[00:02:52]
ATTORNEY'S NOT HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED HIM YET TONIGHT, SO I'M SURE HE IS AROUND THE CORNER.
SO WE'LL START WITH OUR WORK SESSION, LAKESHORE MEDICAL CAMPUS, REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT, UM, 4,075 SQUARE FEET, ADDITION TO AN EXISTING LAKESHORE MEDICAL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 5 8 4 4 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
JUST AS A REFRESH, THIS PLAN, THIS PLAN WAS BEFORE THE BOARD AND MAY OF 2020 AND RECEIVED APPROVAL, UM, THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS NOT APPLIED FOR WITHIN ONE YEAR.
AND SO THERE BACK FOR RE-APPROVAL.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE FOR DARYL MARTIN ARCHITECT.
YEAH, I JUST HAD, WE'RE DOING A SITE PLAN OR POOL AND A WORK SESSION.
NO, YOU WON'T BE, YOU WON'T BE REAPP APPROVING IT TONIGHT.
YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, TO READ THE SCHEDULE.
THE BUILDING, SAFE BUILDING THAT MIGHT CHANGE WOULD BE INTERIOR LAYOUT BECAUSE PROGRAM HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MUCH AT ALL.
UH, EVERYTHING ELSE, NO ENGINEERING ISSUES OR CHANGING, WE'RE EXCHANGING ROOF FOR PA FOR PAVEMENT.
I THINK THAT ENGINEERING DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT.
THERE WAS NO, DID A LOT OF GOOD FOR THE TIME.
I MEAN, AT THE TIME, UM, WE WERE NOT DOING FINAL LETTERS, SO WE JUST WOULD'VE SIGNED THIS PLAN.
OH, I MEAN, DID YOU HAVE AN ENGINEERING LETTER FOR TONIGHT FOR THOSE? YES.
BUT, UH, SINCE JANE IS ON VACATION, I DON'T HAVE THEM PRINTED OUT.
SO, UH, WE, IT SHOULD BE IN THE FILE, UM, IN ENGINEERING LETTERS.
UH, SO WE COULD ALWAYS SEND IT AFTERWARDS.
I, I, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS DETERMINING THE ROOF DRAINAGE.
IS THAT INTERIOR? IS THAT EXTERIOR? IT INTERIOR.
WE'RE GONNA CONNECT IT TO THE EXISTING.
[00:05:01]
ALREADY, OKAY.SO YOUR NOTE THAT SAYS WATER AND SANITARY SEWER ALL SAYS IS ALL COMING IN.
IF YOU COULD ADD A NOTE THAT SAYS ROOF LEADERS ARE ALSO, AND THAT'S CONNECTED IN, THAT WOULD SATISFY AND THE, I BELIEVE THE ONLY COMMENT, I SORRY TO JUMP.
ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE NOTED? NOPE.
SO WHAT OUR NEXT STEP IS TO SET UP, UM, PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE JUNE 5TH MEETING.
AND, UM, JOSH, ARE YOU GONNA BE SCHEDULING EVERYTHING TONIGHT? YEAH.
SO JUNE 5TH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PLAN THEM FOR A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND THEN, UM, THERE'LL BE NOTICES MAILED OUT, UM, FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SO WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 5TH OF JUNE.
ARE YOU AUTHOR ALSO AUTHORIZING THIS TO PRODUCE, YOU KNOW, THE RESOLUTION? I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN? ARE YOU AUTHORIZING US TO DO THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION AS WELL FOR THE MEETING? YES.
AND WHEN DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT? WE DON'T.
WHEN WERE THEY? NEXT YEAR? YEAH.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S BEHIND DR.
SHARMA'S OFFICE BUILDING AND THEY WERE ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL OH, OKAY.
HIS WIFE'S GONNA, HIS WIFE'S PRACTICE IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT BIGGER.
SHE'S A GENERAL PRACTITIONER BECAUSE THEY ALSO USED TO, THIS IS GONNA GO WAY BACK.
THIS IS ALSO WHERE THEY HAD THE TEMPORARY COVID THING THAT WE HAD APPROVED.
THAT WAS NOW, THAT IS A TEMPORARY IN THAT SPAN, CORRECT.
HUH? SO THAT'S NO LONGER, I MEAN, THAT, THAT CAME AND WENT IN THAT SPAM, BUT THAT WAS, THAT WAS LIKE OUR DECEMBER 29TH MEETING IN LIKE 2020 WASN'T, YES, IT'S ALL COMING BACK.
I THINK A LOT OF IT WAS ZOOM MEETINGS, WHATEVER.
I, ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES DID MOST OF IT, SO.
YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE? NOPE.
UM, WE, I'M JUST GRUMPY ABOUT THE INTERNET.
UM, SO WE PROVE THIS IN 2020, BUT THEN WE HAVE A MEMO FROM THE CAB THAT SAYS THAT THE BUILDING IS IN A WETLAND.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO OPEN THE SITE PLAN TO SEE WHAT THE WETLAND IMPLICATIONS ARE, BUT THE INTERNET, YES, I KNOW.
SO IS LENORA HERE? LEONA, LEON.
UM, YOU SENT OUT AN EMAIL INDICATING THAT THIS WAS CLOSE TO THE WETLANDS OR THE, IN IT, IT GOES INTO IT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE CAN'T GET INTO THE INTERNET STUFF, SO I'M JUST VERIFYING FOR THE RECORD.
SO WE HAVE DEALT WITH THAT WITH THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, PARDON? THEY EVEN SAY ON THERE WE WOULD'VE DEALT WITH THAT.
YOU COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY, BUT THE BOARD HAS CHANGED SINCE 2020.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AGAIN, WHICH MEANS NEW BOARD MEMBERS, NEW THOUGHTS, UNFORTUNATELY.
UM, SO I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS ON, UH, NO, ON THE DRAWING SAID THERE IS NO STATE OR FEDERAL WETLANDS PERMITS OR APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THIS CIDER PROJECT.
AND SO THAT I DID NOT SEE THE CAPS MAP, BUT THE DRAWING, I SEE A LETTER, BUT NOT THE MAIL IN THE FORM.
ON THE EIF ON THE EAF, THEY CHECKED OFF THAT IT'S IN THE WETLAND.
THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WHAT TRIGGERED IT FOR YOU.
BUT THEN THE DRAWING SAYS THAT THERE AREN'T WETLAND IMPLICATIONS.
IT SAYS CHECK ALL, MAYBE THEY'RE REFERRING TO THE, THE SITE ITSELF, WHICH IS QUITE LARGE.
THEY PUT SOME OTHER, THAT'S VERY MM-HMM
THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY, BUT NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR.
BUT THE BUILDING IS NOT ANYWHERE, IS NOT, I THINK THE, THE DELINEATED BY THE ONE LINE RIGHT THERE.
I DON'T RECALL THERE BEING THEM ON THIS PIECE BECAUSE THIS PIECE OF BUCKS THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THERE WAS ALREADY EXISTING PARKING.
THIS IS EXISTING PAVED AREA THAT'S GONNA BE COMING FROM PAVEMENT.
IT'S EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT BECOMES A BUILDING.
YEAH, I HAVE IT LIKE THE SECOND PLAN IS LOADED NOW AND IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SHOW ANY WET ON THE ADDITION.
UM, SO MAYBE THEY'RE ON THE PARCEL, LEON, THEY'RE ON THE EAF, BUT I THINK SINCE YOU HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, WE CAN JUST DO A LITTLE DIGGING.
BUT I THINK YOU SEE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHERE THERE WAS SPOTS WHERE DELAYING UP THERE WE SEE A LITTLE FLAGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PUT IN AT ONE POINT.
BUT THEN THERE'S THE PROPER, OKAY.
I THINK THEY HAVE A WETLAND CHECK ZONE ON THE BACK PORTION OF THE PARCEL, BUT NOT THIS PART OF THE PARCEL.
THIS THIS AREA IS PAVED, SO IT CAN'T BE WETLANDS.
THE PART THAT IS BEING DISTURBED IS ENTIRELY CORRECT.
AND IS THIS ALL ONE PARCEL? YES.
MEANING LIKE YOU ARE ADDING AN
[00:10:01]
ADDITION, BUT THEIR EAF IS GONNA FLAG THE WHOLE UH, RIGHT.SBL L SO THAT MIGHT BE WHY THERE'S A FLAG.
IT'S ON THE FORM, BUT THERE'S NOT IMPLICATION OF THE PROJECT.
BUT THEY'RE ADDING TO A BUILDING THAT EXISTS ON EXISTING PAVEMENT.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE TWO
NO, NO, YOU'RE PERFECTLY FINE.
I'M GLAD YOU YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND GOT IT CLARIFIED.
NOW WE'LL SEE YOU ON JUNE 5TH.
YEAH, THEY'RE HAVING A PROBLEM.
[00:31:36]
WELCOME[00:31:37]
EVERYONE[00:31:37]
TO[00:31:37]
THE MAY 15TH, UM, TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD.WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE FOR THE
ONE ANCIENT HONOR GOD IN ISRAEL WITH LIBERTY READING AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
SARAH, WOULD YOU PLEASE FOLLOW A ROLL? MARGO VALENTI.
SO TONIGHT OUR FIRST CASE IS NATO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OVER PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 44 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RILEY BOULEVARD AND BAYVIEW ROAD.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN BEFORE AND THEY'RE BACK WITH SOME CHANGES.
SO, GOOD EVENING CHAIR PER AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
SEAN HOPKINS FROM THE LAW FIRM OF HOPKINS SERGIE MCCARTHY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
ALSO WITH ME IS, UH, CHRIS W IS THE PROJECT ENGINEER CHRIS WOOD FROM CARMINA WOOD DESIGN.
WE DO A BRIEF POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
I'M GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH QUICKLY, SO YOU WANNA GO? NEXT SLIDE.
SO THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WE PRESENTED WHEN WE CAME IN FRONT OF YOU ON APRIL 17TH, 2024.
UM, WE'RE PROPOSING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS 4.88 ACRE SITE IS 44 TOWNHOUSE UNITS FOR SALE.
GOING TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE FOR SALE.
WE'RE SHOWING A SERIES OF 10, TWO STORY FOUR UNIT BUILDINGS AND TWO, TWO STORY TWO UNIT BUILDINGS.
WE ARE SHOWING ADEQUATE PARKING, 109 PARKING SPACES.
UH, WE'RE SHOWING MORE THAN 22,000 SQUARE FEET ONSITE RECREATIONAL AREA.
THE REQUIREMENT PER THE CODE IS 500 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT.
UM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS SITE IS PROPERLY ZONED PURSUANT TO A DECISION ISSUED BY THE TOWN WARD IN LATE 2022, IT'S OWN NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
AND OF COURSE, THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE ULTIMATELY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD AFTER YOU STAND THE PUBLIC HEARING SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER PROJECTS.
TOWN OF HAMBURG ZONING CODE HAS A VERY UNIQUE DEFINITION FOR TOWNHOUSES.
TOWNHOUSES GENERALLY SPEAKING ARE ATTACHED UNITS FOR SALE VERSUS FOR LEASE.
SO THEY DO FALL WITHIN THAT DEFINITION OF TOWNHOUSE AND YOUR ZONING CODE, WHICH DOES SUBJECT THEM TO THE SPECIAL REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN TWO 80 DASH 2 83 OF THE ZONING CODE.
WE THEN CAME BACK OF YOU OR CAME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU ON MAY 1ST AND PRESENTED THIS PLAN AND BASICALLY THE PLAN INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS BASED ON YOUR INPUT.
WE SHOWED A SIDEWALK CONNECTION OUT TO RILEY.
WE ALSO SHOWED A RECREATIONAL TRAIL ON SITE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS THAT DARK LINE.
AND THEN WE SHOWED SOME BENCHES AND A GAZEBO WITHIN THAT RECREATIONAL SPACE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE PRIMARILY IS LOCATED OUT ALONG BAYVIEW.
AND THEN THIS IS THE UPDATED PLAN THAT WE'RE PRESENTING THIS EVENING FOR THE FIRST TIME.
[00:35:01]
SO BASICALLY WE MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CHANGES BASED ON YOUR INPUT DURING YOUR MEETING ON MAY 1ST, WE'VE ADDED A PICNIC SHELTER AND TABLES WITHIN THAT RECREATIONAL AREA ALONG BAYVIEW ROAD.WE'VE ALSO ADDED A, A BERM LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT RECREATIONAL AREA ON BAYVIEW ROAD, WHICH WE THINK WILL BE NICE.
AND THEN BASED ON YOUR INPUT, WE ELIMINATED THE RECREATIONAL TRAIL TO BAYVIEW BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE, UM, PEOPLE THAT DON'T RESIDE ON THIS SITE.
AGAIN, THESE ARE FOR SALE UNITS FROM UTILIZING THAT AREA.
SO WE BELIEVE WE'VE INCORPORATED THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US DURING THE MEETING ON MAY 1ST.
SO ONE TOPIC THAT WE WANT TO GET RESOLVED THIS EVENING PERTAINS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT.
AND AS I MENTIONED, THE TOWN BOARD DOWN ZONE, THIS SITE FROM C TWO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND C NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2022.
IMPORTANTLY, AFTER COMPLETING A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THE TOWN BOARD ALSO ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
THAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANT IS BINDING ON THIS BOARD BECAUSE IT WAS A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
AND THE APPLICANT WAS ACTUALLY ASKED TO SUBMIT A PLAN SHOWING WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE OR WOULD BE ON THIS SITE.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT DURING THAT REZONING REVIEW PROCESS, YOU ACTUALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE REZONING AND YOU MADE REC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL DURING YOUR MEETING ON JULY 20TH, 2022.
SO THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED DURING THE REZONING REVIEW PROCESS.
AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S FAIRLY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE SHOWING TONIGHT.
WITH ONE CAVEAT, IT ACTUALLY SHOWS 46 UNITS, WHEREAS WE'RE PROPOSING 44 UNITS.
SO BASICALLY IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TOWN BOARD DURING ITS 2022 REVIEW WAS ACTUALLY MORE INTENSIVE THAN WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME USE, GENERALLY THE SAME LAYOUT.
SO WE THINK IT'S CLEAR AS DAY THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT NEED TO ISSUE AN ADDITIONAL SECRET DETERMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.
SO WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER TWO THINGS.
SEE, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO ISSUE A DETERMINATION THAT THERE'S NOT A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT WAS COVERED BY THE COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONDUCTED BY THE TOWN BOARD AS A DESIGNATED LEAD AGENCY 2022.
AND SECONDLY, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST FOR FLIGHT APPROVAL.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CURRENT PLAN OR HOW THE PLAN HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME, EITHER MYSELF OR MR. WOOD WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? NOPE.
I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD.
I THINK THE FIRST DISCUSSION SHOULD PROBABLY BE WHERE ARE WE WITH SEEKER? WHAT'S THE OPINION OF THE BOARD? UH, DO WE ACCEPT THE SEEKER THAT WAS DONE BACK IN 2022? OR DO WE CREATE, OR DO WE INDICATE THAT A NEW SEEKER HAS TO BE DONE? I THINK, I THINK MR. HOPKINS IS RIGHT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO ANOTHER SEEKER.
THE THE TOWN BOARD DID THE SEEKER BASED ON THIS.
AND THEY, THEY WERE LEAD AGENCY FOR THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE? DO WE NEED TO, TO ISSUE A CONCURRENCE? SORRY, THE SECRET TIMELINE IS A LITTLE WILD HERE.
SO THERE WAS THE EIS AND THE FINDING STATEMENT FOR THE, THE PUD THAT WAS THE BUSINESS PARK.
WHEN THE TOWN BOARD DID THIS REZONING, THEY BIFURCATED IT FROM THAT.
AND THEN THIS WAS FOR THIS NEW PLAN.
SO WE NO LONGER HAVE TO BE DOING ANYTHING RELATIVE TO THE FIRST EIS.
WE ARE JUST, THIS ONE IS ONLY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT PAGE.
WE ARE ONLY TAKING THIS RELATIVE TO THE REZONING AND THE TOWN BOARD WAS LEAD AGENCY AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COORDINATE.
SO BECAUSE IT NO LONGER AFFECTS THE ORIGINAL EIS, WE JUST NEED TO FOLLOW THIS ONE.
WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUD, RIGHT? YEAH, I THINK, YES.
AND IT WASN'T A PUD IT WAS RE IT WAS REZONED IN REZONED.
I'M I, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH
SO WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
I GUESS I DIDN'T THINK MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PREVIOUSLY, UM, PROCESS.
DO WE NEED THAT? DO WE NEED A MOTION ON THE SECRET? I DON'T THINK WE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE DO, BUT I THINK SHE MADE ONE.
[00:40:01]
SHOULD, SHOULD HAVE ONE AS PART OF THE, AGAIN.WOULD YOU LIKE TO TRY THAT AGAIN? UH, MAYBE IF I GET A LITTLE GUIDANCE ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
WELL, I THINK THAT MAYBE YOU SHOULD REFERENCE THE PREVIOUS SEEKER OF MAY OF 2020 AND THAT BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AT THE TABLE.
SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT BASED ON THE PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED SEEKER OF MAY OF 2022, RIGHT.
AND ALSO THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE TABLE THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO DO ANY MORE SEEKER ANALYSIS AND WE ACCEPT THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EGG DECK.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
OKAY, NOW WE NEED TO, UM, I, I HAVE SOMETHING HERE ABOUT HERE FROM APPLICANT ON FULL SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN APPLICATION TIMELINE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT STATEMENT.
DO WE NEED A SUBDIVISION WALK? IT'S KIND LIKE BRIARWOOD, ISN'T IT? BRIAR TOWNHOUSES.
THESE ARE SAME THING AS BRIARWOOD.
SAME THING AS THESE ARE HOUSES FOR SALE.
SO WE NEED A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THEN A FINAL PLAT.
SO WE WOULD ASK YOU SCHEDULE THE HEARING.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
BY THE WAY, ON A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, SO WE'RE GONNA REQUEST A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND WE'RE GONNA SCHEDULE THE HEARING.
UM, WE'VE GOT JUNE 5TH, OAKLAND USUALLY, ARE WE OKAY WITH JUNE 5TH? YEP.
ANYTHING ELSE? CAN WE DO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN AND SITE PLAN? YEAH.
IS THAT A SITE PLAN? WE DIDN'T DO THAT WITH BRETT.
YEAH, I THINK I IFF I DON'T THINK WE DID BOTH.
WE STARTED DOWN SITE PLAN AND AGAIN, SOMEONE CLARIFIED IT WAS JUST DON THINK AND THAT WAS PUD.
THAT WAS PUD, THE EXTENDED MATTERS.
BUT NO, I THINK IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY PLAN.
WE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO SITE PLANNING ON IT AT ALL.
WELL, WE DO PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 44, BUT THAT DOESN'T, THAT WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE PATHS AND THE, UH, AND THE LANDSCAPING SURE.
WE CHANGED EVERYTHING WITH THAT.
THE SITE, JUST LIKE A SUBDIVISION IF YOU HAVE PARKING SPACE.
NO, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
IT WOULD JUST BE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE SAME THINGS YOU'D LOOK AT FOR SITE PLANS.
THE FINAL PLA ON, ON ANY RESOLUTIONS FOR THAT MEETING? I'M SORRY, JOSH, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
ARE YOU AUTHORIZING ANY RESOLUTIONS FOR THAT MEETING? WE, WE HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE I ANSWER THAT.
THEY'RE THEN GONNA COME BACK TO US FOR FINAL PLAT.
FINAL PLA IT'S JUST WHEN YOU, IT MY SON FINAL.
SO WE'LL DO PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ANYTHING THAT WE WANT WOULD NEED TO BE ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOLLOWING ANY COMMENTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME ANYTHING UP.
SO WE'RE GONNA DO THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, SO IT'LL COME BACK TO US.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE CAN HAVE OUR DISCUSSION AFTER THAT.
DO YOU WANT RESOLUTIONS? SIR? DID ANYBODY SHOW UP AT THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE REZONING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS? I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE REZONING, SO NOT THAT I REMEMBER.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION NOW, YES.
I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE RESOLUTIONS PREPARED FOR THAT NIGHT AS WELL.
ANYTHING ELSE? DO WE HAVE EVERYTHING, ALL THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
OUR NEXT CASE IS, UM, MATT JAWORSKI HAS RETURNED.
SOME OF THESE PEOPLE JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF THIS PLANNING BOARD.
UM, MATT JAWORSKI IS RETURNING REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON A REVISED PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A MINI STORAGE.
I'M NOT GONNA READ THE 15 PAGES OF WARREN PEACE.
HOWEVER, TONIGHT THEY'RE HERE TO SCHEDULE A, UM, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINGENT THAT THE PUB THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVED THEIR USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZBA.
SO, GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
ALSO WITH THE IS MAT JAWORSKI AND CHRIS WOOD AND PROJECT ENGINEER FROM CARINO WOOD DESIGN.
OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT MANY TIMES BEFORE.
I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 56 61 CAMP ROAD, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE COLOR AERIAL.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AFTER THE ZBA GRANTED A USE VARIANCE ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022.
UM, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS ISSUED A, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[00:45:01]
PURSUANT TO SEEKER AT THAT SAME MEETING ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022.SUBSEQUENTLY, YOU GRANTED SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON JANUARY 18TH, 2023.
WE DID RECEIVE A PERMIT FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2023, A TOPIC THAT WAS DISCUSSED A MONTH AGO.
WE RECEIVED SIX MONTH SITE PLAN EXTENSION ON JANUARY 3RD OF THIS YEAR.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A RENEWAL OF THE USE VARIANCE AND ONE MINOR SETBACK VARIANCE DURING THIS MEETING ON MAY 7TH.
ONE TOPIC WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE GOOD WITH, AND I BELIEVE EVERYONE IS, IS THAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022 REMAINS VALID, MEANING YOU HAVE PROVISIONS IN YOUR CODE WHERE SITE PLANS CAN EXPIRE AND VARIANCES CAN EXPIRE.
BUT GIVEN THAT THIS IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS ALWAYS PRESENTED, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOES REMAIN VALID IN 2024.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE PRESENTED ON APRIL 17TH, 2024 AND DOES REFERENCE THE TWO VARIANCES.
AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS THE CURRENT PLAN, THE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU ON MAY 1ST.
AS YOU, JUST, AS YOU'LL REMEMBER DURING THE MEETING ON APRIL 17TH, WE DISCUSSED SOME MODIFICATIONS.
UH, ONE OF THOSE IS MOVING THE THREE STORY CLIMATE CONTROL BUILDING CLOSER TO CAMP ROAD, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE.
BASED ON SOME INPUT WE RECEIVED FROM THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WE RELOCATED OUR DRIVEWAY CONNECTION OPPOSITE THE DRIVEWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CAMP ROAD.
SO IT'LL BE ON THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL ROUTE PARCEL WITH A RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE DOT IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THAT FUTURE RETAIL PROJECT TO HAVE SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS.
WE'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE ALSO DID SLIGHTLY ELIMINATE OR SLIGHTLY MODIFIED THE CONFIGURATION OF THE COMMERCIAL OUT PARCEL TO MAKE IT MORE RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE.
AGAIN, IN TERMS OF WETLAND IMPACTS, WE'RE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 6.068 ACRES OR 0.068 ACRES, MEANING WE'RE AT LESS THAN SEVEN ONE HUNDREDTHS OF AN ACRE ON THIS SITE.
ALL THE REMAINING WETLANDS WILL REMAIN IN PERPETUITY.
AND AGAIN, THIS DOES REQUIRE A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THIS BOARD.
SO BASICALLY ALL WE'RE ASKING THIS EVENING IS YOU TO SCHEDULE A HEARING FOR THAT FIRST MEETING IN JUNE.
THIS WILL GO BACK IN FRONT OF THE ZBA DURING ITS MEETING ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF JUNE.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THEY SEEM TO BE FINE IN TERMS OF THE MERITS OF THE RENEWAL OF THE USE VARIANCE AND THE VERY MINOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ONE OF THE BUILDINGS.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, UH, EITHER MYSELF, MR. JAWORSKI OR MR. WOOD WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS 'EM.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER ENGINEERING? NOTHING.
I, MY THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE, AND THEN I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD, IS WHAT HAPPENS IF BY CHANCE YOU DON'T GET THE ZBA? THE, THE VARIANCE, THE RENEWAL VIEWS? VARIANCE? YES.
WELL, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK AS THE TOWN ATTORNEY, BUT YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE TOUGH TO ENVISION A LEGAL REASON WHERE THEY COULD DENY SOMETHING THEY ALREADY GRANTED.
WHEN THERE'S NOT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE SEEKER THAT WAS DONE.
THE SEEKER THAT WAS DONE, DID THAT INCLUDE THE THREE STORY BUILDING OR IS THAT JUST FOR THE OUT THAT WAS PRE THE BUILDING, PRE THE THREE STORY BUILDING.
IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS OR AMEND OR NOTE OR MAYBE ISSUE A IN A RESOLUTION NOTE? THAT'S WHY WE DON'T THINK THAT'S A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE FROM THE SECRET WHEN WE GO THROUGH IT.
OH, YOU GUYS WON'T EVEN LEAD AGENCY.
NO, BUT I MEAN, IF THIS BOARD, IF THIS BOARD WANTS TO REACH A CONCLUSION THAT THEY AGREE THERE'S NO NEED FOR AN, AN ADDITIONAL SECRET GENERATION, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGING CHANGE ACKNOW.
THAT WE ACKNOW ACKNOW THAT WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT THAT SEEKER, THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN AND THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE NO INDOOR STORAGE.
THERE WAS NOT THIS, THERE A STRUCTURE, BUT THEY REALLY DID IT.
THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE EXACTLY, EXACTLY THE SAME.
AND WE DID MODIFY THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION BECAUSE WE HAD TO BASED ON DOG SIM.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SUBSTANTIVE, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH JUST TALKING THROUGH JU JUST AS LONG AS THE BOARD TAKES THE, THE BUZZWORDS ARE HARD LUCK.
AND, AND TAKES THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IT CAN COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS JUST AS LONG AS IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT THEY TOOK A HARD LOOK.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CHANGE.
THERE'S NO CHANGE IN LIKE, THE
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN THINK ANYTHING OF IT, BUT IT'S WORTH IN CASE WE GET ANY COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING, JUST, OKAY.
SO, UH, SO WE HAVE THREE CASES ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW.
AND THE, THE CAB SENT US A MEMO ON THE 11TH SAYING THAT THE, ALL OF THIS SITE, OR PART OF THIS SITE IS IN, THERE'S A BOA FOR THE VILLAGE
[00:50:01]
AND IT IS IN THE BROWNFIELD OPPORTUNITY AREA.AND SO LAST MEETING WHEN YOU WERE HERE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE WETLAND AND UM, MR. DOKI CONVINCED ME THAT HE'S CLEANING IT UP AND WE CAN TRADE THAT FOR THE LITTLE BUILDING.
BUT IS THERE ANY CONFLICT WITH THE BOA? NOT THAT I, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
THE MEMO IS JUST A PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS, UM, THE PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE VILLAGE OF HAMBURG, BOA STUDY SUGGESTED MITIGATION MOVE BUILDINGS AWAY FROM THE WETLAND AS WELL AS THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER PROPERTY IN THE TOWN IN THE VILLAGE.
