOUT SIDEWALK ONLY FROM CONNECTION TO THIS EXISTING BUS STOP.
CAN YOU PUT IT UP ON THE UH, I MEAN THE BUS STOP IS ON THE SITE, BUT ACTUALLY WE CONDITIONS IN THE FOLDER.
IF YOU GO TO MEETING MATERIALS, TODAY'S DATE, THEN THERE'S, OH, IT'S NOT UNDER THE QUICK LINK.
WHERE'S IT? CAN YOU PULL THE POWERPOINT, JOSH? YEAH.
OH, I'M LOOKING AT THE, I CLICKED THE WRONG BEFORE WE COULD OPEN THE POWERPOINT.
TAMMY, DO YOU HAVE THE DATE OF THE, UM, ENGINEERING LETTER? SAME DATE? THREE
SO OUR RESOLUTION SAYS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL.
DO WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT TO MINI SUBDIVISION? YOU WANNA GO WITH SITE PLAN? JOSH ALSO.
[00:50:01]
IT'S STILL CINDY.YEAH, IT'S ALSO THE, THERE WE GO.
THE PRELIMINARY CLASS ALSO IN THE VERY LAST PARAGRAPH.
AND IT COULD BE FURTHER RESOLVED.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO NO, YEAH, WE'RE TALK ABOUT WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS.
SO DREW RECOMMENDED DREW THE SITE PLAN AND SO THERE'S AN EXISTING BUS STOP SOMEWHERE ON THIS PROPERTY.
I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY TO FT.
SO GOING SOUTH, AMENDED HER SITE PLAN AND WANTED TO BRING TO THE FOR AS WHETHER OR NOT YOU DECIDE, I WANTED TO PUT SO ON THE OTHER SIDE CONNECTED TO THAT BUS SPOT, IF ANYONE GO FROM THERE AND THEN TO THE LIKE CENTER OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE SO THAT IN THE EVENT THIS GETS DEVELOPED THAT CORNER.
THAT, THAT, SO WE WOULD LIKE, I WOULD AGREE WITH HAVING THAT CONNECTS TO THE PARK AND FRONT IN ST.
FRANCIS OR SO YOU WERE WE WOULD ADD WE THE LAKE SHORE EXTENSION.
AND IF ANYONE'S ABLE TO PULL IT UP IN SHAREPOINT, THERE IS A LITTLE SCREENSHOT OF THE PARK AND RIDE THAT'S REFERENCED AERIAL.
IT'S ALSO, I THINK AND WHAT THEY JUST HANDED OUT TO US THAT'S, GO BACK A COUPLE SLIDES.
SO WE'RE SAYING ALONG OUR FRONTAGE ON LAKE SURE.
SO IS THERE ROAD THAT DIDN'T EXIST? BUS STOP IS NO.
SO THERE'D BE, THERE'D BE A GAP OF A FEW FEET, BUT YOU PROBABLY COULD.
SO AT SOME POINT IN TIME I THINK THEY COULD, OR ACTUALLY PARKING RIDE, I THINK THEY'D BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO IT AND THEN IF SOMETHING COMES IN AT THAT, BUT THE CAR DEALERSHIP RIGHT.
THEY COULD EXTEND IT ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER.
SO IT PROVIDES A SAFE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO STAND BEFORE THEY CROSS THE STREET AS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO AND FROM, UH, THE OTHER FACILITIES OVER THERE.
SO THE, THAT'S THE BREWERY RIGHT OVER THERE, RIGHT? PINK'S PLACE IN THE BREWERY? YES.
PEOPLE DO PARK IN THAT PARK AND RIDE IN ORDER TO GO TO, YES.
SO WE HAVE SIDEWALKS ON LAKESHORE EXTENSION, UM, TO CONNECTING THE SCHOOL, THE BUS STOP.
ANYTHING ELSE TO THE NFTA PARK RIDE TO THE NFTA? IT'S PARK AND RIDE.
THE ONE BULLET SAYS CLEANUP CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM FORMER USE AS A GAS STATION.
I THINK WE CAN PUT THAT AS A CONDITION TO THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEY'RE OFFERED TO DO IT ANYWAY, BUT WE CAN JUST YEAH, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
IT'S A CONCERN RESIDENT OF RACE.
SO COPY THE BULLET THAT THEY PUT ON THEIR SITE PLAN ON THE PRESENTATION.
CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM FORMER USE AT THE GAS STATION.
I THINK IF, IF WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALK ISSUE, WE JUST TALKING WITH CHRIS HERE.
UM, THERE, THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGING GRADES ALONG LAKESHORE RATHER MORE US IN COORDINATION, I THINK WITH DOT IN TERMS OF THE PLACEMENT OF THAT SIDEWALK.
'CAUSE THERE'S A, A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL DRAINAGE DITCH, UH, RUNNING ALONG LAKE SHORE AND THEN RETURNING INTO OUR PROPERTY THAT WE'LL BE CONNECTING INTO.
UM, ONE'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE ROAD.
DOES THAT MEAN PARTS OF THE SIDEWALK MIGHT HAVE TO BE ON IT SITE? DOES THAT SENSE THE DOT IS GONNA TELL US WHERE IT'S GONNA GO.
CAN WE SAY SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY DOT? I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE ISSUE AGAIN? SO ALONG LAKESHORE ROAD STATE HIGHWAY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE DOT'S OKAY WITH THAT.
AND THEY GRANT US THE REQUIRED APPROVAL.
SO WE'D SAY ASK IF THAT BE SUBJECT TO A CONDITION REQUIRING DOT APPROVAL.
BUT IF DOT DOESN'T APPROVE IT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THERE'S STILL SPACE TO PUT IT ON YOUR PROPERTY.
I THINK WHAT CHRIS IS SAYING, HE DOESN'T WANNA HAVE TO PUT IT SOMEPLACE WHERE IT TO START PIPING A GIANT DITCH AND GET INTO A DRAINAGE STUDY
[00:55:01]
OF THE WHOLE AREA OF THE TOWN.IT MIGHT RESULT IN AMOUNT, GET PIPE IN A DITCH.
I MEAN IT'S, IT'S HARD TO GET FROM THAT SIDE TO ANYTHING WALKING SIDEWALK AND PIPE IN THE DITCH MIGHT MAKE IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER.
YEAH, BUT IF THE N-N-F-T-A DOESN'T APPROVE IT, THEN WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? JUST GO DO THE END OF HIS PROPERTY? YES.
THE IT'LL JUST COME IN FROM THE ROAD RIGHT AWAY AND BE HAVE TO, WE PUT IT ON OUR PROPERTY AND GRAND EASEMENTS.
OH, I THINK WHAT CHRIS IS SAYING, JUST LEAVE SOME FLUX YOU WANT.
WHAT'S THAT OUTLINE? WE, WE, WE'VE ACTUALLY COME ACROSS A FEW SITES RECENTLY.
DOT WON'T LET US WIPE THEIR DITCH.
THEY SAY THAT DITCH IS FOR THEIR STORAGE.
SO IN THE EVENT THE DOT WON'T APPROVE IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEN WE'D HAVE TO MAKE PROVISIONS TO PUT IT ON OUR SITE AND EASEMENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREET VIEW THAT THIS IS PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.
IN THE RESOLUTION I WOULD ADD, UM, SUBJECT TO REMOVING
THAT SOUND GOOD? YEAH, I THINK SO.
YOU, YOUR LAWYER WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION.
I JUST THINK'S WHAT SAYING CONDITIONED YOUR, UH, DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? YEAH.
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY DOT TO CONFIRM THE PLACEMENT.
THEN IF DOT SAYS NO TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WRITING IT THAT WAY, DOES THAT MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A SIDEWALK? NO, I THINK SHE SAVED IT WITH THE CONDITION OF, TO CONFIRM THE PLACEMENT ON THE SIDEWALK.
SO IF DOT SAYS NO, IT'S GOING ON YOUR PROPERTY.
SO I WOULD SAY TO CONFIRM THAT, THAT, THAT THAT HAPPENED, I WOULD SAY TO CONFIRM THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK EITHER WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR ON THE PROJECT SITE.
CONFIRM THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG LAKE SHORE ROAD, EITHER IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR ON THE PROJECT SITE.
AND THAT'LL GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY.
MAKE SURE YOU STILL GET THE SIDEWALK EITHER IN RIGHT AWAY OR PROJECT SITE.
AND FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG LAKE SHORE, EITHER IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR PROJECT SITE OR ON THE PROJECT SITE.
THEY DIDN'T TELL ME I HAD TO TAKE SHORTHAND TO BE THE CHAIR, SO I'LL WORK ON IT.
WELL, YOUR GOOD NEWS IS IS THAT I SEE JOSH IN THERE TYPING AWAY IN THE I KNOW, BUT I GOTTA READ IT.
WELL ACTUALLY I GUESS I, I AM GONNA HAVE TO READ THIS.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU DEC HANDWRITING? HMM? YOU MAKE DENNIS DECIPHER YOUR HANDWRITING? MY HANDWRITING IS PUT DOWN TOO BAD.
I MAY, I MAY JUST GIVE IT TO DAN AGAIN.
WHAT ABOUT THE, UM, THE MINI SUBDIVISION APPROVAL? THAT'S A SEPARATE RESOLUTION.
MINOR SUBDIVISION, NOT MANY, MANY
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER ON THAT ONE THOUGH? OR DO WE WANT VOTE ON THIS ONE AND THEN DISCUSS THAT? UM, THE OTHER ONE I SEEN, KATIE THERE'S NO ENGINEERING COMMENTS FOR A SUBDIVISION, RIGHT? FOR THAT ONE? NO.
AND TYPICALLY I DON'T COMMENT ON JUST TWO LOTS SUBDIVISION.
SO THERE BE NO ION, DOESN'T MATTER WHICH ORDER.
NO, WE WANT THE CONDITION TO WAIVE THE MAP.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON THERE IN THE CLEANUP CONTAMINATION.
THAT SHOULD BE ON THE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION AS WELL.
NOW LET'S SEE HOW I CAN BUTCHER THIS IN THE, UM, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 4 1 0 0 ST.
FRANCIS, WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR HAMBURG RETAIL LLCA PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NINE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT AT 4 1 0 0 ST.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 20TH, 2024.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE TOWN CODE, HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES, AND HAS RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORTS FROM THE APPLICANT.
[01:00:01]
WHEREAS THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A POSITIVE COASTAL CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SHORELINE REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE, AND THE PLANNING BOARD ISSUED THEIR COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE OF PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUED A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2023.AND WHEREAS THE APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED THE REQUIRED USE VARIANCE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION ON MARCH 5TH, 2024.
NOW THERE ARE THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 15TH, 2024.
ANY, UM, ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT SIDEWALKS ON LAKESHORE EXTENSION RUN FROM PROPERTY TO THE NFT PARK AND RIDE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION RESULTING FORMER, I THINK NO, WENT ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE ON LAKE SHORE.
THEY CAN'T BUILD IT ON THE NFT.
SO ON LAKE SHORE EXTENSION THROUGH NO, ON THE ENTIRE, THE ENTIRE FRONT ENGINE, THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE PROJECT, SIDEWALKS ON LAKESHORE EXTENSION, ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE DRIVEWAY, ALL LAKESHORE ROAD GOING TO MISSISSIPPI.
SITE FRONT, UH, UH, ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION RESULTING FORMER USE AS THE GAS STATION CONFIRMED THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG LAKESHORE ROAD, EITHER IN THE, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PRO OR ON THE PROJECT SITE.
IN THE EVENT THAT DOT DOES NOT GIVE APPROVAL, IT'S, DO I HAVE A SECOND ANYBODY? OR ARE WE NOT, ARE WE HUNG UP ON THAT LAST ONE? I THINK THERE'S TWO OTHER CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD BE ON THERE.
YOU WANT ME TO READ 'EM? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
UH, LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH REVIEW FROM THE CAB, UH, AND THEN CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM FORMER USE AS A GAS STATION.
YOU GOT THAT ONE? YEAH, I ALREADY GOT THAT ONE.
SO, SO THE LANDSCAPING APPROVED.
AND THAT DOT LANGUAGE I FOUND TO BE CONFUSING I YES.
SIDEWALKS WE REQUIRED ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE TO CONNECT TO THE NFT PARK AND RIDE AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY A NEW YORK STATE DOT TO CONFIRM THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG LAKE SHORE ROAD, EITHER IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR ON THE SITE PROJECT SITE.
I DON'T DO, I'LL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT.
WE NEED TO SECOND THE AMENDMENT.
ROBERT'S RULES PARLIAMENTARIAN ON THE TABLE.
NO, I KNOW, BUT SECOND THE AMENDMENT.
NO, I JUST, YOU NEED A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT.
A WAIT, I THINK WE NEED A WORD IT STOP.
IT SAYS SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE TO CONNECT TO THE NFT PARK.
WHY DON'T WE SAY SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE ALONG LAKE SHORE ROAD.
THAT'S WHAT I HAD, BUT THEY TOLD ME KNOW NO, YOU YOU SAID FROM THE NFTA TO YEAH.
NO, I SAID ON THE LAKE SHORE EXTENSION TO THE NFTA PARKING NO.
NOW SAID TO THE NFTA PARK AND RIDE WAS, IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
SO IT'S SAYS SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE ALONG LAKESHORE ROAD CONNECTS TO THE NFTA PARKING RIDE.
I WOULD GET RID OF THE WE'RE GETTING RID OF PERIOD AT LAKESHORE ROAD, PERIOD AT LAKESHORE ROAD.
JOSH, I'M SEEING YOU TYPE HERE PERIOD AT LAKESHORE ROAD AND WE'LL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY NEW YORK STATE DOT TO CONFIRM PLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK, EITHER IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR ON THE PROJECT SITE.
SO WE GONNA GET RID OF THAT SECOND ALONG, ALONG THE SHORT ROAD.
FIVE PEOPLE EDITING A PARAGRAPH AT THE SAME TIME IS WAY BETTER THAN THAT'S ALL JUST YELLING AT EACH OTHER.
SO THERE WE HAVE THE DO HANG ON.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? I'M SECOND.
WE NEED TO SECOND THE AMENDMENT.
SECOND THE AMENDMENT BEFORE WE SECOND.
YOU HAVE TO, TO SECOND THE AMENDMENT FIRST BEFORE WE DO THE RESOLUTION.
WE HAVE TO AMEND IT BEFORE YOU CAN.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? BUT NOBODY APPROVED THE AMENDMENT YET.
[01:05:02]
SHE THE SECOND.ALRIGHT, SO WE GOT THE AMENDMENT ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT.
TO NOW YOU NEED TO SECOND THE RESOLUTION, DAN.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED, SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THAT WAS PAINFUL.
AND WE WILL A COPY OF THE CONDITIONS TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT WE JUST APPROVED.
RIGHT? WELL WE WOULD DO THAT ANYWAYS.
OKAY, MOVING FORWARD, WE'VE GOT THE MINOR SUB, UM, DIVISION APPROVAL FOR 4 1 0 0 SAFE.
FRANCIS, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT? WE JUST HAVE THE APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON THE COMMENTS OF THE TOWN ENGINEERING.
WERE WE MOVING THAT? THERE'S NO LETTER BRANDING, CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION RESULTS PERFORM USE OF THE, SO THE SAME LINE NUMBER FIVE ON THE SAME TIME.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE HAVING.
NO, LEAVING THE FILING BUT NOT COVERED.
WE GOT THAT ALREADY IN THE, SO THERE'S NOT A CONDITION.
UM, USUALLY IT'S BEEN A CONDITION IN THE PAST.
IS IT? DO YOU WANT SOME, SOMEONE WHO'S GOT TIME ONE AT A TIME.
DO YOU WANT SOMEONE WHO'S GOT ELECTRONICALLY TO READ IT FOR YOU? NO, I GOT, I DID YOU ALL CHANGE THE MINOR SUBDIVISION? YEAH.
SO ARE YOU OFFERING TO DO THE RESOLUTION? I JUST GUESS I AM.
NOW WE'RE DOING THE SUB, THE MINOR SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM HAMBURG RETAIL LLC, THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT FOR TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AT 4,100 ST.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND REVISIONS TO THE APPLICATION AT MEETINGS FROM JANUARY OF 2023 TO MARCH OF 2024.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES, THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.
AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON 3 20 20 24 AND RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE HAMBURG RETAIL LLC TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM THE FORMER USE AS A GAS STATION, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLA AND FILING OF A MAT COVER.
AS LONG AS THE TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT, AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE MINOR SUBDIVISION ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE MINOR SUBDIVISION.
WAS IT FLAG? ASK ONE QUESTION.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
UM, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? WELL, THE SAID SUBJECT TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AGREE.
THERE'S NO NEED TO FILE MAP COVER.
I THINK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID TONIGHT.
SO WHY DO WE NEED THAT LEFT? I MEAN WELL, SHE SAID SHE SAID SHE WILL, SHE WILL FOLLOW UP ACCORDINGLY.
SO, BUT THERE'S NO NEED TO, I'M JUST SAYING CAN'T WE JUST, I ELIMINATE THAT LANGUAGE? NO, WE, UNLESS YOU WANT US, ROBERT.
TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE.
I DON'T, I DON'T SHE'S SAYING THAT THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNING OFF THE PLA THAT SHE DOESN'T NEED TO SIGN OFF OF IT.
DO YOU WANT US TO LEAVE IT IN? LEAVE IT IN IF YOU WANT TO STICK IT OUT TO YOUR DECISION.
WELL, DOES SOMEBODY WANNA AMEND IT? NO.
DO YOU WANT AMEND IT? WE'VE ALREADY HIT OUR AMEND FOR THE QUESTION.
WELL, SHE'S ALREADY SO SHE JUST, LET'S JUST WE'LL LET IT GO THROUGH.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND? WELL, YOU'RE CORRECT.
I'M SORRY IF IF SOMEONE'S ASKING THAT IT BE AMENDED AND, AND SHE MAKES A, A MOTION.
I MEAN IF IT GETS SECONDED THEN IT'S RIGHT.
OH YEAH, BUT WE'RE NOT, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S MADE A MOTION TO THIS THAT, SO WE JUST HAVE THE RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE OR SHE ASK KIM BACK.
SO AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION WE HAVE, ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF THE, ON THE PLA DO YOU HAVE TO SIGN OFF OF IT? SO, MINOR SUBDIVISION.
FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION? NO.
SO I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THIS RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE LAST PART OF THE SENTENCE.
ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF THE PLAN.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA SECOND THAT AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT.
THE AMENDMENT'S BEEN APPROVED.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION? WELL, NO.
SO COURSE WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT
[01:10:01]
WE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT? OH MY GOD, YES.AYE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT? AYE.
ARE WE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION, BRAD, WITH THE AMENDMENT? YOU NEED A SECOND FOR THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED, RIGHT? I'LL CHECK IT THEN.
OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
IS THERE WHAT? YOU DID IT? OH YEAH, WE GOT IT.