PARDON? HOW WAS A PROPERTY IN THE TOWN? I DON'T KNOW.
I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE EBOLA, BUT THIS IS WHAT'S IN THE CABIN FOR THE RECORD.
KEITH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU CLARIFY EBOLA? YES.
I DO WANNA KNOW, KEEP IN MIND OUR, WHAT WE'VE DESIGNED THIS TO LITERALLY MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS TO MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL.
WE'RE AT LESS THAN 700 OF AN ACRE.
WE HAVE A PERMIT IN THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
THERE IS NO A HUNDRED FOOT ADJACENT AREA ASSOCIATED WITH FEDERAL WETLANDS.
SO WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THE TWO OBJECTIVES THAT WERE SET FORTH IN THE CABINET.
SO, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY MARGOT GOT THAT EMAIL CORRECT? IT WASN'T SENT TO EVERYBODY.
I SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL OF YOU TODAY WITH THE TWO THINGS THAT WE'VE, HIS LETTER ABOUT SEEKER THE CAB MEMO.
JUST SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, AROUND NOON.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT SHE JUST TOLD YOU? SO WE HAVE ANOTHER RECORD.
THE, UH, SHE SHOWED ME A SCREENSHOT OF AN IMAGE OF THE, UM, AERIAL, I CAN'T THINK OF THE WORD, BUT BORDER.
OF WHERE THE BROWNFIELD OPPORTUNITY AREA FOR HAMBURG IS.
AND SO THEY JUST WANNA ENSURE THAT THAT IS ON THE RECORD AND THERE'S NOT ANY KIND OF CONFLICT OF DOING THIS PROJECT ON THIS SITE IN THE BROWNFIELD OPPORTUNITY AREA.
THEY LOOK AT PLACES THAT CAN BE REDEVELOPED AND CLEANED UP AND KIND OF WHAT THEIR BEST USES COULD BE.
BUT I HAVEN'T SPENT ANY TIME WITH THE BOAS, SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO, TO THIS.
WELL, BUT KEEP IN MIND WHAT THE, WHAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE BO IS.
THE BOA OBJECTIVE IS TO CLEAN UP PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN DEEMED, UM, APPROPRIATE FOR CLEANUP, ACT AS A CATALYST.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
YEAH, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY, WE DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE IN THE BROWNFIELD PROGRAM.
IF WE DID, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY SEEK THOSE BENEFITS.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT NOTE, WE DID SUBMIT A VERY, VERY COMPREHENSIVE PHASE ONE REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND PHASE TWO.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS IN THAT BROWNFIELD OPPORTUNITY AREA? I'M SAYING EVEN IF IT IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE'RE FULFILLING ITS OBJECTIVES WITHOUT BEING IN THE PROGRAM.
MEANING WE'RE, WE'RE TAKING A JUNKYARD AND CLEANING IT UP.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE THAN THAT.
I THINK THAT'S JUST MY MOMENT FOR ARE THEY ARE, ARE THEY BACK? DID YOU SAY BACK WE'RE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH.
SO AGAIN, I THINK, WE'LL, WE'LL LOOK INTO IT.
IF YOU DO A LITTLE FURTHER FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD, THEN HE CAN JUST MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I, I WILL SAY THAT OUR PREVIOUS MINUTES WILL REFLECT THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS STATED, UM, SEVERAL TIMES HIS INTENT TO KEEP THE, THE, TO CLEAN UP THIS AREA.
AND HIS INTENT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE WETLAND.
SO I MEAN, AS THIS BOARD MEMBER I'M COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD AT THIS POINT, AND WE'LL HAVE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESEARCH THE, ANY OF THAT VERBIAGE.
WOULD THE BOARD BE, WOULD THE BOARD BE WILLING, AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN AT THIS A LONG TIME MM-HMM
REALLY THESE CHANGES ARE MINOR TWO TOPICS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT ISSUING THE DECISION RELATIVE TO SEEKER JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THE MINOR CHANGES, BUT YOU THINK IT'S STILL FINE.
AND THEN SECONDLY, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THE P DEPARTMENT PREPAR DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THAT JUNE MEETING THIS DBA MEETING IS THE DAY BEFORE WE DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON RIGHT.
WE DON'T, WE ALREADY APPROVED IT ONCE, RIGHT? MM-HMM
AND THE BOA ISN'T GONNA BE A MAKE OR BREAK.
IT, IT'S JUST MORE LIKE, LOOK AT THE GOALS AND MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T SOME KIND OF WILD CONFLICT OR SOMETHING, WHICH I CAN'T IMAGINE IT WOULD BECAUSE YOU'RE CLEANING IT UP.
AND WE'LL, AND GIVEN, AGAIN, GIVEN THAT WE'RE BACK HERE, I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT MEMO AND WE'LL, WE'LL COMMENT APPROPRIATELY.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A HEARING.
SO IF WE CAN GET THE COMMENTS ON THE RECORD, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
AND AS FAR AS SEEKER, I THINK WE ADDRESSED THAT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
AND, UM, I WILL AUTHORIZE TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTIONS, UM, FOR THE FIFTH.
THANK YOU AND HAVE A GREAT EVENING.
ARE YOU BACK AGAIN TONIGHT OR NO? NO, WE WE'RE, YOU'RE GONE NOW.
SO THE FIFTH I, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GONNA MAKE IT THROUGH.
OH, WE MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 5TH FOR, UH,
[00:55:01]
OR SHE, YES.SO OUR NEXT CASE IS, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD IS READY TO DISCUSS THE MOD WASH.
WELL, SORRY, BEFORE WE MOVE TO MOD WASH, DID WE ACTUALLY DO A MOTION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM? DO WE NEED TO DO A MOTION? I ASKED AND THEN YOU GUYS TOLD ME NO.
THAT'S WHY DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON EVERY MO EVERY, UM, ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING? TYPICALLY WHEN YOU SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING, THAT SHOULD MAKE RESIDENTIAL MOTION SCHEDULE.
WELL, WE DIDN'T DO IT ON THE FIRST ONE, BUT YEAH.
SO CAN WE GO BACK AND CAN I ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RIGHT SUBDIVISION? THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION, UH, FOR RILEY BOULEVARD.
MOTION MADE BY KAITLYN M, SECOND BY KAITLYN SHARA.
NONE OPPOSED? SO THERE'S BEEN MOTION FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO THE PLANNING BOARD NEEDS TO DISCUSS THE SUBMITTED DRAFT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING MOD CAR WASH AT 5 3 6 3 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
IF YOU REMEMBER, WE RECEIVED, UM, GENTLEMEN, CAN I ASK YOU TO STEP OUT IN THE HALLWAY? JOHN, JOHN, SEAN? I GO IN THE HALLWAY PLEASE.
THEY'RE SO INTENT ON THE MEETING.
I DON'T WANT ANY INTERRUPTIONS HERE.
UM, OKAY, SO WE RECEIVED THE PACKET FOR MOD CAR WASH AND WE REVIEWED IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY'S HAD TIME TO REVIEW.
UM, TONIGHT WE NEED TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GONNA ACCEPT THE, UM, DEIS AND I I I DO WANT TO ADD THAT I RECEIVED, UM, AND I BELIEVE WE EMAILED THIS CORRECT? THE, THE, THE NOISE STUDY REVIEW.
DO WE EMAIL IT TO THE BOARD? I DON'T, YEAH.
WE'LL, SO THAT, I THINK WE'LL GET DEALT WITH IN THE COMMENTS, NOT ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEIS.
SO FIRST WE NEED TO EITHER ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT THE DS AND THEN WE CAN COME ON THE CONTENT.
WELL, THE ONLY THING I'M I WAS GONNA SAY IS CORRECT BY THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
THIS ISN'T THE RESULTS OF THE NOISE STUDY.
THAT IS THE PROPOSAL TO HIRE GHD AS A NOISE CONSULTANT TO REVIEW ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
WE ASKED YOU TO DO THAT LAST TIME.
SO IF YOU DEEM THIS COMPLETE AND IT GOES INTO REVIEW AND COMMENT, THIS WOULD BE AN EXPERT COMMENT RELATED TO THE NOISE SECTION AND NOISE STUDY IN THE D GUYS.
SO THEY DO NEED TO SEE THIS COPY.
I'M GONNA, I'LL PASS IT AROUND AND WE CAN, UM, GET THAT TO THE BOARD.
SO I THINK THEN IS THE PROCEDURE HERE.
AND SARAH, YOU MAY RUN THIS ON THIS BOARD.
WE WOULD, I THINK THIS BOARD HAS ASKED, SO WE'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
BUT THE TOWN BOARD ACTUALLY HAS TO APPROVE THIS ON THEIR AGENDA CORRECT.
TO ACTUALLY COME HIRE GHD? NO.
WE DO THAT ON THE ASPHALT PLAN.
THE EXPERTS WEREN'T THEY RIGHT.
RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM.
SO THE TOWN BOARD HAS TO PAY THEM.
SO YOU GUYS ACCESS RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD AND ASK THEM TO PUT ON THEIR AGENDA TO APPROVE THE HIRING? OR DOES THAT LETTER SAY THEY ALREADY DID? NO.
NO, IT'S JUST THE, IT'S OUR PROPOSAL, NOT THE TOWN BOARD'S PROPOSAL.
THIS IS GH G'S PROPOSAL OFF, WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO EXECUTE.
AND IF YOU'LL NOTICE THE, THE SIGNATURE SPOT IS ACTUALLY FOR THE SUPERVISORS.
'CAUSE I DID ASSUME THAT THE TOWN BOARD HAD TO AUTHORIZE UH, AND SIGN FOR APPROVAL PER PAYMENT INFORMATION.
I MEAN I WOULD, THE OTHER CONSULTING WILL AT LEAST FOR THE DI'S US TO DO PROCESS THE FBIS.
SO WE'RE CLOSING I THINK HALF OF THE $16,000.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER RESOLUTION THAT IF YOU GUYS ARE APPROVED TO SEND TO THE TOWN BOARD, 8,000 WILL BE WINDOW THEN GHD WILL THE NOISE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS THAT MANY OTHER CONSULTING TWO HIRE THAT'S WENDELL GET THEM WHAT, WHAT GHD DID? YEAH, WE HAVE ONE.
SO SHARON, I'M GONNA GIVE THIS, I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE TOM BOARD AND ASK FOR THEM TO HIRE BOTH GHD AND WENDELL TO SUPPORT THE REVIEW
[01:00:01]
OF THE EIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL FEIS BOARD.WELL, BEFORE WE DO THAT, DON'T WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE DEIS? DON'T WE HAVE TO VOTE ON ACCEPTING WHAT'S BEFORE US? NO, NO.
WE JUST ARE GONNA HIRE THE ENGINEERS OR THE, UH, THE, UH, CONSULTANTS.
BECAUSE EVEN IF WE DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT, WE ARE SAYING THAT WE KNOW THAT WE NEED SUPPORT.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO, UM, TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT GHD AND WENDELL BE THE CONSULTANTS FOR THIS PROJECT.
NONE OPPOSED? IT'S, IT'S PASSED ABSTENTION.
SO BY VIRTUE OF HIRING THEM, I DON'T WANT TO NAME.
SO WE'RE GONNA REDO THIS, SAM.
NO, BUT I SIX SIX, I WANNA STATE IT ON THE RECORD.
'CAUSE I'M CONSTANTLY BEING TOLD BY COUNSEL THAT IT'S GOTTA BE ON THE RECORD.
SO TO CLARIFY, KAYLA CH URA IS ABSTAINING FROM THIS VOTE BECAUSE SHE'S AN EMPLOYEE OF WENDELL.
SO IT IS BEEN, UM, MOVED AND SECONDED.
IT'S BEEN VOTED ON, BUT IT IS, UM, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 4 AND ONE AGAINST, OR ONE ABSTENTION.
YOU DON'T WANNA GO INTO WORK WITH THAT ONE,
SO NOW LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REST OF IT.
UM, DOES EVERYBODY THINK THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE? ARE WE READY TO, DOES EVERYBODY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE UM, DEIS ITSELF? SO, SORRY, SO ON THE COMPLETENESS OF THE DEIS YEAH.
SO I APPRECIATE AND I, THE THOROUGH REVIEW THAT GOT DONE ON THE REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS THAT OUR PLANNING CONSULTANTS HAVE DID.
AND IT, BASED ON THAT AND WHAT I'VE SEEN IN VIS IT APPEARS THAT IN TERMS OF COMPLETENESS, THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED.
IT'S BEING PROVIDED IN A COURT SCOPE.
IF ANYBODY DISAGREES WITH THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE? SO, WELL, I DIDN'T FIND IT, BUT I, I WAS LOOKING FOR THE ACTUAL MANUFACTURER'S PLATE THAT TELLS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH NOISE IT GIVES OUT ON THOSE FANS.
AND I MEAN EVENTUALLY, BUT I DIDN'T SEE WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY, THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT IS SO, SO LOUD IN THAT.
BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE GETTING IS ACTUALLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
IT'S IN THE, IT'S IN THE, UM, 'CAUSE WE DISCUSSED IT AT THE LAST MEETING AND THEN HE CONCURRED IT WITH ME AND I BELIEVE IT'S ON PAGE 23 THROUGH 24 WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE NOISE STUDY AND THE BREAKDOWN.
AND IT WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND IT WAS INCORPORATED BY THE REFERENCES.
HERE'S THE, WE WE WERE ASKING ABOUT THE MANUFACTURERS, BUT HE SAID IT WAS IN HERE AND THEY COMMITTED TO PROVIDING IT TO US TO INCLUDE IN THE
DON'T WE NEED IT? BUT I BELIEVE THAT.