WELL, DENNIS USUALLY SAYS THE SECOND HAS TO BE AS AMENDED TO, SO THAT'S WHY I DID.
I WAS JUST GIVING HIM A HARD TIME.
ALL THOSE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
AS PAINFUL AS THAT WAS PASSED.
I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GONNA DO WARRANT PEACE ON AN, ON A RESOLUTION.
EARHART DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL ON A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF PLEASANT AVENUE.
UM, SBL 180 2 0.19 DASH THREE DASH TWO BETWEEN 3 6 7 6 AND 5 4 1.
CHRIS WOOD WITH KERMAN WOOD DESIGN.
WE'RE THE ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECTS.
UH, WE WERE HERE LAB MEETINGS AND I THINK YOU GUYS, UH, REQUEST SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING OF THE SOIL, WHICH I PROVIDED, UH, TO THE BOARD.
AND THEN I GUESS THERE WAS THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT SECRET HAD BE DONE AGAIN.
AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU GUYS FOUND THE SECRET RESOLUTION FROM THE, THE LAST TIME THIS WAS PROPOSED AT THE SUBDIVISION FROM 2019, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND, BUT I, SO DO WE HAVE TO DO SECRET AGAIN OR IS THAT SUFFICE? KEEP IT GOING.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION.
UM, SO NO, WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO SEEKER AGAIN.
IT WAS AN EGG DECK BACK THEN AND UM, IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
I HAVE A, SORRY, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
LET ME JUST GET THROUGH IT AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH EVERYTHING.
SO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? UH, NO.
I WOULD LIKE TO LIKE YOU SAY, GO OVER THE SECRET, UH, PART OF IT, BUT NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT.
THE SEEKER PART? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YEAH.
BOARD MEMBER MCCORMICK, WHAT DO YOU HAVE? I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REDO THE ENTIRE SEEKER PROCESS, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WE NEED TO ISSUE A FINDINGS THAT WE THINK THAT THE PRIOR SEEKER REVIEW WAS CONSISTENT AND ISSUE AN ADDITIONAL DETERMINATION OR IN A FINDING STATEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO FULLY REOPEN THE RECORD BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL THAT DATA UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER NEW DATA THAT WE NEED IN ADDITION TO THAT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE ASKED FOR IT BEYOND WHAT
SO IT WOULD BE A SECRET DETERMINATION, RIGHT? THAT JOSH NOT WELL IT'S, IT'S VOTING THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE LAST ONE, BUT WE'D HAVE TO, I THINK WE HAVE TO.
I THINK IT'S, THIS IS CONSISTENT.
WHY DON'T WE LET JOSH OFFER HIS INPUT? YES.
BUT WE DO HAVE TO ISSUE FINDINGS.
FINDING, FINDING THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH US.
AND SO WE HAD TO, TO THIS MEETING TO GET THAT DIRECTION.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PREPARE.
WE DON'T HAVE REALLY THAT, SO WE PREPARE THAT FOR KNOW SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT.
DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING NEXT AND THEN TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING AND TELL JOSH THAT I NEED HELP.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT HERE.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER? ANYTHING WE COULD SO WE COULD WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MEETING.
WE COULD POTENTIALLY APPROVE IT NEXT MEETING, CORRECT.
BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE THE RESOLUTION.
DEPENDING ON HOW THE PUBLIC HEARING GOES.
THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, RIGHT? OBVIOUSLY.
SO YOU ARE AUTHORIZING US TO NOT ONLY PRODUCE THE FINDINGS, BUT ALSO PRODUCE APPROVAL RESOLUTION,
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? TOS ALL I GOT.
SO WE'RE GONNA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE MS. BEFORE MCKAY? DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE SECRET? SO YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? YEP.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UM, WE HAVE TO TABLE, WE CAN TABLE IT FOR APRIL 3RD.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVED TO THE SECOND.
FINALLY, I HEAR FROM THE END OF THE TABLE.
UM, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.
ALL THOSE TO UM, TABLE THE MEETING UNTIL OR TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL APRIL 3RD.
[01:15:05]
SO OUR NEXT CASE IS ALFA SHORES IS THE APPLICANT HERE.BEFORE WE GO ON, I HAVE A STATEMENT, A PREPARED STATEMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO READ AND THEN YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND LET US KNOW WHERE YOU STAND IN FEBRUARY OF 2023.
ALCHEMY APPEARED BEFORE THE AMBER PLANNING BOARD DURING THE WORK SESSION TO PRESENT AN IDEA FOR PROPERTY THAT THEY HAD PURCHASED ON HOOVER ROAD.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION, IT WOULD BE RUN IN ADDITION TO A CURRENT BUSINESS OWNED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE VILLAGE OF HAMBURG KNOWN AS ALNY.
THE, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED FROM THEN THE CURRENT M TWO TO NEW ZONING DESIGNATION CREATED BY THE TOWN BOARD PROPOSED AS MU ONE.
DURING THE APPLICATION'S PRESENTATION, SORRY, DURING THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PROPOSED USE WAS PRESENTED AS AN EVENT CENTER CATERING TO PRIVATE EVENTS.
A SUBSEQUENT MEETING TOOK PLACE BEFORE PLANNING BOARD APRIL 5TH, 2023.
UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF THE APPLICANT DID NOT RETURN ASSIGNED SEAF UNTIL APRIL 17TH, 2023.
UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, BECAUSE THE PAPERWORK WAS THEN PRESENTED TIMELY TO THE TOWN BOARD AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE PLANNING AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THAT SEEKER LEAD AGENCY NOTIFICATION BY THE TOWN BOARD DID NOT OCCUR.
ADDITIONAL MEETINGS WERE HELD BY THE, BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 3RD, 2023 AND JUNE 21ST, 2023.
AGAIN, ON BOTH OCCASIONS THE APPLICANT PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE SPACE WOULD LY BE USED FOR FOR HOSTING OF PRIVATE EVENTS BASED ON THE PRESENTATIONS FROM MAY 3RD AND SPECIFICALLY JUNE 21ST, WHERE THE ASSURANCES WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WOULD ONLY ASK TO USE THE SITE FOR EVENT SPACE.
THE PLANNING BOARD MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THE MATTER WAS THEN RETURNED TO THE HAMBURG TOWN BOARD FOR THEIR FURTHER REVIEW.
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONSULTANT, THE SEF FORMS OVERSIGHT WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL DECEMBER.
NOTIFIED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, THEY COMPLETED A SEEKER REVIEW DATED SEVEN SEVEN 2023 FOR A PROJECT CONSISTING FOR A PLACEMENT OF CLEAN BEACH SAND PLANTING, BEACH GRASS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEVATED WALKWAY CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE PLAN DATED MARCH 27TH, 2023.
UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF BASED ON THE EMAILS TO AND FROM THE APPLICANT ON DECEMBER 10TH, THE DAY BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD MEETING, THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THE NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE HAVING BEEN MADE.
PART OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 11TH, 2023 TOWN BOARD MEETING, A CERTAIN PHRASE ABOUT OUTDOOR USE WAS REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION.
HOWEVER, OTHER LANGUAGE REMAINED IN THE RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY, EXPRESSLY ONLY ALLOWING INDOOR USE.
ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES THE RESOLUTION WAS DESCRIBED PASSED BY BY VOTE ON DECEMBER 11TH, 2023.
THE RESOLUTION WHICH CONTAINED THE NO OUTDOOR USE PHRASE STILL INTACT IS FACT ON THE PAPERWORK FILED WITH THE STATE, STATE OF NEW YORK BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2023.
THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY ALLOWS INDOOR USE ONLY BASED ON THE INFORMATION JUST LAID OUT.
THE PLANNING PLANNING BOARD IS CURRENTLY CHARGED WITH DOING ITS OWN SEEKER, INDEPENDENT SEEKER DETERMINATION AND PSYCH PLAN REVIEW.
SINCE THE LANGUAGE AND THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY, PARAGRAPH NUMBER 10, CHARGES THE PLANNING BOARD WITH ENSURING THAT THE SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SAID RESOLUTION.
IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REIN, RESTATE THAT IT SAID 10 USE IS FOR INDOOR ALCOHOL USE ONLY CONSISTENT WITH THE EVENTS CENTER IS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE APPROPRIATE LEISURE LICENSURE TO CONFIRM THAT SAID USE, THEN THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD PROCEED WITH ITS SECRET DETERMINATION IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONTINUE WITH ITS MOST RECENT STATED PLAN OF A PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR A TAVERN ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH ENCOMPASSES, ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE PREMISES AND NOT JUST LIMIT TO INDOOR USE IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT ACCORDING TO THE ZONING LAW CHAPTER 2 82 80 DASH 4 0 6 C, IF THE OWNER WISHES TO CHANGE THE PLAN OR CHANGE AN ADDITIONAL USE, A NEW REZONING APPLICATION WOULD NEED, NEED TO BE SUBMITTED.
[01:20:02]
AND YOU ARE, MY NAME IS ED MURPHY.UM, THE INFORMATION, UH, THAT YOU PROVIDED TODAY IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN.
UM, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THE LAW THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE.
UM, THAT WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO ME EVEN THOUGH I REQUESTED NOT FOR THE, UM, SO AT THIS POINT, UM, I NEED TO SEE THAT OBVIOUSLY I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
UM, SO WITH THE, UH, WORDS OF PERMISSION I HAD ASKED THIS TO BE TABLED FOR, FOR THE NEXT MEETING, SO I COULD TAKE A LOOK.
AND AT THAT POINT YOU HAVE MY POSITION, BUT THAT WAS WITHOUT VIEWING THAT PARTICULAR 'CAUSE.
IT'S CLEARLY DIFFERENT THAN THE STAMPED MINUTES THAT I RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST.
WELL, IN ALL HONESTY, AND I WANNA SAY THIS, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, I'M SPEAKING AS THE HEAD OF THE PLANNING BOARD, OKAY? FOR, UH, THIS IS MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW.
THE TOWN OF HAMBURG IS NOT HERE TO DELAY ANY PROJECT.
IT'S NOT INTENTIONALLY CAUSING ANY DELAYS OR, OR TRYING TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR ANY APPLICANT.
I HAD THIS PREPARED BY OUR COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY TO LAY IT OUT CLEAR.
WE'RE HERE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM AND WE WANT EVERY, WE WANT EVERY BUSINESS.
I'M SURE THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WILL AGREE WITH ME.
WE WANT EVERY BUSINESS TO SUCCEED IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
YOUR APPLICANT ACTUALLY SUPPLIED MOST OF THIS INFORMATION, WHICH IS WHY WE LAID IT OUT IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
SO THERE'S, SO ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS I DON'T WANNA DELAY IT ANYMORE THAN I HAVE TO NOR DO THESE BOARD MEMBERS.
SO I I SPEAK FOR THEM 'CAUSE I KNOW WHERE THEIR HEARTS ARE.
AND, UM, AND I WANT THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND I'M GLAD THAT THEY'VE GOT COUNSEL TO HELP THEM THROUGH THIS.
AND NOW THAT YOU'VE GOT THIS INFORMATION, WE CAN TABLE IT TO, WE'VE GOT ROOM ON APRIL 3RD.
WE CAN, UM, DO WE HAVE TO DO A MOTION OR WE JUST TABLE? YEP, WE DO MOTION.
WE TABLE ALCHEMY TO, UH, APRIL 3RD.
IS THAT EVERYBODY? ANY OPPOSED? NONE.
I JUST, HOW DID, I DIDN'T SEE THAT.
LIKE CHRONOLOGICAL, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THERE WAS THE STRIKING OF THE NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE AND HOW THEN THERE WAS THE, IN YOUR MEMO NOTING THAT WHAT HAD BEEN FILED WITH THE, THE ACTUAL PAPERWORK THAT WENT TO THE STATE SHOWS THAT IT'S, UM, NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE AND HOW IS IT THAT THERE'S A, A RESOLUTION TO STRIKE THE NO ALCOHOL USE.
BUT YEAH, THAT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT THIS, HANG ON ONE AT A TIME.
THIS PAPERWORK THAT WE, AT THE LAST MEETING, JUST SO WE CAN DO A RECAP HERE, WE SAID THAT WE WERE GONNA TABLE THIS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WANTED OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE.
WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON THAT.
I I TOLD THE BOARD TABLED IT BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO CONSULT WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
AND UPON REVIEW OF THE PAPERWORK, AND I KNOW I HAVE IT IN HERE IN A STACK OF PAPERWORK, UM, THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY FILED WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
AND IT SAYS ON THERE NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE.
SO IS THAT A FUND? I GUESS IT'S NOT, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A WEIRD THING BECAUSE, SO THE TOWN BOARD SAID THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS, BUT WE CAN'T DICTATE HOW SOMEBODY RUNNING THEIR BUSINESS MM-HMM
UM, LIKE IF TONY'S WANTED TO GET A LIQUOR LICENSE, THEY WOULDN'T COME HERE.
UM, SO THE TOWN BOARD ASKED US TO DO SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WE, WE WERE EVEN PERMITTED TO DO.
SO IT'S AN INTERESTING, IF THE TOWN BOARD'S ABLE TO DO IT, THEN I GUESS THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DELEGATE IT TO US.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHAT I SAID THE LAST TIME WHEN I READ THIS ABOUT THE, THE SEAF.
OKAY, WELL I THINK WE GOT BILL.
SO I, THIS IS AGAIN, THIS MY PERSPECTIVE THAT I'M LIKE BLURRING MY REASONED OPINION WITH JUST LEAVING A BOARD MEMBER.
I THINK THAT THERE IS A WORD CHOICE AND A PRESCRIPTIVE ISSUE BECAUSE ZONING LAW BY ITS NATURE IS PRESCRIPTIVE.
RIGHT? SO YOU LIST OUT WHAT YOU CAN DO AND IT'S NOT LISTED.
SO UNFORTUNATELY THE TOWN BOARD WROTE INDOOR ALCOHOL USE AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON.
RIGHT? SO WHAT I WROTE IN MY NOTES AND
[01:25:02]
UH, THAT WE WOULD JUST SAY ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION SHALL BE LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION FROM DECEMBER 20TH, 2023.SO THAT WAY OUR SITE PLAN WOULD ENFORCE WHAT THE TOWN BOARD DID.
THAT WAS MY IDEA THAT I WAS GONNA PRESENT, BUT WE TABLED IT.
SO, CAN I INTERRUPT? IT DOESN'T SAY NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL.
YOU JUST, THEY STRUCK NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL.
WELL, WE CAN DISCUSS ON THE MOTION.
YEAH, WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY A TABLE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
YOU WANNA TABLE IT, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
SO WE, SO WE, THE REASON FOR MY, MY REQUEST IS IT APPEARS AND I NEED TO SEE THE DOCUMENT, IT WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED.
IT APPEARS TO ME AT LEAST BASED UPON, YOU KNOW, I I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S DOESN'T SAY THE SAME THING AS THE STAMPED MINUTES THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN.
I, YOU KNOW, I, AND SO I, I WANNA SEE THAT BEFORE I MAKE ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS, UH, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HOW, WHERE WE WANNA GO AND HOW WE WANT TO DO THIS.
UH, AND, AND JUST, JUST IF I CAN JUST BRIEFLY, UH, MAKE A COMMENT, UM, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND, AND I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS, IF YOU GET A GOOD BOARD, IS AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS.
IT'S, IT'S A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE.
UH, AND THAT'S TO GET THE JOB DONE.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED BOTH AT THE TOWN LEVEL AND THE MM-HMM.
OR THE, THE BOARD DOWN BOARD LEVEL ON THIS LEVEL.
I HAVE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT TAKES A WHILE.
I MEAN, IT JUST DOESN'T, UH, BUT AGAIN, MY REASON FOR TABLING IT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IS IT APPEARS TO ME BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS MADE THAT THE DOCUMENT I GOT IS NOT WHAT GOT SUBMITTED TO THE STATE.
UM, AND NOT THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT BEFORE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS IN FACT WHAT IT IS AND THEN I CAN COMMENT FURTHER.
SO IF YOU CAN GIMME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS.
I HAVE THE LINK TO THE E CODE, UH, RIGHT, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
ACTUALLY I CAN CLICK SEND RIGHT NOW.
SO WE DID BOTH ON THE TABLE AND I, SO A THING OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT LAST TIME.
THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE IS KIND OF DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT SAYS TAKE THIS LANGUAGE OUT AND IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE PAGES, IT'S ALREADY TAKEN OUT.
BUT BILL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
THE RESOLUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT THE RESOLUTION ONLY RE REFERENCES INDOOR ALCOHOL USE THE MINUTES THAT WE WERE GIVEN.
THE THINGS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT WERE ALREADY TAKEN OUT.
I I, I SHOWED IT TO YOU LAST TIME.
RIGHT? I, WE SAW IT IN THE MINUTES.
THAT'S NOT IN THE STATE IN THE, IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WE RECEIVED.
SO, AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.
AND THEN WE CAN'T USE THE MINUTES.
RIGHT? WE CAN'T USE THE MINUTES.
BUT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED IS, IS THE EDITED RESOLUTION AFTER THE MINUTES SAID IT TO BE EDITED.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK THAT'S, THAT WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
YOU WANNA COME OVER HERE? SORRY.
SO, SO THE MINUTES SAY TAKE OUT THIS LANGUAGE YEAH.
SO NOT IN WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE.
SO THIS IS THE LOCAL LAW FILING.
THIS IS THE TOWN OF HAMED LOCAL LAW FILING.
GO TO THE LAST PAGE SIGNED BY KATHY RKI ON 12 12 23.
AND WHEN YOU SCROLL BACK TO THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS FILED NUMBER FIVE, NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL FACILITIES USE IS NOT A BAR THAT IS OPENED AT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
IT'S STILL IN THE ONE THAT KATHY RKI UPLOADED TO THE, TO ALBANY.
AND THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE THAT, THAT I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
CAN WE FINISH ON, SO YOU ALREADY GOT IT.
CAN WE FINISH ON THE VOTE THERE ANY OPPOSED? WERE THERE ANY OF POST SAYING NON, WE MOVED IT UNTIL APRIL 3RD.
THE ERROR I THINK HAS TO BE RESOLVED BY THE, THE BOARD.
THEY TOOK IT OUT BACK TO MEETING.
NO, THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS THE ONE THAT SHOULD, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE SENTENCE.
SHOULD YOU, I EXAMPLE, IT'S YOUR JOB.
OKAY, LET ME GET BACK TO, UH, MY ORDER HERE.
WE HAVE, UH, THREE THREE HOOVER.
OUR NEXT CASE IS 3 8 0 0 HOOVER RO HOOVER, LLC AT 3,800 HOOVER ROAD REQUESTING A SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAN, APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT ONE THREE STORY 12 UNIT BUILDING, APARTMENT BUILDING AT 300 0 0, I'M SORRY, 3800 0 0 OH MY GOD.
SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
[01:30:01]
ALSO WITH ME ONCE AGAIN IS TOM FOX FROMWE DO A BRIEF POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
WE'RE GONNA FOCUS THIS EVENING ON WHAT'S BEEN UPDATED SINCE WE WERE HERE TWO WEEKS AGO.