HELLO? HI
I'M SORRY IF WE CAN PROVIDE, UM, WE HAD SAID, TALKED LAST TIME THAT IT WAS MADE BY REFERENCE AND THAT WE, UM, WE COULD INCLUDE IT.
IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO BE MADE? ANYTHING ELSE THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT SEEN OR SEEN IN REGARDS TO THIS? SO BASED ON THE DISCUSSION, IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT THAT, UM, THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR AND DETERMINE THAT IT IS COMPLETE? THAT THIS DEIS IS COMPLETE? YES, SIR.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO BE MADE? MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NOT WASH DEIS AS COMPLETE AND MOVE IT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.
ARE YOU GONNA READ THE RESOLUTION? OH, THERE'S A RESOLUTION.
IT'S IN THE TODAY'S FOLDER, NOT THE PROJECT.
WE GOT A COPY RIGHT IN THE RESOLUTIONS FOLDER.
NOT THE, UH, NOT THE RESOLUTION FOLDER.
WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER RESOLUTION FOLDER IN THE PROJECT.
YOU WANT ME TO READ IT? I GOT IT.
WELL, YOU MADE THE MOTION THEN YOU GET TO READ THE RESIDENT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS IN SO LONG.
I'VE PASSED IT OFF TO BILL
[01:05:01]
FACILITY AT 53 63 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED A SEEKER COORDINATED REVIEW REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION AND ESTABLISH THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MOD WASH CAR WASH FACILITY MAY INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR AT LEAST ONE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THEREFORE ISSUED A POSITIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED A DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT ON OCTOBER 11TH, 2023 AND MADE THE SCOPING DOCUMENT AVAILABLE AND CONDUCTED A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ON THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT AT THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL 6,100 SOUTH PARK AVENUE, HAMBURG, NEW YORK AT 7:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023, AND ISSUED A FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT DATED DECEMBER 6TH, 2023.
AND WHEREAS THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A-D-E-A-D-E-I-S ON APRIL 16TH, 2024, AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE DEIS AGAINST THE FINAL WRITTEN SCOPE AND DETERMINED THAT THE DEIS IS COMPLETE FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD PER SECTION 6 1 7 0.9 OF SEEKER HAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEIS SUBMITTED FOR THE MOD WASH CAR WASH FACILITY PROJECT IS ADEQUATE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND AUTHORIZES PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE APPROPRIATE NOTICES AND MAILINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.12 OF SEEKER BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROJECT AND DEIS BE HELD ON JUNE 5TH, 2024 AT 7:00 PM AND THAT NOTICES FOR SUCH HEARING BE ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.12 OF SEEKER.
SO THE RESOLUTION PASSES JUST IN TERMS OF TIME FRAMES.
SO WE'RE GOING TO FILE THE NOTICE THAT THIS BIS IS COMPLETE TOMORROW.
AS SOON AS WE DO THAT, WE HAVE 30 DAYS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
SO WE'RE GONNA PUBLISH IT TO THE TOWN WEBSITE.
WE'RE GONNA SEND IT TO ALL THE AGENCIES WE DID WHEN WE SENT OUT THE POS THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW.
YOU GUYS CAN PUT TOGETHER COMMENTS AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CLAIMANT DEPARTMENT.
WE HAVE 30 DAYS AFTER WE FILED A NOTICE, WHICH WE'LL DO TOMORROW.
UM, AND THEN YOU GUYS HAVE SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, FOR JUNE 5TH.
UM, AND WE'LL ALSO, UH, TAKE THE COMMENTS AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S JUST KIND OF TIMEFRAMES FOR, FOR AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
AND THEN WHEN WE DISCUSS OUR REVIEW OF THE CONTENT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU WANNA TAKE THEIR COMMENT FIRST AND THEN DISCUSS IT ALL TOGETHER.
CORRECT? I THINK IT WORKS BEST THAT WAY.
I THINK SO THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING TOGETHER.
AFTER 30 DAYS, SO WE, WE HAVE 30 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
WHAT'S OUR TIMELINE TO ACT AS A BOARD AFTER THE 30 DAYS? CAN YOU REFRESH ME ON THE NEXT STEP AFTER THAT TO DO THE FBIS? YES.
SO THEN WE HAVE 45 DAYS TO DO THE FBIS.
SO IT HAS TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE TWO WEEKS AND WE GET A 15TH, FIFTH, AND THEN AFTER THE 45, THEN WE HAVE, THEN WE, THEN THERE'S ANOTHER STEP 60 DAYS RIGHT THERE AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO CAN WE GET ON THE TOWN BOARD AGENDA FOR MONDAY FOR THE CONSULTANTS? YEP.
IF YOU CAN GET THAT INFORMATION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
OUR FINAL CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS ALCHEMY SHORES REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR MIXED USE CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT 3 7 8 0 HOOVER ROAD.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS COUNSEL, MR. ED MURPHY IS HERE THIS EVENING.
WE'RE HERE TODAY, UH, UH, THIS EVENING TO, UH, SEEK SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROPERTY AT, UH, 3 7 8 0 LUBA ROAD.
I KNOW THIS BOARD IS PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH WHO, UH, PARCEL IN AND OF ITSELF, AND OF COURSE THE SOMEWHAT LENGTHY PROCESS.
UM, THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I KNOW THIS BOARD, UH, RECITED A VERY LENGTHY, UH, STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THE VARIOUS DATES AND TIMES THAT WERE, UH, HAVE OCCURRED IN THIS.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF 'EM, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
AS THE BOARD'S PROBABLY AWARE, THE THE INITIAL APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED
[01:10:01]
AT TOWN BOARD ON, UH, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023 FOR A RESELLING APPLICATION AND SECRET PROCESS THAT WAS REFERRED TO THIS BOARD.AND I BELIEVE THIS BOARD CONSIDERED IT, UH, A FEW DAYS LATER ON FEBRUARY 15TH.
UH, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, UH, IN APRIL OF, UH, 2023, THIS BOARD RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION GROUP INDICATING THAT, UH, THE PROJECT, UH, WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE LONG RANGE PLAN AND THAT THERE WERE NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS, UH, FOR THE WATERFALL.
UH, THIS BOARD THEN SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, ON MAY 3RD, 2023, UH, WHERE THE APPLICANT MADE A PRESENTATION, UH, TO THIS BOARD AS WELL AS, UH, PUBLIC, UH, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED.
UH, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, UM, IN JUNE, ON JUNE 21ST OF, UH, 2023, THIS BOARD ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION, A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, APPROVING, UH, THE, THE PROJECT WITH SOME CONDITIONS.
UH, THE, THE BOARD, UH, NOTED THE RECEIPT OF, OF THE, UH, PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL ON JUNE 26TH, 2023, AND SET A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WAS HELD ON JULY 17TH, 2023.
THE, UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT HEARING, SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED, THE APPLICANT WENT BACK, MODIFIED SOME THINGS, ADDED SOME THINGS TO THE SITE PLAN, UH, SUBMITTED THAT TO THE TOWN, BRENDA, SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON, UH, OCTOBER 23RD, 2023.
UH, AND THEN FINALLY IN DECEMBER 11TH, UH, 2023, THE TOWN BOARD ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, UH, THAT, UH, APPROVAL WAS OF COURSE CONDITIONED AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS ON THAT.
WASN'T VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
UM, AND THEN THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS CREATED AFTER THAT, UH, TO TAKE, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF THOSE CONDITIONS.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN DOES IT IS COMPLIANT WITH ALL THOSE CONDITIONS SET FORTH, UH, BY THE TOWN BOARD, UH, AND THE TOWN BOARD, UH, HAVING ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, UH, ON THIS SITE, ON THIS PROJECT, THAT THE, UH, THIS BOARD IS BOUND BY THAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
UM, I TAKE ANY QUESTIONS BASED UPON THAT? YES.
YOU, YOU SAID THAT THE PRIVATE BOARD APPROVED THE PROJECT ON JUNE 21ST.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST A REZONING FROM A, THE RECOMMENDATION, OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, CORRECT? NO, IT SAID IT WASN'T APPROVED OF THE PROJECT.
YOU SAID THE TAPE, I, I APOLOGIZE MEANT FOR THAT.
THAT WAS, WAS SENT AND THAT WAS FOR THE REZONED? CORRECT.
AND THEN THE, THEN THE TOWN BOARD ULTIMATELY APPROVED THE PROJECT WITH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS IN DECEMBER.
WELL, THEY APPROVED THE REZONING.
AND SO WE'RE HERE TODAY, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S AWARE, AS YOU KNOW, FROM THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, THERE WAS A CLEAR PLAYER IN TERMS OF THE FILING OF LOCAL LAW.
WELL, IT HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED, IF YOU WILL.
AND, AND I KNOW JOE AND I HAVE BOTH DONE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESEARCH TO FIND OUT HOW YOU DO THAT.
I'M NOT SURE WE KNOW, UM, IT STATE ISN'T TO, UH, FORTHCOMING IN TERMS OF HOW YOU CORRECT A, A, A MIS FILING.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, UM, WE DID REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT BECAUSE WE WERE REASONABLY CONFIDENT THAT EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THE CORRECT CONDITIONS WERE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED.
THEY JUST FOR SOME CLERICAL REASON WERE NOT.
WE'VE DISCONTINUED THAT ACTION.
UH, WE BE, UH, AGREED TO PROCEED BASED UPON THAT.
AGAIN, AS I SAID IT, THIS PARTICULAR, UH, SITE PLAN IS WE BELIEVE IS COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE SET FORTH BY THE TOWN AND ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER AND ENGINEERING? NOTHING.
ON YOUR OR ORIGINAL APPLICATION, IT CALLED FROM EVENT CENTER AND NOW YOU'RE USING THE TERM MIXED USE CENTER.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS? I THINK THE, I THINK THE MIXED USE CENTER IS A REFERENCE TO THE WAY THE, UH, THE ZONING CODE IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
BUT WE, WE INTEND TO MAKE, USE IT AS AN EVENT CENTER, AS WE'VE SAID IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION, WHICH I, WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH, UH, IN THE, IN THE TOWN APPROVAL, WHICH I THINK ARE PRETTY CLEAR, UH, IN TERMS OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE USE IS.
DO YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? NOT RIGHT NOW.
[01:15:01]
GO AHEAD.ANYONE ELSE? WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE DISCUSSING TONIGHT? WE'RE DISCUSSING THE USE OF THE PROJECT.
ARE WE, SO, AND THE REASON MY QUESTION, UH, MR. MURPHY SAID THAT THE TOWN BOARD DID SEEKER IN OUR FOLDER UNDER THE RESOLUTIONS.
WE ONLY HAVE SEEKER RESOLUTIONS.
SO ARE WE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE DOING SEEKER OR HAS THAT BEEN DETERMINED AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT? NO.
THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE TOWN HAVE MADE.
SO LET ME, AND I'M GONNA HAVE, UM, THE ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN, CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT AND THERE WERE NO CHANGES.
I, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT AND THEN OBVIOUSLY OPEN IT TO YOU TO CLARIFY ANYTHING THAT I'D SAY.
'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I'M ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE, THE SITUATION, UM, UH, MR. MURPHY AND ON BEHALF OF, UH, THE APPLICANT FILED A CLAIM BECAUSE THERE WAS, UM, A, A LACK OF CLARITY WITH THE LOCAL LAW FILING BY THE, THE TOWN.
UM, THE LOCAL LAW FILING THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, WAS, UH, A DRAFT OF THE RESOLUTION BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS THAT OCCURRED THAT EVENING.
UM, BUT THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THAT ONE WAS THE INCORRECT ONE.
THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN FILED STAMPED BY THE TOWN CLERK, UH, WAS THE CORRECT RESOLUTION.
AND IN FACT, THE STIPULATION, UM, UH, REFERRED TO THAT DOCUMENT, UM, IN THE STIPULATION.
AND THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE STIPULATION.
JUST CLARIFYING, WHICH WAS THE CORRECT, UM, LOCAL LAW FILING, ABSENT GETTING DIRECTION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON HOW THE TOWN SHOULD CORRECT THAT MISFILED DOCUMENT, UM, THE, THE LANGUAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE, UM, WHICH DOES NOT GIVE A PHONE NUMBER, THERE IS NO, NO OTHER CONTACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OTHER THAN AN EMAIL ADDRESS FOR, FOR COMMUNICATION.
UM, THE, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UH, SIMPLY SAYS IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS ON HOW IT WOULD RESOLVE A MISFILING.
AND SO WE'RE WAITING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON HOW TO CORRECT THE MISFILING.
IF IT'S JUST A LETTER TO ALBANY CLARIFYING OR IF IT REQUIRES A NEW RECORDING, WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, BUT THE, THE STIPULATION WAS, UH, THAT WE WOULD ENDEAVOR TO DO WHATEVER THE STATE REQUIRED OF THE TOWN, UH, TO CORRECT THE FILING.
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING, SO THE VERSION THAT HAD THE STAMP ON IT FROM THE TOWN THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S ONE WITH THE TOWN CLERK STAMP ON IT, THAT'S THE CORRECT VERSION? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S THE CORRECT VERSION, YEAH.
AND THEN ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE LOCAL LAW FILING FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS AN INCORRECT VERSION.
UM, IT WAS MOSTLY CORRECT, BUT IT LACKED THE, THE TWO AMENDMENTS.
UM, BUT WE ALL AGREED IN THE STIPULATION IT WAS SIGNED BY, UM, MR. MURPHY ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS.
IT WAS SIGNED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND BY THE TOWN CLERK.
UH, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE SEF SYSTEM TODAY, AND IT RESOLVES THAT LITIGATION.
GENTLEMEN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, 'CAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS IN SIMPLE USE.
THERE WAS NO DEALS MADE, THERE WAS NO CHANGES IN ANYTHING.
I'M HEARING THIS FROM PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE AN AGREEMENT, THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT, IT WAS JUST A RESOLUTION.
IT WAS RESOLVED BASED ON WHAT WAS FILED.
THERE WAS NO BACKGROUND BACKYARD IN THE BACK ROOM.
WE DROPPED THIS, WE DROP, WE ADDED THAT.
WHAT'S NO OTHER QUID PRO QUO OTHER THAN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WHAT THE CORRECT RESOLUTION OKAY.
AND I, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I WAS REALLY AN ATTEMPT, UH, INITIATED BY MYSELF TO GET THIS MATTER MOVING FORWARD AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO WAIT FOR THE STATE FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG TO TELL US HOW TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WE ALL KNEW WAS INCORRECT.
SO BASED ON THAT, NONE OF THE OTHER THINGS CHANGED.
WE STILL ARE CHARGED WITH DOING SEEKER.
SO, AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.
SO, UM, SO I MEAN, I HAVE A QUESTION ON SEEKER THEN.
SO TWO PROJECTS TODAY, THETO AND THE, UH,
WE WEREN'T LEAD AGENCY, A DIFFERENT AGENCY DID THE SEEKER MM-HMM
WE SAID, WE DECIDED WE WERE BOUND BY THEIR DETERMINATION.
WHY ARE WE TREATING THIS ONE DIFFERENTLY? WE ARE NOT TREATING THIS DIFFERENTLY.
I WAS NOTIFIED BY COUNCIL TOWN BOARD AND WENDELL THAT BECAUSE THE S-E-I-S-E-A-F
[01:20:02]
WAS NOT RETURNED BY THE APPLICANT UNTIL APRIL 17TH, THE PROPER PAPERWORK WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY MATTER.AND THAT UNDID THE COORDINATED REVIEW.
AND THAT'S WHY WE, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS IN THE PAST AND IT'S A PART OF THE MINUTES AND PART OF THIS TABLE DISCUSSION, THAT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO DO SEEKER IN SIMPLE TERMS, BILL, WE, A COORDINATED REVIEW WAS NOT DONE FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO EACH AGENCY HAS TO DO SEEKER.
SO DOWARD SEEK ON THE REZONING.
DEC DID SEEKER FOR THE BOARDWALK AND THE SAND DUNES.
YOU GUYS HAD TO DO SEEKER ON THE SITE PLAN AND IT WAS THE APPLICANT'S PAPERWORK ERROR THAT PREVENTED THE COORDINATED REVIEW FROM HAPPENING? OR WAS IT THE TOWN'S PAPERWORK ERROR THAT PREVENTED THE COORDINATED REVIEW FROM HAPPENING? IT'S A FOR INTERPRETATION BECAUSE I, I DON'T SEE A SITUATION WHERE IF THE TOWN MADE A MISTAKE, YOU CAN THEN PUT AN APPLICANT IN A NEGATIVE POSITION BECAUSE A MISTAKE THE TOWN MADE.
BUT, BUT A COORDINATED REVIEW IS AN AUTOMATIC ANYWAYS, WHEN IT'S AN UNLISTED ACTION.
UM, IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE, OF THE AGENCIES, WHETHER THE THE INITIAL AGENCY, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BECOME LEAD AGENCY OR LEAVE IT UNCOORDINATED.
SO THERE IS NO HARD RULE WHEN IT COMES TO AN UNLISTED, AGAIN, THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION OF AN UNLISTED RIGHT.
WITHIN THE TOWN WILL DO A RESOLUTION DECLARING THEMSELVES LEAD AGENCY.
AND WE'VE DONE THAT AS WELL YES.
AS LEAD AGENCY HERE, BUT WE'VE ALSO DONE UNCOORDINATED REVIEW.
SO I ESPECIALLY BECAUSE RIGHT.
BUT, BUT WE'VE NEVER HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE WERE LEAD AGENCY AND THEN WE'VE FAILED TO DO WHAT LEAD AGENCY'S SUPPOSED TO DO AND THEN SAID, OH, WELL WE'RE NOT LEAD AGENCY.
WELL, THE, I THINK THE, ONE OF THE THINGS IN MY UNDERSTANDING HERE IS THAT DEC MADE THE FIRST SECRET DECISION AND WE MADE THE SE THE TOWN BOARD MADE THE SECOND SECRET DECISION.
SO PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE WAS ALREADY, THAT WE WERE PUSHED INTO A, AN UNCOORDINATED REVIEW.
DEC MADE THE FIRST SECRET DECISION COVERING THEIR SCOPE.
THE TOWN BOARD ISSUED ONE FOR THEIR SCOPE.
AND NOW WE, MY UNDERSTANDING AND UM, I GUESS MY COMFORT LEVEL WITH THE WAY THAT THIS HAS PLAYED OUT IS THAT WE WOULD THEN NEED TO DO OUR SEEKER REVIEW AND, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S CONSISTENT.
AND, AND THAT'S SIMILAR WITH, YOU KNOW, THE SAME COMMENTS MADE EARLIER, SAY ON THE REZONING.
IT SEEMS KINDA STRANGE THAT POTENTIALLY THE TOWN MADE AN ERROR AND NOW WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION.
WELL, AS TO WHO MADE THE ERROR IS NOT MY CALL.
I CAN, AS THE CHAIR OF THIS PLANNING BOARD, WHEN I'M GIVEN INSTRUCTION BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY, BY THE TOWN BOARD, BY THE CONSULTANTS THAT ARE REPRESENTING THIS TOWN, I CAN ONLY FOLLOW WHAT THEY TELL ME.
I MEAN, I FOUGHT IT, BUT I DIDN'T WIN.
SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME, I RELAYED THAT TO YOU.
WE RELAYED IT TO THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS NOT NEW THAT WE'RE DOING SEEKER, AND IT'S NOT, AND IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THE FIRST TIME.
WE GOTTA THE POINT WHERE WE WERE HAVING DISCUSS, YEAH, WE CAN DISCUSS IT, RIGHT, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT THERE'S, IT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS.
WE CAN'T VOTE SAYING NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO SEEKER.
I MEAN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DID ON THE FIRST ITEM, THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM TODAY.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT, THIS CASE IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER CASE.
I WANNA PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
AND SECONDLY, THE OTHER APPLICANT THAT WAS BEFORE US HAD A DIFFERENT SITUATION.
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE PROCEDURES WERE NOT FOLLOWED.
AND I AM NOT GOING TO, UM, I AM NOT GOING TO DISOBEY, IF YOU WILL, A TOWN ATTORNEY AND A TOWN BOARD WHILE I'M HOLDING THIS POSITION.
WENDELL GAVE ME, UM, WE HAD A LOT, A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH WENDELL.
I HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH THE TOWN BOARD.
I HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH THE, UM, TOWN ATTORNEY AND IT'S DULY DOCUMENTED WITH ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU GUYS GOT IN YOUR FOLDERS ABOUT WHY WE'RE DOING SEEKER.
AND I WILL READ THE REREAD THIS, WHICH I READ BACK IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONSULTANT, THE SEAF FORM OVERSIGHT WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL THE DEC NOTIFIED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
THEY COMPLETED THE SECRET REVIEW DATED JULY 7TH, 2023 FOR A PROJECT CONSISTENT OF A PLACEMENT OF A CLEAN BENCH SAND, CLEAN BEACH SAND, SORRY, PLANTING BEACH GRASS IN CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEVATED WALKWAY CONSISTENT WITH A SITE PLAN MARCH 20, MARCH 27TH, 2023.
SO UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND BASED ON THE EMAILS TO AND FROM THE APPLICANT ON DECEMBER 10TH, THE DAY BEFORE THE PLANNING MEETING, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA GO DOWN THAT PAR THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEKER, BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT THIS IS THE JUST DIRECTION THAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN GIVEN.
I THINK THE DIFFERENCE THEREIN WHAT THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM WAS, THAT THAT WAS A COORDINATED REVIEW AND THERE WEREN'T MULTIPLE
[01:25:01]
DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT WEIGH IN.I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE JUST HAVE TO FALL BACK ON PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES AND THAT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE ACTING IN A MANNER THAT IS, THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST ON MULTIPLE SIDES OF THIS PROJECT.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A DEFENSIBLE RECORD THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THE STEPS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH.
WELL, WHAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE IS WE'RE FALLING BACK ON A PROCESS THAT POTENTIALLY THE TOWN ALREADY FAILED IN PROCESS THAT PUT US INTO A PROCESS THAT HAS US DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE GENERALLY DO.
I, I, IF, IF I MAY, UH, EARLIER ON THAT, ON THAT PRIOR, UM, APPLICATION, YOU, YOU STATED, UM, THAT IF IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE SITE PLAN, THEN THE BOARD HAS TO TAKE A HARD LOOK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE TO DO A, A NEW SEEKER BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A, A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE OR USE A DIFFERENT WORD.
BUT ALSO ALONG THE, THE SAME IDEA IF THERE'S A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE SITE PLAN, THEN A NEW SEEKER SHOULD BE DONE.
I THINK THAT WAS YOUR COMMENT ON THAT PRIOR PLAN.
I I UNDERSTAND, BUT I I I UNDERSTAND IT IS.
UM, BUT, BUT EVEN IF, EVEN IF, UM, IT WAS A COORDINATED REVIEW, IF THERE WAS A SITE PLAN CHANGE, YOU WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE, AT THE SITE.
IF, IF IT, IF IT CHANGED, HANG ON, WE'RE AT THE BOARD.
AND I, I THINK THERE, THERE'S CHANGES THAT WOULD, WE WOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT SITE PLAN EVEN AFTER REZONING, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN AN ENTIRELY NEW SEEKER.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE SAYING WE'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH ON SEEKER THERE, THERE'S THE, THE RECORD AND WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON SEEKER REGARDLESS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS BOARD WOULD MOVE FORWARD AND ACT ON A SITE PLAN IF WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO A, MAKE A DECISION ON SEEKER.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE STARTING WITH A FRESH SEAF, BUT IT'S OUR, SINCE IT WAS NOT A COORDINATED REVIEW, REGARDLESS OF WHY OR HOW THAT HAPPENED, THE REVIEW IS NOT COORDINATED.
SO WE WILL NEED TO MAKE OUR OWN DECISION AS THE ADVICE WE'VE BEEN GIVEN BY, BY COUNSEL.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T, I MEAN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF WE DON'T DO IT, IS IT, THIS SOLVES THE PROCESS.
SO MEMBER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT? DO I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? I MEAN, I WOULD, I'D RECOMMEND A SIMILAR RECOMMENDATION THAT I MADE EARLIER, UM, THAT WE RELY ON THE TOWN BOARD SEEKER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SEEKER DETERMINATION AND MOVE FORWARD WITH CYCLING.
IS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON WHY? BECAUSE THAT'S, WE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THEM TO BE LEAD AGENCY AND FOR A NEGATIVE SECRET DECLARATION, THE TOWN BOARD DID THAT.
NOW, THERE'S A PAPERWORK ISSUE SOMEPLACE, BUT IF IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT'S FAULT, AND I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION ON WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PAPERWORK AND VERY UNCOMFORTABLE PUTTING SOMEBODY IN A POSITION DIFFERENT THAN WE WOULD TREAT SOMEBODY ELSE BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE WE MAY HAVE MADE.
AND WE BEING THE TOWN, NOT THE PLAINTIFF FORCE.
JOE, CAN YOU HOW BOARD DID A SEEKER ON THE REZONING? YES.
THEY DIDN'T DO A SECRET THERE.
THERE DIDN'T A SECRET, THERE IS A SECRET.
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
UH, THERE WAS A SEEKER, UM, DOCUMENT THAT WAS ALSO PASSED ON THE DECEMBER 11TH, UH, BOARD DATE.
SO YOU HAVE TO CHECK THE LANGUAGE ON THAT RESOLUTION TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE TOWN BOARD RESOLVED WITH RESPECT TO SEEKER ON THAT DATE.
I BELIEVE THEY ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE FELONY BASED UPON RIGHT.
THAT'S, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION UNLESS IT'S BASED ON, AND WHEN THEY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, IT IS BASED ON THIS PARTICULAR USE.
SO IT IS THE EVENT CENTER, IT IS THE, IT'S THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US FOR SITE PLAN.
WE CAN DO TWEAKS AS FAR AS LIKE, OKAY, MAYBE MOVE THIS FAR AWAY FROM THERE AND MAYBE HAVE SOME SCREENING HERE GENERALLY WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
UM, SO I THINK, JOE, I THINK THAT, SORRY, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY NUANCED SPECIFIC QUESTION IS SINCE THE DEC DID AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW, IS THERE INTERVENTION MAKE A COORDINATED REVIEW, AN UNCOORDINATED REVIEW SUCH THAT WE HAVE EITHER THE DISCRETION OR THE RIGHT TO DO AN INDEPENDENT SEEKER REVIEW? AND IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE CLEAR ANYTHING CASE LAW PRECEDENT.
AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE CINDY IS GETTING A SUGGESTION FROM THE NOT ATTORNEY IN THIS CHAIR, UM, THAT WE IT DID NOT, THAT IT REMAINED AN UNCOORDINATED REVIEW BECAUSE OF DE C'S INDEPENDENT
[01:30:01]
INTERVENING REVIEW.I JUST AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, THAT EXACTLY.
I'M SAYING RELAY RELY ON THE TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST CHALLENGE SOMETHING THAT MARK POINT OF FACT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE, AND I, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE THE PLAINTIFF ARTICLE, HONORABLE LETTER, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN ON THIS REZONING MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON A SECRET DECISION.