WE'RE GONNA NEED TO COLOR CODE THESE SO I CAN KEEP IT STRAIGHT.
YEAH, WE REALLY GROUND FOR EVERYTHING.
WE'RE GONNA THINK I LOOK AT THAT BRANDON.
WHICH ONE IS FIRST? SPEEDING'S GONNA MAKE LIFE BETTER.
WANNA GO THE NEXT SLIDE? TWO SEPARATE.
NOW I WANNA KNOW IF THIS IS LIMITED TO 3,800.
SO AS YOU RECALL, THE PROJECT SITE ITSELF IS ABOUT 0.9 ACRES.
IT'S LOCATED IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ONE WITH THE ROOF TRIAL OVERLAY OR PROPOSING TO THE THREE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
THREE EXISTING SITE IS A THREE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE AREA THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS A PROPOSED THREE STORY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING.
HERE'S A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.
AGAIN, WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE TOP LEFT HERE IN TERMS OF ALL WE'RE PROPOSING 12 UNITS, 13 PARKING SPACES.
DURING YOUR LAST MEETING, YOU ASKED FOR A COUPLE THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, YOU ASKED US TO SUBMIT A COMBINED PART, ONE OF THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR THIS PROJECT AND THE PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET AT 38 33 BAYVIEW, WHICH WE'VE DONE.
YOU ALSO ASKED FOR US TO SUBMIT THE WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY FORMS, WHICH WE DID AS WELL ON MARCH 14TH.
ONE OF THE TACTIC THAT CAME UP DURING YOUR PREVIOUS MEETING, ALTHOUGH IT'S A LITTLE PRELIMINARY AS LIGHTING, WE CAN CERTAINLY REPRESENT THIS EVENING THAT ALL LIGHTING WILL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT.
AS PART OF THE ULTIMATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PLAN OR PROCESS, WE WILL PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN.
WE'RE PROVIDING GREEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING ALONG HOOVER ROAD.
THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE VARIOUS APPROVALS INCLUDING MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD, A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, A REVIEW BY THE TOWN'S SHORELINE REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE COPY OF THE ELEVATIONS SHOWING THE THREE STORY BUILDING DOING HIGH QUALITY BUILDING MATERIALS.
UM, I THINK YOU CAN ALL AGREE THAT BUILDINGS LOOK NICE THERE.
COLOR VERSION OF THE CONCEPTUAL RENDERING, WHICH WE PRESENTED TO YOU DURING YOUR MEETING ON MARCH 6TH.
AND IN CONCLUSION, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR TWO THINGS THIS EVENING.
WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO COMMENCE A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF BOTH THIS PROJECT AND THE OTHER PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET AT 38 33 BAYVIEW.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HELD ON MARCH 6TH.
AND WE'RE ALSO ASKING TO THE EXTENTS NECESSARY FOR A FORMAL, FORMAL REFERRAL.
THE SHORELINE REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
SO FROM OUR MEETING ON THE SIXTH, YOU AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT COORDINATED REVIEW.
SO WE ALSO SUBMITTED TO SHIPPO.
UM, THAT'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT WE FINALLY SUBMITTED EVERYTHING TO SHIPPO.
SO DO WE NEED THE, DOES THAT, I MEAN, DO WE NEED THE FORMAL REFERRALS, THE REFERRAL WE YES.
FOR THE SHORELINE, THE WATERFRONT.
I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT THE ZONING BOARD AND THE ZONING BOARD.
I THINK THE ZONING BOARD PREFERS THAT THEY GET A FORMAL FULL.
AND DOES, SO THE SHORELINE IS SEPARATE FROM THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEE, RIGHT? DID THEY BOTH NEED TO REVIEW THIS? LET'S JUST, THE SHORELINE RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE IS THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEE GOT MIXED MESSAGE
WHAT'S THE HEIGHT? VARI, WHAT'D YOU SAY? IS THERE A HEIGHT VARIANCE YOU NEED? WHAT? I DON'T THINK WE'VE CHECKED THAT YET TO CHECK.
SO, WHICH VARIANCE IS SPECIFICALLY WE NEED A USE VARIANCE.
USE VARI BECAUSE IN THAT, IN THAT WATERFRONT DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL USES WITH, I BELIEVE THE EXCEPTION OF A DUPLEX OR NOT.
SO THE EXPECTATION IS YOU NEED TO USE VARIANCE AND THEN PROBABLY SOME WE MADE EACH SCENARIO VARIANCES.
RIGHT? THE NEXT STEP WILL BE TO FILE THAT APPLICATION.
WHAT WERE THE TWO LETTERS THAT WE GOT FOR JOSH? WAS THAT FROM THE WATERFRONT COMMITTEE OR WAS THAT FROM BOTH SENT THE TWO EMAILS.
THE TWO EMAILS REGARDING PROJECT BUILDING OWNERS LIKE THE CAB AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
OH, UH, YEAH, WE GOT EMAILS FROM THE CAB, UH, THAT HE SENT THAT TO YOU.
I DON'T KNOW IF
LEONA, DO YOU WANNA COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SURE.
I I MADE TWO EMAILS BECAUSE, UM, WE HAVE THIS A CONSERVATION MINE UP TO THE PODIUM SO THEY CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, LEONA ROCKWOOD, THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
[01:35:01]
5 7 2 4 OH LAKE SHORE ROAD.UM, BECAUSE BILL WAS TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT THE TWO PLACES AS ONE TO SEE ABOUT THE WHOLE IMPACT OF BOTH OF THE BIG APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
UM, I, I LEFT THAT AS SORT OF OUT THERE, BUT IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT YOU WERE GONNA LOOK AT THEM THAT WAY AT THE LAST MEETING.
IT, IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT YOU MADE A DECISION.
WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT BOTH OF 'EM TOGETHER.
SO I MADE TWO SEPARATE COMMENTS, UM, AND I SENT THE MESSAGES, THE EMAILS OUT TO CINDY.
SO YOU ALREADY HAVE THEM RIGHT? BUT I WANT YOU TO READ WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU SENT, BECAUSE NOT THE ONE DO THE, THE ONE WITH THE 12 UNITS.
12 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING.
SHOULD I READ, PUT I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I PUT THE PROPOSED THREE STORYING 12 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED ON B 8 0 0.
HOOVER ROAD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL, WITH THE ADOPTED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS THE LWRP.
THE THREE STORY 12 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE CURRENT ZONING WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL.
THE PROPOSED BUILDING DOES NOT COMPLY TO THE CURRENT ZONING IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
THE LAND 3 8 0 0 HOVER ROAD IS LOCATED IN A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD ZONE EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS ALL ALONG HOOVER ROAD AND HOOVER ROAD CLOSURES ARE MANDATED DURING HIGH LAKE ERIE WATER EVENTS AND STORMS. THE PROPOSED THREE STORY 12 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT COMPLEX DOES NOT FIT WITH THE EXISTING, MOSTLY ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY TERRITORY.
THE COMPLEX DOES NOT ENHANCE OR PROTECT SCENIC VISTAS.
IT WILL BLOCK LAKE AIR VIEWS RATHER THAN PROTECTING OUTSTANDING SCENIC RESOURCES.
THE THREE STORY 12 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING DOES NOT IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATER BRANCH OR PROMOTE WATER DEPENDENT USES SUGGESTED MITIGATIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING WATER COMMERCIAL ZONING AND THE ADOPTED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN PROGRAM B-L-W-R-P, WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE I THINK 2012.
AND THESE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN EVOLVING AND OTHER MEMOS HAVE BEEN SENT TO YOU ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE CHANGING AND EVOLVING.
BUT WE PUT THIS ONE TOGETHER NOW.
DO YOU WANNA HEAR ABOUT THE OTHER ONE? NO, NOT YET.
BUT IF IT'S COMING UP NEXT, WELL WE CAN'T OKAY.
YOU KNOW HOW TALL YOU'RE BUILDING IS THE THREE STORY ARE NO, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DETERMINED THE HIGH COUNT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? UM, I THINK IT'S IN THE HIGH 30 FOOT RANGE.
I THINK, I THINK THE PEAK IS PROBABLY ABOUT 45.
YEAH, I THINK THE QUESTION, I MEAN YOU NEED TO GENERAL MEASURED FROM, FROM EVE TO, TO RICH I THINK IS THE, IS THE THE MEAN HEIGHT WOULD PROBLEM? SO, SO ON ON SITE PLAN PAGE, THEY'RE NOT NUMBERED.
UH, IT'S A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, 30 FEET, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT IN THAT DISTRICT.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT, RIGHT.
BECAUSE YEAH, THE TOP, BEFORE YOU GET TO THE ROOF, IT'S ALREADY 40 FEET, EIGHT AND A QUARTER INCHES.
SO IT'S GONNA NEED A HEIGHT VARIANCE AS WELL.
AND CHRIS ALSO CHRIS WOULD, IS CONFIRMING IT ALSO REQUIRE SIDE YARD VARIANCE.
YOU, I GUESS I CAN SAVE ALL THESE QUESTIONS UNTIL, UM, WE GET THE SECRET FORMS, BUT LIKE WHAT IS THE COMPOSITE OF THE SOIL OUT THERE? IS IT GONNA HOLD THIS BUILDING AND YOU HAVE TO ARMOR THE SHORELINE? WHAT OUR ENGINEERING, I UNDERSTAND SURE.
UM, CHRIS WOOD WITH
[01:40:01]
ON THE FOUNDATIONS AND IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAVE TO DO PILES OR SOME, SOME TYPE OF DIFFERENT FOUNDATION SYSTEM ON TO DO THAT.SO THERE MAY HAVE TO BE LIKE PILES OF THE I-BEAMS OR SOMETHING POTENTIALLY.
THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS IS THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT, BUT POTENTIALLY YOU WOULD.
BUT THEY'LL DO A GEOTECH REPORT AND ALL THAT'LL BE DETERMINED THAT BACK.
WHEN WE'RE NOT IN THE FLOODLINE, WE'RE JUST OUTSIDE THE FLOODLINE HUNDRED A YEAR.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN THE FLOODLINE, THE BUILDING.
THE BUILDING BUILDING WILL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE HUNDRED FOOT, BUT THE, THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE FLOOD.
THE PROPERTIES IN THE FLOOD ZONE, THE BUILDING IS JUST OUTSIDE.
AND THEN DO YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO THE SHORELINE YET, LIKE TO ARMOR IT OR PROTECT IT? THERE IS, THERE IS A, A WALL ON WALL.
YEAH, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOMETHING HERE, BUT THERE WALL, THERE IS A WALL ALREADY THERE.
RELATED, RELATED CONSTRUCTION? I DON'T THINK SO.
YEAH, NO, OUTSIDE OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE.
ANYONE ELSE? BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO, I MEAN, I WOULD EXPRESS CONCERN THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD IF WE SAY ANYTHING, DESIGN BOARD, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER IF WE COULD COMPLY WITH THE PIPE RESTRICTIONS, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE ON PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO USE OF THE WATER.
AND I WOULD BE MUCH MORE SUPPORTIVE IF WE WERE TO REDUCE THIS.
AND I, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THEY SHOULD BE COMPLYING WITH THE, THE HEIGHT SETBACKS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE RESOURCE THERE AND THE FACT THAT NEXT DOOR YOU HAVE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UM, AND THEN ADDING ANOTHER 45, 40 PLUS FOOT TALL BUILDING IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MEET THE, THE ZONING CODE AND IT'S NOT IN LINE WITH THE OTHER THINGS THERE.
YEAH, I WOULD NOTE OBVIOUSLY THE EXISTING BUILDING IS THREE STORIES ON THE SCHEDULE, BUT ADJACENT TO IT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS SINGLE HOMES.
ANYONE ELSE IN, IN THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S HIGHER IS A WATERFRONT ENHANCED USE OR THIS IS NOT, I MEAN, I TAKE ISSUE THAT IT DOES, THAT IT'S NOT CO CONSISTENTLY WITH THE LWRP AND LIKE HOW BILL HAD SAID THAT HAVING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY BE A WATERFRONT ENHANCED USE VERSUS TAKING AWAY THAT ACCESSIBILITY.
THAT IS THE POINT OF OUR LWRP TO PROVIDE ENHANCED USES OF THE WATERFRONT.
I JUST, JUST ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE ACCESSIBILITY.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT VISUAL ACCESS? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ACCESS AND HAVING ENHANCED USE OF THE ACCESS TO THE WATERS THAT, FOR HAVING IT BEING A PRIVATE PROPERTY? YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE, AND IN SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SHOING COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY, WE'VE DISCUSSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THAT ACCESS ON OUR SITE.
UM, THERE'S NOTHING IN, IN, IN OUR, UM, I GUESS TITLE OR DEEDS OF THE PROPERTY THAT, THAT REQUIRE THAT OR THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUS ACCESS.
BUT WE'VE, WE'VE, UM, I GUESS MADE AN OFFER TO INCLUDE THAT IN SOME WAY.
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTA DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DOING SUCH A THING, WHICH WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.
UM, AND THE COMMENTS FROM THE SHORELINE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, 50 50 MAYBE SPLIT ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT, UH, RESULTS IN ACTUAL BEACH ACCESS OR JUST VISUAL ACCESS, WHICH I THINK IS KIND OF, UH, UM, LEAN MORE TOWARDS JUST THE VISUAL VIEWPOINT ACCESS.
UM, WITHOUT, WITHOUT ACCESS DOWN TO THE GRADE AT THE BEACH.
UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING IN THE SITE THAT'S NOT EXISTING TODAY.
SO JUST TO, WE NEED TO SEE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S DEMONSTRATED AT ALL.
I YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S VISIBLE AND, UH, AND FACTORED IN INTO ANY OF THE DECISIONS, NOT JUST IRISH THAT HAPPENED IN THE TOWN.
THE, THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBILITY IS SOMETHING THAT'S MEANINGFUL AND NOT JUST A SIDEWALK DOWN AN ALLEY ALONG THE SIDE OF A BUNCH OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
I THINK THE OTHER PIECE IS TOO IS THAT IF WE WERE GONNA HAVE ACCESS DOWN TO THE WATER BECAUSE THE BULKHEAD IS THERE, UNDERSTANDING WHAT SAFE ACCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WERE PROPOSING IT.
BUT IF YOU WERE PROPOSING IT, WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
I MEAN, THE, THE PHYSICAL MAKEUP OF THAT, OF THAT AREA IS NOT GREAT TO ACTUALLY TOUCH THE WATER.
TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO, UH, WHERE YOU CAN GET TO THE WATER'S EDGE.
I MEAN, IF YOU GO TO CANAL SIDE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH THE WATER.
BUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO GET TO THOSE WATER'S EDGE, TO THE VIEW, ENJOY IT, TO THE WHOLE VIEW.
AND I WOULD ALSO ADD, AS I MENTIONED LAST TIME, THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES THERE IS TO PROTECT US OF LAKE AREA AS WELL.
SO DOESN'T MATCH WITH THAT EITHER.
BUT IF I COULD JUST ASK, I MEAN, A 30 FOOT BUILDING WOULD DO THE SAME, WOULDN'T IT? SUPPOSED 35 REQUIRING
[01:45:01]
IF IT WAS A 35 FOOT RESTAURANT WITH KAYAK STORAGE.NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO SIT ON THE WATER TO ENJOY THE WATER IS ENHANCED BY BEING ON THE WATER MM-HMM
UM, WHEREAS THIS IS PRIVATE HOMES.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE KIND OF TALKING IN THAT LANE.
IT DOESN'T HELP THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY PAY THEM TO SIT ON THEIR BALCONY.
I THINK THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT IT'S, THERE'S A HIGHER STANDARD IF YOU WANNA EXCEED THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
SO ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO GO EVEN BEYOND, I MEAN, IT'S NOT ALLOWING VIEWS.
AND THEN IF YOU MAKE IT EVEN TALLER, IT'S GOING TO BE A BIGGER VISUAL IMPACT ON THE VIEWS FROM VARIOUS PLACES.
YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY HAVING INCREMENTAL INCREASE THERE AND WE SHOULD MEET, I MEAN, WE SHOULD MEET, TRY TO MEET THE, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS THERE.
MY COMMENTS ARE GONNA BE OFF THE WALL, BUT IT'S BEEN A ROUGH NIGHT FOR ME TONIGHT, SO I'M JUST GONNA, I'M JUST GONNA HAVE AT IT GO, UM, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE, I WROTE THE WAR IN PEACE RESOLUTION FOR YOU, SO YOU CAN BEAR WITH ME AND ADD A LITTLE LEVITY TO THIS WHOLE SCENE.
I THINK THAT THAT BUILDING SHOULD BE GONE.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE TURNED INTO A PARK.
AND I THINK THE OTHER SIDE ON, UM, BAYVIEW SHOULD BE DEVELOPED INTO RESIDENCE STOREFRONTS, A RESTAURANT, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
THEN YOU'RE GONNA MEET WHAT THE, WHAT THIS IN, WHAT THIS USE IS INTENDED FOR.
SO MAYBE I'M A LITTLE OFF WITH THE PARK, BUT YOU GET THE POINT.
I MEAN, EVEN YOUR OTHER, YOUR PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT YOU HAD, THE NINE, THE FOUR CONDOS OR ANYTHING OR WHATEVER, THAT HAD LESS OF AN IMPACT THAN WHAT THIS IS.
AND THIS IS A PRETTY BIG IMPACT.
AND SO, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY TO HAVE THAT KIND OF IMPACT ON THIS BEAUTIFUL LAKEFRONT.
WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL VIEW IN HAMPER AND WHY WE WOULD WANNA BLOCK IT AND TAKE IT AWAY FROM EVERYBODY IS BEYOND ME.
BUT HEY, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE BEEN GONE FOR A LOT OF YEARS AND I'M BACK HERE NOW AND THE ONE THING THAT I MOVED BACK HERE IS BECAUSE OF LAKE ERIE AND THE VIEW, AND I GO EVERY NIGHT FOR, I, I DRIVE 15 MINUTES TO THE LAKE TO GO TO GO LOOK AT THE WATER EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, SNOW, RAIN, WHATEVER.
SO THESE PEOPLE IN THIS, THE OTHER BUILDING, THE OTHER PROJECT THAT YOU HAVE, IT DOESN'T EVEN FACE THE LAKE.
THE BUILDING FACES ROUTE FIVE AND IT, AND IT, IT COULD BE LIKE A U-SHAPED BUILDING WHERE YOU HAVE MAYBE STOREFRONTS AND APARTMENTS UP, UP ON TOP AND THEN MAYBE A RESTAURANTS, I, I KNOW IT'S OUTLANDISH, BUT I JUST HAD TO GET THAT OFF MY CHEST BECAUSE I TOOK P'S PLACE AWAY AND I SEE ALL THOSE SENIORS SITTING AT P'S PLACE AND NOW THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PLACE TO GO.
AND AT LEAST IF THEY HAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN HERE AND THEN SOME APARTMENTS AND A WALKWAY TO THE, TO THE PARK AND MAYBE A LITTLE STORE OVER THERE, SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE CREATIVE TO FIT INTO THIS USE.
SO, SO WE'RE NOT JUST KIDDING, WE'RE NOT THE THE ZONING BOARD, BUT AS FAR AS THE USE VARIANCE, THEY GOTTA PROVE THIS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, BUT IF THEY PUT A PARK THERE AND CHARGE PEOPLE TO PARK IN THE PARKING LOT, THEY MIGHT MAKE MONEY.
BUT IF YOU HAD A RESTAURANT OVER THERE, A LITTLE RESTAURANT AND A COUPLE OF STORES GET PEOPLE TO GO THERE, RIGHT.
YOU, IT WOULD DRAW IN AND IT WOULD JUST BE A DIFFERENT VIEW ALTOGETHER.
SO THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS, THE ENTIRE PARCEL, UM, CAN YOU PULL THAT BACK UP THE SITE PLAN THERE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THE FULL PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE, YOU GUYS, IS THE PROPERTY LINE FOR YOU GUYS AT THE EDGE OF THE FENCING AROUND THE PARKING LOT OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING? OR DOES IT INCLUDE THE ENTIRE PARCEL ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE GO-KART FACILITY? WE GO WAY TO REFUND.
I MEAN, THIS IS A UNIQUE PARCEL THAT HAS MIXED USE ON IT ALREADY.
THERE MAY BE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT MIXED USE INTO FULLY DEVELOP ON ENTIRE SITE.
WELL, THERE IS SOME ON THAT, RIGHT? D TYPES, DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL, SHALL WE SAY A GO-KART RESTAURANT SO'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIONS THERE.
I MEAN, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO, TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU ARE WILLING TO COMMENT ON OTHER OR TO COME BACK, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S OTHER FUTURE PLANS FOR THAT VERY LARGE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
BUT I, I MEAN, I MEAN, I AGREE.
IDEALLY ENHANCING PUBLIC ACCESS WOULD BE GREAT.
YOU'RE AN APPLICANT, YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPOSAL HERE DOES NOT HIT A BUNCH OF THE, THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS OR THE LWRP INTENTS AND THAT THAT PART'S CLEAR.
AND THEN AT A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA SEE SOMETHING THE BETTER FITS THE ZONING CODE.
I'LL SAY WITH RESPECT TO RETAIL USES, YOU KNOW, WE SPENT SOME TIME LOOKING AT THAT.
THERE'S JUST NOT DEMAND THERE, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, IT'S CAN'T NOW THAT YOU CAN'T DO RETAIL.
[01:50:01]
THEY WILL COME, THERE'S NOT DEMAND BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A GOOD PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO COME AND ENJOY LAKE.IF YOU MADE A PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENJOY THE LAKE, THERE'D BE A THING TO DETRACT PEOPLE MAYBE, WHICH WOULD THEN DRIVE DEMAND.
MAYBE YOU NEED THE, THE REASON THERE'S NO DEMAND IS BECAUSE NOTHING THERE.
BUT YOU NEED SUBSTANTIAL DENSITY AND DEMAND TO DO THAT.
I JUST KNOW A STANDALONE PARKING LOT ON THAT PARCEL WHERE WE CHARGE FOR PARKING.
THAT'S NOT GONNA, WELL NO, BUT SOMETHING ELSE IN TERMS OF, UH, SO TO JUST PUTTING THIS INTO THE WORLD, TO DAN'S POINT, UM, THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ENSURE NEW STRUCTURES AND STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS ARE DESIGNED AT A SCALE THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO THE AREA AND INVITES HUMAN INTERACTION, BUILDING DESIGNS, SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES SHOULD BE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, LEND A FEELING OF HOSPITALITY AND WELLBEING TO THE AREA.
PUBLIC GATHERING PLACES SUCH AS PARKS, PROMENADES, AND PLAZAS SHOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF SITE DESIGN WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
AND IT'S, IT'S LIKE THE OPPOSITE.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE AWAY IN THE PROCESS.
WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF WHAT WE RECEIVED.
WELL, NO, WELL THE TABLE, WE GOT 30 DAYS, RIGHT? YOU HAVE 30 DAYS AND THEY'RE GOING TO THE ZBA AND ONE FRONT COMMITTEE ANYWAY, SO, SO WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE, DO WE WANNA PUT 'EM OUT FOR A MONTH AWAY OR WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO, SEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU NEED, SEAN? SEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU NEED TO COME BACK TO PLANNING FOR, YOU WANT TO COME BACK OR DO YOU WANT, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE INPUT ON THIS ONE AND THE OTHER ONE AND MAYBE COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT MORE? I THINK SO YEAH.
YOU WE'RE WILLING TO DISCUSS ALL THIS.
WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING, HEY, WE'LL FOLLOW AHEAD.
WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST TO SEAN'S POINT TOO, I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE MARKET CAN BEAR RIGHT NOW.
YOU KNOW, THE MARKET HAS CHANGED SUBSTANTIAL THE LAST FOUR TO FIVE YEARS AND WE'VE KIND OF DEVELOPED THIS PROJECT AROUND THAT BEING RESIDENTIAL FOCUSED, RIGHT? WE'VE HAD THIS PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS.
WE'VE MARKETED IT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WE'VE HAD TROUBLE ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, FILLING UP THE BAYVIEW, RIGHT? WITH, WITH THE COMMERCIAL FEES, ARE WE GOING IN THERE NOW? BUT, UH, UM, BUT, BUT THE, THE, THE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL INTEREST HAS BEEN MORE TOWARDS ROUTE FIVE CAMP HEADING, HEADING SOUTH.
RIGHT? UM, NOT ON HOOVER, HOOVER IN BAYVIEW.
NOT TO SAY THAT CAN'T BE CREATED, BUT NO, BECAUSE THERE'S, I MEAN, IT'S EASY ACCESS THERE TOO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT'S, BUT WE ALSO, YEAH, WE ALSO, WE ALSO CAN'T JUST BUILD ON SPEC HERE AND YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, RIGHT.
WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T SELL THAT TO, YOU KNOW, TO THE LENDERS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.
MAYBE THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, FUTURE COMPONENT OF THIS THAT, THAT DOES INCLUDE SOME COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, MAYBE IN A SECOND BUILDING.
WE HAD CONCEPTS WITH THE, UM, THE INLAND SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY WITH THE FOUR STORY BUILDING WHERE WE HAD SHOWN MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AND EARLIER DRAWINGS THAT WE WORKED IN, IN, IN OUR OFFICE THAT SHOWED MAYBE A FUTURE PHASE.
UM, CERTAINLY WE'D HAVE TO CONSIDER HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT PARKING AND WE MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT IN THE FUTURE.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST A, A COUPLE COUPLE OTHER POINTS ABOUT THE SITE AND THE WAY THIS, THE WAY THIS CAME TOGETHER, UM, THE PREVIOUS PLAN IN NINE UNITS ON THE WATER SIDE WAS, WAS MENTIONED.
UM, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT HERE IS EQUAL TO OR SO, OR SMALLER THAN THAT.
UM, BUT IT'S PRETTY MUCH SIMILAR TO THE, TO THE, THE BASE PLAN AND WHAT THAT BUILDING WAS.
UM, WHEN WE PLACED THE FOUR STORY BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET, UM, WE DID, YOU CAN SEE HOW WE DID PUSH IT TO THE, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE NORTH, UH, NORTH NORTHWEST, UH, LEAVING THIS GREEN SPACE, UH, THIS PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY.
IT'S NOT REALLY DETAILED IN THIS PLAN HERE, YOU CAN'T SEE IT MUCH, BUT THAT WOULD BE A A, A PARK AREA, UH, AT THE CORNER OF HOFER AND BAYVIEW, UH, THAT DOES PRESERVE THE VIEWS TO THE BAYVIEW HOTELS.
YOU CAN SEE HOW WE SHIFTED THAT, UM, TO PRESERVE THE FRONT ELEVATION VIEW OF THAT STRAIGHT ON, UM, YOU KNOW, TOWARDS ROUTE FIVE.
UM, SO WE, WE'VE GIVEN SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST WATERFRONT ACCESS, BIG WATERFRONT PARK.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UM, YOU KNOW, A WAY TO, TO CREATE WATERFRONT ACCESS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BAYVIEW.
UM, AGAIN, THERE ISN'T, THERE ISN'T EVEN ANY, UM, SLIVER OF BEACH, UH, AT OUR, OUR SITE.
NO BUTTER IS, IS IS WALL AND ROCK.
UM, SO WE'RE LIMITED TO A VIEWPOINT.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT THE BAYVIEW AS WELL TOO IN ITS COMMERCIAL USE, WHICH IS PUBLIC AND, AND A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME AND ENJOY THOSE VIEWS, UH, SIT ON THE PATIO AND, AND, AND ENJOY THAT SPACE TOO.
SO, UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD JUST SUGGEST TO BE CAREFUL OF IS THIS NOTION OF HAVING A PARK THAT PARKS REALLY, THEY CAN ONLY BE SUCCESSFUL IF THERE ARE THINGS TO DO.
AND THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DRIVE PUBLIC ACCESS AND, AND HAVING PEOPLE ENJOY THE SPACE, IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENTERTAIN THOSE SMALLER THINGS TO DO THE POWER OF 10, HAVING THING, HAVING PROGRAMMING, HAVING SMALL SCALE PROGRAMMING, SMALL SCALES, RETAILS BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND ENJOY ON MULTIPLE LEVELS.