I THINK THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THINGS FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, BUT I, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH, WITH FORMER CHAIR CLARK, WHO WAS AT THE TIME, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT LETTER AND WE NEED TO GO BACK AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS BOARD WAS SUPPORTING OR ENDORSING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT THAT TIME.
SO I JUST, WE WAS SUPPORTING THEM.
WE, WE WE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING.
THAT'S WE, THAT'S UNCONTROVERTED, RIGHT? RIGHT.
WELL, WE VOTED IN FAVOR OF, UH, WITH CONDITION, WITH CONDIT, WITH CONDITION'S, THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS.
SO THE, THE CHALLENGE THE TOWN BOARD ACTUALLY TOOK THOSE CONDITIONS AND ADDED MORE.
WELL, SO THERE WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT I HAVE HAD, I, I THINK, WELL, I'M CAREFUL LET'S SAY HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD'VE, I WOULD AGREE THAT THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
NO, WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY NE NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS.
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, HANG ON.
OH, SO I, IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT I, THAT WE DIDN'T AND THAT I, THAT WHAT I SAID IS NOT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE CORRECTING THE FACTS ON THE RECORD THAT THAT WAS NOT A RECOMMENDATION COORDINATE.
ANYONE ELSE?
AND THIS BOARD CLEARLY WEIGHED IN, CLEARLY REVIEWED THE PROJECT, CLEARLY MADE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO IT, THE ONE THING, IF THIS BOARD WAS LEFT OUT, THEY WERE CLEARLY A PERMITTED YOU, UH, ENTITY AND WOULD'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN COORDINATED REVIEW.
SO WOULD THE DEC, THEY BOTH HAVE WEIGHED IN, THE TOWN HAS WEIGHED IN.
WE, I'M SORRY, BUT WE DIDN'T WEIGH IN ON THE SITE PLAN.
CAN I JUST CLEAR SOMETHING UP REAL QUICK? THAT WAS SAID BEFORE.
SO WE HAVE, I HAVE THE OFFICIAL RE RESIGNING REPORT THAT WE CREATED A SENT TO THE TOWN BOARD.
THE VERY END OF IT, THERE'S A SECTION THAT SAYS SEEKER AND IT SAYS, AND I QUOTE, AS AN INVOLVED AGENCY FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PLANNING BOARD AGREES THAT THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD ACT AS SECRET LEAD AGENCY AND WOULD RECOMMEND A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE DID NOT KNOW THAT WE WERE GONNA BE PART OF THE SEEKER PROCESS AND THAT THE ERROR WOULD TAKE PLACE.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT AN ERROR WOULD TAKE PLACE, BUT WE ABSOLUTELY KNEW HE WAS PART OF THE SECRET PROCESS.
NO, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT, THAT WE WOULD GO BACK.
THAT IT WOULD COME BACK THEN WHY ARE THE OFFICIALS TELLING US THAT WE NEED TO DO SECRET? SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT I SHOULD GO BACK TO THE TOWN COUNCIL AND TO OUR CONSULTANTS AND TELL THEM THEY'RE WRONG.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? I'M SAYING THAT THAT'S OUR DECISION.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE THE CONSULTANTS HAVE RECOMMENDED CERTAIN ACTIONS AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS VOTED IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AND YOU'RE INDEPENDENT OF THE CONSULTANTS.
THE CONSULTANTS GIVE US ADVICE AND WE LISTEN TO THAT ADVICE AND THEN WE MAKE A DECISION.
WELL THEN I'M GONNA ADD SOMETHING.
SO I WAS WAITING FOR EVERYBODY TO INPUT THEIR, THEIR OPINIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IN DOING THE REVIEW ON THIS CASE IS THAT THERE WAS INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE USE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD TO DO SEEKER AND WHY WE HAD THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SITE PLANS.
AND EVERYBODY HOLD THEIR COMMENTS PLEASE.
SO IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, AFTER COMING BEFORE THIS BOARD, THE UM, APPLICANT APPLIED, APPLIED FOR AN AMENDED LIQUOR LICENSE, ADDING AN OUTSIDE BAR TO THEIR SITE.
AND THE BIG DISCUSSION THROUGH ALL OF THIS WAS THAT THERE WAS NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE.
AND I HAVE THE PAPERS HERE, WE FOILED THE PAPERWORK AFTER I WAS TOLD THAT I COULDN'T SECURE THIS COPY.
BUT I'VE GOT THE TWO, I'VE GOT THE AMENDED COPY AND I HAVE THE ORIGINAL.
AND THE ORIGINAL INDICATED THAT THEY APPLIED IN FEBRUARY OF 2023.
I SHARED THESE COPIES WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS.
THEY ALL HAVE IT IN FRONT OF 'EM AND THEY, IT SAYS, UM, IN THE FIRST APPLICATION THAT THEY WANTED JUST AN INDOOR BAR ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THE SECOND AMENDED APPLICATION IN MARCH, AFTER WE WERE TELLING THE APPLICANT THAT WE
[01:35:01]
COULD NOT APPROVE A PSYCH PLAN OR DO SEEKER IF THEY HAD OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN OUR PRO, IN OUR PURVIEW.SO HERE WE ARE NOW I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL.
AND I'M GONNA PUT THIS RECORD, PUT THIS ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TAKING SOME HEAT FROM PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM.
SO I'M JUST GONNA SAY THIS, I'M WELL AWARE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE APPLICANT'S LIQUOR LICENSE.
AND MY STATEMENT ABOUT THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION ISN'T ABOUT CONTROLLING NOR CHANGING THEIR APPLICATION.
BUT WHAT I WANT, THE REASON WHY I'M BRINGING THIS TO THE FOREFRONT IS BECAUSE IF THEY WANT AN OUTDOOR BAR AND THEY DIDN'T TELL US, AND IT'S NOT ON THAT SITE PLAN, THEN WE HAVE INCONSISTENCIES.
BECAUSE THIS BOARD, AS I SAID BEFORE, AND I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN, WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE AT THE PLANNING BOARD TABLE.
AND THAT'S WHY SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT US TO DO SEEKER, BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED.
AND I AM NOT CONFIDENT, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WHEN I HAVE PROFESSIONALS TELLING ME WHAT THIS BOARD WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.
AND WE'VE, AND THEY AND EVERYBODY KNEW THIS, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, OH, WE CAN'T DO SECRET.
IT'S WRONG, IT'S WRONG, IT'S WRONG.
I HAVE A PARALEGAL DEGREE, BUT I DON'T, I DO MY HOMEWORK.
AND I'VE READ THROUGH ALL OF THIS PAPERWORK, ALL OF THIS, I'VE READ THREE, READ THROUGH THE MINUTES.
THE APPLICANT MADE A STATEMENT BACK IN MARCH THAT SHE WANTED OUTDOOR ALL OVERUSE.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE CAN APPROVE.
SO YOU TELL ME HOW WE DO THAT.
I AGREE THAT WE CANNOT APPROVE OUTDOOR USE, THAT WE CAN'T HEAR THIS CASE.
UM, I I, AS FAR AS THE, THE LIQUOR LICENSE AND THE STUFF WE FOILED, THAT'S STUFF THAT WE USUALLY DON'T GET, WE USUALLY DON'T GET INVOLVED IN.
UM, I DON'T AGREE THAT THE TOWN BOARD'S RESOLUTION SAID NO.
OUTDOOR ALCOHOL SALES CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTION SEEM TO HAVE BEEN A, A DISAGREEMENT AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
BE WITH WHILE I READ THIS ON THE RECORD.
THIS IS COMING FROM THE LIQUOR UM, AUTHORITY DATED MARCH 29TH, 2024.
YOUR APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE AS REFERENCE ABOVE, HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND CAN BE APPROVED ONCE YOU COMPILE WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS ON THE ATTACHED PAGE.
RIGHT? DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT AGAIN? ALL THE CONDITIONS ON THE ATTACHED PAGE, THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS GRANTED UPON ADHERENCE TO THE, ANY CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW AS WELL AS CONDITIONS STIPULATED TO THE MUNICIPALITY OR THE COMMUNITY BOARD.
WHERE IS OUR NOTIFICATION THAT THIS WAS AMENDED? I ASKED FOR IT.
BOND RIDER AMENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO 2026 INTERIOR PHOTOS SHOWING THE PREMISES READY TO OPEN AND OPERATE, INCLUDING INCLUDING THE CUSTOM BAR, DINING AREA, KITCHEN ALCOHOL STORAGE, AND SEASONAL ADDED BAR EXTERIOR PHOTOS SHOWING THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PREMISES, NEWSPAPER AFFIDAVIT AND PROOF OF PUBLICATION CERT C CERTIFICATE OF ASSUMED NAME FILING RECEIPT.
THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE LAST FRIDAY THE APPLICANT WENT TO THE NEWSPAPER AND CLEARLY STATED THAT THEIR INTENT IS OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE THIS BOARD THAT'S OUT OF THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW.
WE CAN'T VOTE ON THAT AND ON SITE PLAN, WE, WE COULD, WE CAN'T VOTE ON A SITE PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT.
THE TOWN BOARD, THE TOWN BOARD REZONING APPLICATION SAID NO.
SO WE CAN'T DO A SITE PLAN SEEKER'S DIFFERENT THAN SITE PLAN.
UM, AS FAR AS THE NOTICE TO THE TOWN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PLANNING BOARD'S EVER GOTTEN A NOTICE FROM THE LIQUOR AUTHORITY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOWN DOES GET THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAPPENED OR NOT.
THAT'S, THAT'S WELL BEYOND ANYTHING WE'VE, WE'VE EVER DEALT WITH.
UM, I DON'T, BUT I BUT I AGREE WITH THE OUTDOOR ALCOHOL.
THE TOWN BOARD'S RESOLUTION SAID THEY WEREN'T GONNA DISTRIBUTE ALCOHOL OUTDOORS.
SO WE'RE DOING SECRET ON SITE PLAN, RIGHT? HANG ON.
WE'RE DOING SECRET ON A SITE PLAN, SEEKER AND SITE PLAN.
DO YOU, I'M ASKING QUESTION, DO YOU HAVE A BAR OR OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE ON THE SITE? NO.
ARE YOU PLANNING ON DOING AN OUTDOOR BAR? NO.
I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS TO BE LICENSED.
BUT THAT THERE'S NO BAR ON THAT SITE PLAN.
THERE'S NO, MOST OF THE, MOST OF THE, UH, THERE'S NO SO I'M SORRY.
NOT EVERYBODY TALK AT THE SAME TIME.
'CAUSE I WANT THIS ON THE RECORD.
SO ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT ON MARCH 4TH SOMEBODY FILED ON YOUR BEHALF SAYING THAT THEY'RE AMENDING YOUR LIQUOR LICENSE, ADD AN OUTDOOR BAR AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF IT?
[01:40:02]
NOT THE OUTDOOR BAR.THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU PART OF THAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU.
CONSUMPTION AND, AND BAR, THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU.
I JUST WANT MY, I WANT MY QUESTION ANSWERED.
THE APPLICATION WAS FOR CONSUMPTION ABOUT DROP OFF.
WELL, IT WAS ABOUT, I'M SORRY, WHAT? FOR CONSUMPTION FOR LICENSING OF THE PROPERTY.
SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT THIS, WHAT THIS APPLICATION SAID.
SO IT'S HARD TO WELL, YOU CAN SEE COPY OF IT.
SO CAN CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SURE.
IF THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE SORTED ON IT, BUT YET AN APPLICANT IS PERMITTED BY THE SLA FOR OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION, THEN IN THE EVENT THE OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION WERE TO BE PLANNED, THE ONLY WAY POSSIBLE FOR THAT TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN IS BY VIRTUE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUING A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT OR A DESIGNATED AREA.
THIS, THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS RIGHT HERE.
IT HAS TO MEET THE MUNICIPALITY.
THEY DO NOT MEET OUR MUNICIPALITY BY TELLING THEM THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A, A A A BAR OUTSIDE ON THE, ON THE THING ON AN AMENDED LICENSE.
SO MY, MY IDEA IS THAT WE SHOULD PUT, PUT A VOTE, AND THIS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD AND THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD PUT THIS.
YOU'RE TELLING ME ONE THING AND I, AND I'M BEING TOLD BY PROFESSIONALS, BY ATTORNEYS, BY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
SO WE CAN'T BECAUSE THERE'S OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE IS NOT CLARIFIED.
THEY'RE TELLING, THEY WON'T TELL ME YES OR NO.
SO A FEW MEETING LAST TIME THEY WERE HERE, THIS ROBERT HALE MM-HMM
AND HE SAID THAT THE REASON THEY DID THAT WAS TO HAVE A, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LIQUOR LICENSE.
AND THAT'S WHY HE ASKED HER TO APPLY FOR THE ENTIRE PARTY.
THAT WAS THE FIRST, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON LIQUOR LICENSE.
SO I KNOW IF THAT, OKAY, I'LL TELL YOU THIS.
THAT WAS ON THE FIRST LICENSE.
WE CAN GO BACK TO THE MINUTES AND CLARIFY THAT.
RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT WAS ON THE FIRST LICENSE.
'CAUSE THE FIRST LICENSE, IT SAYS GROUND O ENTIRE GROUND.
WAS THAT BEFORE MARCH? THEN HE CAME AND YES.
SO HE CA HE SAID THAT, AND ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT I GAVE YOU, IT SAYS IN THE BAR AND ON THE GROUND IT SAYS GARDENS AND GROUNDS LICENSED OUTDOOR AREA GARDEN AND GROUNDS.
IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT AN OUTDOOR BAR.
SO THEN THE AMENDMENT CAME THROUGH AND ADDED THE BAR.
SO EITHER MR. HYLE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS TO BE CRUEL EITHER.
DIDN'T DISCUSS IT WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT WE'RE, EVERYBODY'S NOT ON THE SAME PAGE HERE AND I CAN'T VOTE ON THIS.
AND MY SUGGESTION IS THIS SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
I SAID IT BEFORE AND I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN.
WE HAVE MINUTES, WE, I HAVE DOCUMENTATION, I HAVE NEWS ARTICLES, I HAVE VIDEOS, I HA YOU NAME IT, I HAVE IT.
THEIR INTENT IS, I'M GLAD YOU FIND IT FUNNY.
WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF DOCUMENTATION SAYING THAT THEIR INTENT IS OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE.
YOU MEAN TO TELL ME IN GOOD CONSCIENCE YOU CAN VOTE AND SAY THAT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE ON THIS SITE.
I MEAN, MY SUGGESTION ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT OFTEN IS SIMILAR TO WHAT, WHAT I DO IN OTHER SITUATIONS.
IF WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT'D BE THE FINAL SITE PLAN AND WE DID CONDITIONS, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION WILL BE LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE TOWN BOARD ON THE RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER WHAT? 10TH, 11TH.
YOU READ THAT TO US AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL, THAT WOULD'VE TO GO TO TOWN COUNCIL TO GET REVIEWED FIRST.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE ON VOTING ON THAT.
BOARD MEMBERS ARE, THAT WOULD QUESTION ON HOW WE DEAL WITH THAT WHEN THERE'S A SITUATION.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN CHANGE THE USE.
WE'RE SAYING IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT VOTE.
WE'VE GONE A LOT OF WAYS ON A LOT OF TECHNICALITY.
THERE'S A LOT OF STRONG OPINIONS FROM THE APPLICANT, FROM THIS BOARD, FROM THE PUBLIC.
MY CONCERN REMAINS CONSISTENT THAT THE USE HAS CONTINUED TO EVOLVE AND THAT THE SEEKER WAS DONE ON A SPECIFIC USE THE PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH AGAIN, IS NOT WHAT HAS COME IN THIS APPLICATION, HAS LARGELY INDICATED THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO DO BETWEEN THE NEWS, THEY HAVE A WHOLE WEBSITE,
[01:45:01]
THEY'VE GOT A BUNCH OF THINGS OUT THAT, THAT USE IS BROADER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO US, PARTICULARLY FROM WHERE WE STARTED THIS PROCESS AND FROM EVEN WHEN ANY DISCUSSION PRELIMINARILY OF SECRET AND REZONING HAPPENED.AND IT'S BEEN A CONTINUAL ITERATION AND IT'S BEEN VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY.
I REALIZE THAT THIS, THE REST OF THE BOARD MAY NOT BE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO BE EVOLVING IN USE AND DISCUSSION AND THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY COULD HAVE FULLY HIT EVERY PIECE.
AND IT'S NOT JUST THE ALCOHOL USE AS THE EVOLVE AND THE USE HAS COME AND CAN CONTINUE TO EVOLVE IN THIS YEAR.
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING IT.
AND THEN THE SECOND PIECE IS THAT THE WAY THE MIXED USE CODE IS WRITTEN AND THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE REZONING ARE THAT ANY CHANGES IN THE USE OR THE, THE PIECES THAT COME WITH IT MAY ALSO HAVE TO GET REFERRED BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD AND NOT FOR AN AMENDMENT, BUT FOR A FRESH APPLICATION.
AND WHAT WE ARE GONNA NEED TO LEAN ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE, THE TOWN'S COUNCIL, OUR PLANNING BOARD COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED THAT IT'S BEEN VERY HARD TO FOLLOW WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
AND ITS CONTINUAL EVOLUTIONS AS WELL AS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PUT PUT FORTH, INCLUDING BY THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
THAT IS A CREEP AND A CHANGE ON THE USE.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I'VE HAD A VERY HARD TIME, YOU KNOW, I I I STAND, YOU KNOW, IF THE TOWN COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDING THAT WE CONTINUE TO DO SEEKER.
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PIECES THE DC WENT, BUT THERE'S BEEN CHANGES IN USE AND THINGS THAT I THINK ARE, ARE EVOLVING AND CHANGING AND BEING REPRESENTED IN DIFFERENT FORUMS THAT JUST NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND TO BE CLEAR ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE WHATEVER DECISION HAPPENS FROM THIS BOARD AND WHATEVER DECISION THAT IS, IS UNLIKELY TO BE UNANIMOUS THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS.
THAT WHAT WE ARE DECIDING IS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT.
THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS US TO BE DECIDING ON AND WHAT THEIR INTENT IS FOR THE PROPERTY IS CLEAR.
SO THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVERYBODY CAN FALL BACK ON THAT.
IT WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR THAT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN AND OUTLINED.
WHETHER THAT'S THE SITE PLAN, WHETHER THAT'S THE SECRET, THAT ALL THE PIECES AND THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR LOCKER RECORD THAT'S PROTECTIVE OF THE APPLICANT, THAT'S PROTECTIVE OF THE TOWN THAT IS TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS.
AND PART OF THAT LIKELY MEANS THAT IF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR COUNCIL IS, IS THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS NEXT SEEKER STEP, THAT'S ONE TOOL THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING TRANSPARENT AND THAT WE'RE DOCUMENTING FOR ALL OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED VERY CLEARLY ON THE RECORD.
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE SEE IS, UNFORTUNATELY THE TOWN BOARD GOT ON THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE MAKING AMENDMENTS ON THE BENCH AND THAT'S RESULTED IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION BY MOST EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM WAS PROBABLY A SAFE THAT TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT, SO THE END OF THE DAY, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE'RE DOING, WE'RE STOPPING, WE'RE DOCUMENTING EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS, WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE AND THAT IT GOES FORWARD IN THAT WAY.
BECAUSE I, WE, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS.
EVERY, THE, THE SITE PLAN INVOLVED A LOT, THE PROPOSED USE, THE PIECE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WE ALL NEED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
IT'S, IT'S NOT ABOUT A, YOU KNOW, POPULARITY CONTEST OR A PUBLIC OPINION CAMPAIGN.
IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE DOCUMENTED OR A PETITION WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THAT ALL THE, THE FILE IS COMPLETE.
AND THAT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANYTHING I HAVE SAID.
AND I THINK IF THAT MEANS WE'RE DOING SEEKER REVIEW, THEN LET'S DO THE SEEKER REVIEW.
SO THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION.
WHAT ARE WE DECIDING TODAY? I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DECIDING TODAY.
I DIDN'T BECAUSE ARE WE DECIDING IF WE WERE DOING THE SEEKER, ARE WE DECIDING I THINK THE SEEKER, ARE WE DECIDING ALL OF IT? UM, MAYBE WE AREN'T DECIDING ANY OF IT BECAUSE WHAT, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING MAYBE ONE OF THE ASKS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT AGAIN, THAT THERE IS ALIGNMENT TO PROTECT THE BOTH PARTIES IS WHAT ARE ALL OF THE PROPOSED USES OF THE SITE THAT CROSS REFERENCED ALL THESE DIFFERENT APPROVALS SO THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING AND THAT WE'RE MAKING WHATEVER THAT SOUND DECISION IS PROPERLY COVERING ALL OUR BASES.
AND AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO WHAT IS THE USE AND THE USE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF NUMBER FIRMS IS NOT JUST FOR EVENTS EVENTS.
I KNOW YOU WANTED TO CLARIFY GOING WAY BACK TO WHEN BILL CLARK WAS, WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, WHEN HE WAS USING THE WORD NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL FACILITIES.
AND I, AND I KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE STIPULATION, WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH, WITH YOU AS THE PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY, BUT THAT PARAGRAPH HAD CHANGED.
THAT WAS FIVE B OF THE RESOLUTION, UM, TO REMOVE, UM, UH, AGAIN, I'LL READ, I'LL READ FIVE AND THEN I'LL JUMP TO B.
THE REZONING OF THE M TWO ZONED LANDS TO U ONE IS BASED ON THE GENERAL USE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO BE OPERATED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT ARE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING USES BASED ON POTENTIAL IMPACT, UH, THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE PRINCIPAL USE, UH, AS A PRIVATE EVENT FACILITY.
[01:50:01]
EVENT FACILITY AND SITE WILL HAVE CAPACITY TO HOST THE FOLLOWING.B AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, UH, SAID, RETAIL SALES, STORAGE OF PRODUCTS, TASTING AREAS AND INDOOR ALCOHOL USE USING, UH, USE DURING APPROVED PRIVATE EVENTS.
THE REMAINING SECTION WAS DELETED FROM THE FINAL RESOLUTION.
OPEN PARENTHESES, NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL FACILITIES PARENT.
THIS IS NOT A BAR THAT IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM THAT OPEN PARENT.
THE NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL FACILITIES THAT WAS DELETED.
SO THE, THE ENTIRETY OF THAT FIVE B WAS RETAIL SALES, STORAGE OF PRODUCTS, TASTING AREAS, AND INDOOR ALCOHOL USE DURING APPROVED PRIVATE EVENTS.
NOW IT WAS, UM, I WAS REMINDED THAT SOMEONE ON THE BOARD HAD ASKED THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD EVENT.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHO, IF IT WAS CALIN CALIN, WAS IT CAITLIN? UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT, UM, I I DID NOT ANSWER YOU AT THE TIME.
I WANTED TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON IT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING IN THE TOWN CODE WHERE THAT WORD OR PHRASE WAS DEFINED PREVIOUSLY.
IT ISN'T, UM, EVENT AND THEN CENTER PRIVATE EVENT FACILITY IS NOT DEFINED.
AND UM, I'LL MAKE THE COMMENT TO ADD MURPHY THAT IN IN LAW THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS IF SOMETHING'S NOT DEFINED, THEN IT'S THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORD IS, IS WHAT IS USED.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY PLAIN MEANING IS UP TO INTERPRETATION TOO.
EVEN WHEN YOU GO TO THE COURTS SOMETIMES, UH, THEY'LL REFER TO WEBSTER'S, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, BLACK LAW DICTIONARY, UM, UH, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA AND OTHER SOURCES TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITION THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN THE WHAT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS IS THE PLAIN MEANING.
SO WHAT IS A AN EVENT, EVENT CENTER PRIVATE EVENT FACILITY.
THE PLAIN MEANING IS THE BEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE TO THE BOARD.
SO I LOOKED THAT UP ON LAW INSIDER.COM, WHICH IS JUST ONE OF RIGHT MANY POSSIBLE SOURCES.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT WORKED FOR ME WHILE I WAS DOING MY HOMEWORK AND IT, IT'S AT AN EVENT CENTER MEANS PREMISES WHICH FREQUENTLY RUN IT OUT FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT REPEATED ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND WHICH ARE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ON A DAILY BASIS AT TIMES OTHER THAN WHEN AN EVENT IS SCHEDULED.
SO I MEAN, I I, AND EVEN THAT COULD MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT I GET UH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, CLAR THAT CLARIFICATION WAS WHAT I WAS, WAS POINTING OUT OR WANTED TO POINT OUT BEFORE.
UM, BUT ALSO TOO, I THINK IT'S A BIT UNFAIR SOMETIMES IN THESE PROCESSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE LONG, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S NU NUMEROUS ITERATIONS OF A FLIGHT PLAN OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, ET CETERA.
OF COURSE THE PROJECT'S GONNA CHANGE.
HOW COULD IT NOT? RIGHT? IF, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO GET AN APPROVAL, WHAT THEY MAY HAVE STARTED OUT WITH IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY'RE GONNA END UP WITH.
SO I THINK SOMETIMES IT'S UNFAIR TO SAY, WELL YOU KEEP CHANGING.
WELL CHANGING BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN INPUT.
NOW SOMETIMES THEY CHANGE FOR OTHER REASONS, BUT I THINK IN, ESPECIALLY ON THESE LONGER ONES AND THE MORE COMPLICATED ONES, YOU SEE THESE CHANGES ALL THE TIME.
AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT IT'S HELPFUL THAT EVERYBODY BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
THE TOWN BOARD IN MY OPINION, DIDN'T DO ANYBODY ANY FAVORS.
UM, THE LANGUAGE IN THAT, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONS IS CONTRADICTORY.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT DEFINED NECESSARILY AS WELL AS WE ALL MIGHT LIKE IT TO BE.
SO WE DEAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS IT IS.
LEMME JUMP, JUMP IN WITH THE, WITH THE RESOLUTION.
I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT AMENDMENT REALLY CHANGES ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVELY.
IT'S SAYS NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL FACILITIES, EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE RESOLUTION STATES WHAT IS ALLOWED.
SO IT JUST 'CAUSE THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS REMOVED DOESN'T INDICATE ANY AUTHORIZATION TO DO OUTDOOR FACILITIES.
AND THEN GOING WITH THE, UM, LICENSE OR YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE APPLICATION, THE LICENSE, THE ALCOHOL APPLICATION WHERE IT SAYS THERE IS GOING TO BE ALCOHOL, THERE'S, THAT'S JUST AN INCONSISTENCY THAT IS REALLY HARD TO GET PAST.
WELL, I THINK WELL STEPPING, WELL JUST CAN I GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR ALONG? THERE ARE EVOLUTIONS AND WE'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF APPLICANTS ON A LOT OF REVISIONS AND CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS TO SITE PLANS.
THE QUESTION ISN'T THAT THE SITE PLAN IS CHANGING, IT'S HOW ARE WE USING THE SITE, WHETHER IT'S AN EVENT FACILITY, IF IT'S A PUBLIC ACCESS BEACH BAR, IF THERE'S SPORTS LEAGUES, ALL OF THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT USES AND YOU'D EVALUATE THEM DIFFERENTLY WHEN A, A DENTAL CLINIC OR A MINI STORAGE, THOSE, YOU KNOW, THE MINI STORAGE CAME BACK TODAY.