THAT IS WHAT ENDS UP ALLOWING PUBLIC SPACE TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
[01:55:01]
PUTTING PARK BENCHES ALONG THE SIDEWALK.SO THAT'S WHERE THE COMPONENT OF THIS PARCEL ALONG THE WATER'S EDGE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE USES, LIKE I DID MENTIONED, IF IT HAS LIKE A RESTAURANT WITH, THEN ALSO LIKE SOME SORT OF RENTAL COMPONENT, IF IT COULD BE BIKES, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THERE'S BIKE CONNECTION AND SO FORTH IN THAT AREA, THAT'S ALLOWING THE USE TO BE, TO ALLOW THE SPACE TO BE ENHANCED AND USED AND NOT JUST A PARK THAT'S GOING TO BE POORLY MAINTAINED.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS UP HAPPENING WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE EYES AND EARS AND THE ATTENTION PAID TO IT.
THIS AREA MIGHT BE THE ONLY SPOT IN TOWN WHERE YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE USES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A SYNERGY TO DRAW PEOPLE THERE.
EVERY, EVERYTHING ELSE ALONG, ALONG THE LAKE.
I MEAN, UH, THE OTHER SPOTS, THERE'S JUST NOT THE SPACE.
IT'S, IT'S ALL, ALL RESIDENTIAL AND MAYBE ONE SPOT HERE, ONE SPOT THERE BLOCKS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.
THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY AREAS WHERE WE'VE GOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, GO-KARTS, MINI GOLF, ICE CREAM, HOT DOGS, AND SPACE FOR MORE.
I, WE HAVE SEEN TOO THAT THE SITUATION THAT HAPPENED WITH THE BREWERY THAT CAME IN, AND THAT'S MEL STORIES, LIKE THEY'VE COME BACK TO US FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, THAT THERE'S A HUGE DEMAND FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF, AND I, I DON'T MARKET COMMERCIAL SPACES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S BEEN DONE OR WHAT THAT IS, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S OTHER, MAYBE THERE'S MORE NON-TRADITIONAL MARKETS OR VENUES, BUT I DON'T WANNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.
BUT THAT WAS SORT OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH THE BREWERY AND SOME OF THE TRANSFORMATION THAT'S HAPPENING THERE.
AND THERE'S, THERE'S VARIOUS CHALLENGES.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, THE USES ALONG THE WATER HAVE TURNED OVER AND HAVE BEEN HARDER TO MAINTAIN.
BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE RIGHT USE THAT IS CLEARLY A DRAW FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT THAT BENEFITS IN SOME SORT OF WAY.
IT'D BE INTERESTING TO HEAR HOW YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MIXED USE ZONE.
AND THIS MAY BE A SPOT WHERE A MIXED, A TRULY MIXED USE ZONE COULD BE EMPLOYED IN, IN SOME WAY WITH A, OR EVEN LIKE A MINI CAMPUS FEEL WITH THE, THE TWO PARCELLS AND HOW THAT LOOKS SO FAR, IT'S THE ONLY AREA WHERE THERE'S BEEN AN APPLICATION FOR EXCUSE.
DOWN WHAT THE PROJECT, I DON'T DUNNO IF WE WANT AN EXCUSE, BUT NO, AND I DO WANNA DISTINGUISH, OBVIOUSLY CHRIS AND I WORKED ON THE BREWERY.
THERE IS ONE DIFFERENCE THERE.
AND THAT, THAT WAS THE OWNER WAS THE DEVELOPER.
SO LIKE HE KNEW, YOU KNOW, WASN'T, THAT WAS, THERE WAS NO SPECULATIVE ELEMENT TO THAT, YOU KNOW? WELL, WE'RE GLAD IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND THEN PICK A NEW BUSINESS LINE,
I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GONNA PROTECT DR.
AND SO WHEN DO YOU WANNA COME BACK? YEAH, I THINK AS SEAN SAID, I THINK YOU KNOW THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOOD FEEDBACK.
I THINK WE NEED TO TABLE AND COME BACK.
DO YOU WANT US TO TABLE TWO WEEKS OR A MONTH? YOU MAY WANT TO DO 'EM MONTH.
SO WE'LL, UM, IS, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO, TO TABLE, UM, HOOVER, 3,800 HOOVER, LLC UNTIL APRIL 17TH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? A A WE'LL SEE ON THE 17TH.
SO WE, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THE, ARE WE, ARE YOU GONNA BLEND THE TWO OF 'EM TOGETHER THEN? WELL, I, UNLESS THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC INPUT ON BAY, ON BAYVIEW, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE GOT THE INPUT ON HOOVER.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
SO SIDE, WE DID, WE DID STOP, UH, FROM GOING INTO THE SECOND PART.
SO FIONA, DO YOU WANNA READ YOUR COMMENT ON SECOND PROPERTY? YES.
I WANNA
'CAUSE THEY ALL THESE TALL BUILDINGS MM-HMM
UM, AND, AND WE GOT THIS WONDERFUL LAKE.
SO, UM, THIS IS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.
I JUST WANNA BE ABLE TO SEE IT AND MAYBE GET TO IT.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GO TO FLORIDA.
HERE'S, HERE'S THE THING ABOUT THAT.
THE PROPOSED FOUR STORY, 44 UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 3 8 3 3 PINK ROAD.
I GUESS IT'S 3 8 3 3 BAYVIEW ROAD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLANS.
THE FOUR STORY 44 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE CURRENT ADOPTED ZONING WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL.
THE FOUR STORY 44 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING DOES NOT FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
[02:00:01]
UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDING DOES NOT PROTECT OUTSTANDING STANDING ARYUM, WATERFRONT ACCESS OR WATER DEPENDENT USE.
THE LARGE SIZE OF THE FOUR STORY 44 UNIT RENTAL PATENTABILITY WILL IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE GATEWAY TO THE LAKE SHORE.
SUGGESTED MIL MITIGATIONS COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL ZONING AND THE ADOPTED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN.
SO WE'LL TAKE THAT INPUT INTO CONSIDERATION I THINK, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS GONNA BE A REIT OF PROCESS, HOPING TO COLLABORATE WITH THE TOWN.
CAN WE GO BACK AND ACTUALLY JUST 'CAUSE I THINK WE COULD AT LEAST DO SOME HOMEWORK, ABLE BOTH THESE FOR TWO WEEKS.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE BUSY AGENDA, AT LEAST BE BACK TO GIVE AN UPDATE.
WE JUST TABLE HOW MANY DO WE HAVE ON THE, WE JUST TABLED IT UNTIL THE 17TH OF APRIL, RIGHT? IS THERE ANY WAY WE COME BACK TILL TWO WEEKS EARLY.
UH, ON THE THIRD RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IS SOUTHWESTERN AND HOWARD ALCHEMY AND THAT SEVENTH INDIVIDUAL.
HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? THREE? WE DO YOU COULD YOU, WELL YOU'RE GONNA BE HERE ANYWAY, SO YOU CAN GIVE US THAT UPDATE.
BUT CAN WE PUT 'EM ON THE AGENDA? BOTH.
AND IF WE'RE NOT READY, WE'LL JUST LET JOSH KNOW, BUT AT LEAST THAT WAY WE CAN SOUNDS LIKE COMPLAINT.
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER MOTION, RIGHT? NO.
WE HAVE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 6TH.
UH, REALLY QUICK, UM, WE WENT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION, B ATO
SO WE HAD A MEMO FROM DREW THAT HE SENT TO THE TOWN BOARD IN 2007 ABOUT THE REC FEE.
UM, AND HE HAD SENT INFORMATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AND FROM HIS RESEARCH AND FROM TOWN RESEARCH CONCLUDED THAT REC FEE, UH, WASN'T REQUIRED FOR THAT DIVISION.
SO WHAT THAT NEW INFORMATION WANTED TO BRING IT BACK.
I KNOW IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAD FILED PREVIOUSLY FOR THE APPROVAL, WE HAD INQUIRED THAT THE DIRECTOR WAS GOING TO GOING THE TOWN HALL WITH THIS NEW INFORMATION, WANTED TO BRING IT TO THE BOARD TO SEE WHETHER YOU WANTED TO PROVIDE THE RESOLUTION OR WE STILL WANT TO SEND IT, WE WOULD NEED TO PUT THAT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA IF WE WERE GONNA TALK ABOUT IT.
WOULDN, WE NOTICE WELL, WE'RE JUST, I MEAN, THEY'VE GOT PROOF THAT THE, THAT THE FEES WERE, THEY HAVE DOCUMENTATION.
SO I THINK ACT ON THAT INFORMATION ON THE AGENDA.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO SEE THE, YOU WANNA JUST ADD IT TO THE THIRD? YOU CAN
ALONG WITH THE PAPERWORK THAT YOU HAVE.
DID EVERYONE GET COPIES OF THE LETTER I SUBMITTED WITH THAT? I THINK I, I BELIEVE I FORWARDED, BUT WE'LL DO IT AGAIN.
WE'LL IT WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY IT SHOULD BE IN THE CHAIR.
I DON'T THINK WE KNEW THAT IT WAS THERE THOUGH.
I MEAN, I KNEW ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T, I DIDN'T.
WE'LL, IT WILL, IT'LL BE THERE FOR OUR SHAREPOINT FOR THE MEETING FOR APRIL 3RD.
IT WILL BE IN OUR, IN OUR PACKET.
WE HAD MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 6TH MEETING.
I HAD ONE EDITORIAL EDIT, UH, SUPERVISOR
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND FOR THE CORRECTION AND THE MINUTES.
AND THEN YOU'RE MOVING AND THAT AND IS THERE, THAT'S A MOTION TO HAVE THE MINUTES APPROVED.
SO I ALREADY DID THAT, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
MEANING? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.