THE USE IS NOT CHANGING IN THE FUNCTION OF THE, THE SPACE ISN'T CHANGING.
AND WHAT I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS HERE, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SHIFTING THINGS AND ADJUSTING A LAYOUT, IT'S THAT THERE'S A REAL CONCERN WITH UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND THAT WE'RE ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTING THAT WE DID OUR DILIGENCE
[01:55:01]
TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S REFLECTED IN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD.AND THAT'S WHAT HAS CHANGED AND EVOLVED.
WE'VE GOT LEAGUES, WE'VE GOT OUTDOOR BAR, WE'VE GOT LIKE ALL THESE OTHER PIECES THAT ARE COMING IN THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN A WEDDING EVENTS THAT ARE OCCASIONAL SPECIAL USE EVENTS THAT ARE, AND AND PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL SPACE.
THEY NEED SOME OF THE NEEDS THAT THEY CAN'T ACCOMMODATE AT THEIR EXISTING ALCHEMY FACILITY.
SO THAT TO ME IS DIFFERENT THAN WE'RE NOW HAVE SPORTS LAKES, WE HAVE ALL THIS OTHER STUFF AND IT, VARIOUS POINTS, OTHER THINGS COME IN AND IT'S VERY HARD TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT IS THE CORE THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORKING WITH.
WHAT IS THE CORE, THE BUSINESS PLAN, WHAT IS THE, THE, THE PROPOSITION FOR THE PROPERTY? AND THAT, THAT HAS BEEN DIFFERENT.
AND I THINK WHETHER SOME OF THE DETAIL AND THE NUANCE, THAT HIGHER LEVEL PIECE HAS NOT BEEN CLEAR AND CONSISTENT FOR ME ON IF WE'RE GONNA TALK AT HIGHER LEVEL, ANY POINT.
WAIT, CAN I ADD ONE THING TO CAITLIN'S POINT? EXACTLY, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY EARLIER THOUGH, IF THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS, SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE A PRESCRIPTIVE LIST OF ALLOWED USES ARE WATER RELATED RECREATIONAL RENTALS.
THEY TOLD US THEY MIGHT DO THAT.
KAYAK WINDS SERVING KITEBOARDING, OUTDOOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES INCLUDING BOCCE LEAGUES, VOLLEYBALL, CORN HOLE YOGA.
THEY'VE ALSO PRESENTED THAT AS AN OPTION.
UM, SEASONAL, UH, OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CEREMONIES.
SO WHILE THE, THE THINGS HAVE SHIFTED A BIT ON THE SITE PLAN, NOTHING THEY HAVE SUGGESTED TO US OTHER THAN WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A BAR IS NOT ON THE PRESCRIBED USE FROM THE TOWN.
SO I DON'T THINK DEFINING EVENT MATTERS BECAUSE THE TOWN ALSO SAID YOU CAN DO BOCCE, YOU CAN DO VOLLEYBALL, YOU CAN DO YOGA, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.
BUT I ONE SECOND COME OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IS THAT IT WAS JUST FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND TICKETED THINGS.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE TOWN TOLD THEM.
THE TOWN, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE PROVIDED A RECOMMENDATION ON RECREATIONAL RENTALS.
THAT'S NOT A PRIVATE EVENT LIKE THE TOWN THAT'S WANTED JUST FINE.
MARGO, WHEN I ASKED THAT ABOUT THE REYNOLDS, THEY, THEY TOLD ME AND US THAT THAT WAS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HAVING THE EVENT.
IT WASN'T FOR YOU AND I TO GO IN AND RUN A SKI JET, IT WAS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HAVING THE, I WAS VERY SPECIFIC.
THE THE, UM, THE SELF ERIE CAME TO ONE OF THE VERY FIRST MEETINGS THAT WE MIGHT OPERATE FROM THE PANEL BOARD, BUT HE SAID HE, THEY SAID HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
I WORK WITH THEM, IF YOU REMEMBER THAT.
AND THEN WE WENT BACK AND FORTH AND IT WAS UNCLEAR.
SO I THINK WE WERE MISSING IS LIKE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE TOWN VERY CLEARLY SAID THEY COULD DO OTHER THAN WHETHER OR NOT WE ALSO BEEN WEIGH IN ON THAT, ON OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THERE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS POINTS.
AND IT WAS UNCLEAR THAT WE WEIGHED IN ON ALL OF THOSE USES.
AND, AND THIS HAS GONE A LONG TIME, SO THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION AND, AND RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT WELL, AND I THINK IF I CAN ADD TO THIS NOW THAT MY BLOOD PRESSURE'S DROPPED A A COUPLE OF POINTS AND CAITLIN HAS COVERED, WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO SAY IS THIS, AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE WERE ALL, WE ALL LISTENED VERY INTENTLY.
AND THEN AFTER THAT THEY WENT ON TV AND SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE A MICKEY RATS BAR, BUT THEY NEVER CAME TO US AND TOLD US THAT IF THEY WOULD'VE COME AND TOLD US THAT WE WOULD'VE KNOWN WHAT TO WORK FOR.
AND TO CAITLIN'S POINT, WE NEVER KNEW WHAT WE WERE WORKING FOR.
AND YES, THERE HAVE BEEN, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'VE SENT DIFFERENT CHANGES, IT'S THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT.
I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING ON THAT THAT'S, THAT'S MOST SESSION AMENDMENTS ARE MADE, YOU'VE GOT AN ATTORNEY, SO HE'S GOTTA SPEAK FOR YOU.
SO I, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS, BUT IT'S INCONSISTENT.
I'VE GOT THE TOWN AND, AND YOU KNOW, MY MEMBER CLARK SAYING THAT WE COULD DO THIS.
WELL, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE I'VE GOT THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND THE CONSULTANTS THAT THE TOWN PAYS TELLING ME THAT WE HAVE TO DO SECRET.
SO I CAN'T, I'M NOT GONNA CHALLENGE MY TOWN.
IF I HAVE HAMBURG TELLING ME WE'RE GONNA DO SEEKER, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE DO SEEKER.
I TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT THE, WHAT THE MU ONE USE IS AND THE, AND THE UM, AND THE RESTRICTIONS.
AND UM, MARGOT PUT IT IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING WHERE IF IT'S NOT EXCLUDED, THEY DON'T LIST THE EXCLUSIONS.
THEY ONLY, THEY ONLY LIST WHAT IS USED.
OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE IS NOT OUT THERE.
OUTDOOR ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IS NOT OUT THERE.
SO I GO BACK WITH INTENT, WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE TOWN BOARD? I DIDN'T EVER HAVE A CONFUSION OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THE TOWN BOARD WAS.
I'M CONFUSED ON WHAT THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT IS AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
AND SO IF THEY WANT, AND, AND I SEE NOBODY'S BRINGING IT UP ON YOUR SIDE OF THE TABLE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, BUT IF THEY WANT OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE, WE CAN'T
[02:00:01]
VOTE ON THAT.AND IT'S GOTTA GO BACK TO THE TOWN FOR A CHANGE OF ABUSE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYBODY ELSE IS, BUT WHILE, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USES AND SEEKER MM-HMM
BECAUSE I, AS I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE GONNA GO TODAY.
UM, IF YOU STAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU KIND OF LOOK IN A CIRCLE, YOU'VE GOT THE LAKE, WHICH IS PUBLIC PAST THE HIGH WATERMARK, YOU'VE GOT THE BAYVIEW, WHICH HAS PRETTY MUCH BEEN AN EVENT CENTER THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 200 YEARS.
YOU GOT THAT, THE COWBOY, IT'S NOW CALLED THE COWBOY.
STILL YOU'VE GOT ESCAPE PARK, YOU'VE GOT MINI GOLF, YOU'VE GOT GO-KARTS, YOU'VE GOT HOTDOG AND ICE CREAM, YOU'VE GOT, UH, THAT ESCAPE ROOM ARCADE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT PLACE IS.
ANY USE THAT THEY PROPOSED, EVEN ONES THAT THE TOWN BOARD SAID NO TO ALREADY EXIST IN THAT AREA WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THIS.
YEAH, BUT THERE, THERE'S NOTHING THEY PROPOSED THAT WAS A RESULT.
THAT WAS A RESULTING BUT IT, BUT PART OF SEEKER IS COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CHARACTER, ANYTHING THEY'VE ASKED TO DO, SOMEBODY IS ALREADY DOING IT THERE AND CAN DO IT THERE AND THEY CLOSE IT.
NOW CAN I, CAN I JUST, YOU KNOW, TO ME AN EVENT CENTER IS LIKE, SHE READ PRIVATE PARTIES AND MARGO IN, IN REGARDS TO ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY WANTED TO DO.
IT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING AND STILL IS MY IMPRESSION THAT THOSE THINGS WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED AT A PRIVATE EVENT, LIKE A WEDDING, A SHOWER, NOT JUST TO PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND PLAY BOCCE.
UH, AND I THINK IF YOU GO BACK TO ALL THE QUESTIONS I'VE ASKED, IT'S BEEN VERY, VERY POINTED.
YOU KNOW, EVENT CENTER WEDDINGS, NOT, NOT A BOCCE BALL LEAGUE.
THAT'S NOT AN EVENT THAT'S A LEAD.
SO WHERE I'M TRYING TO, BUT YEAH, YOU SIGN UP FOR THE DAY AND TIME, GET TO GET THERE.
HANG ON, FINISH ON, HE'S GOT THE TABLE.
WE, WE HAVE THE, WE HAVE HORSESHOES.
IT'S NOT AN EVENT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A TOURNAMENT.
BUT, BUT YOU, FROM DAY ONE TOLD ME, AND THIS BOARD, EVENT CENTER, EVENT CENTER, EVENT CENTER, WHEN I OPENLY ASKED IT CAN BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, IT WAS NO, EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE GONNA DO WAS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO RENTED THAT HALL OR THAT PROPERTY.
NOW WE SEE FROM THE LIQUOR LICENSE AND WHEN I ASKED THE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM, UH, WHO PUT YOUR APPLICATION IN WHY HE WENT FOR A FULL LICENSE, HE SAID, OH, WELL IT'D BE TOO EXPENSIVE AND TOO KIND, UH, TIME CONSUMING TO DO A CATERER'S LICENSE.
WELL, I I'M LOOKING AT THAT NOW AND, AND I THINK THAT WAS A FALLACY, BUT ANYWAY, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THAT LICENSE, I'M SEEING SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO HAVE AN OPEN BAR SEVEN DAYS A WEEK AND, AND YOU'VE DONE NOTHING TO CHANGE MY MIND ON THAT.
LET ME JUST ADD TOO, ON THE APPLICATION, IT, IT ASKS, UM, WILL THE PREMISES BE CLOSED FOR PRIVATE EVENTS? HOW OFTEN? AND IT STAYED UNDER FIVE TO SIX TIMES OVER A YEAR.
SO IT'S STATING THAT THERE WERE PRIVATE EVENTS FIVE TO SIX TIMES PER YEAR RATHER THAN THE NORMAL USE.
WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER NORMAL USE? YEAH, AT LEAST EVERY WEEKEND, LIKE THEY SAID IN THE MINUTES EVENT CENTER, THAT WOULD BE THE READY OF BUSINESS.
I THINK WE HAVE, WE HAVE, AND IN MY SUBMISSION WE SIMPLY SAID, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EVENT CENTER.
THE ONLY WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN GET INTO THIS PLACE IS TO HAVE A TICKET, AN INVITATION FOR A PRE-REGISTERED DATE AND TIME.
THAT'S HOW WE PLAN TO OPERATE.
WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO BE.
OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU WANNA MAKE SOME MONEY HERE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO IT ON A REGULAR BASIS CLEARLY.
BUT I MEAN IF THEY COULD GET IT, IF THEY COULD THESE PEOPLE STUFF TO MAKE THE APPLICATION TO COME IN TO HOLD IT, HOLD THIS, HOLD AN EVENT, SIMPLE AS THAT.
YOU CAN'T JUST WALK IN AND GO IN.
WE, WE, WE STATED THAT VERY CLEARLY.
EXCUSE ME, DAN, WHAT APPLICATION ARE YOU READING? LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION.
WE SAID JUST TO, JUST TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE.
THE TOWN, THE TOWN DOES NOT GIVE UP THEIR JURISDICTION TO THE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY.
IF THE TOWN DOESN'T ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, OUTDOOR ALCOHOL, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE PERSON SAYS.
NO, I, AND I AGREE WITH THAT EXCEPT FOR THAT LAST PARAGRAPH THAT I READ YOU, THAT ACCORDING TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WHERE THEY'RE, WHERE THEY'RE DOING BUSINESS.
AND MY, MY CONTENTION IS THAT THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH US BECAUSE THEY'RE TELLING US THAT THEY WANT OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE.
AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA SAY THIS AGAIN, I'VE GOT IT IN THE
[02:05:01]
MINUTES.I'VE GOT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER, I'VE GOT IT IN THIS OUTDOOR OR THIS LIQUOR APPLICATION.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT AND THIS BOARD CANNOT VOTE IF IT'S INVOLVING OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE.
AND I THINK WE'VE PROVED, OR I'M NOT GONNA USE THE WORD PROVE, I THINK THAT WE'VE SUBSTANTIATED ENOUGH CONVERSATION TO SHOW WHAT THE INTENT IS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO HAVE A FULL BEACH BAR.
IT'S ON VIDEO, IT'S IN THE PAPER, IT'S ON THEIR WEBSITE.
BEACH WEDDINGS, $2,000 FOR TWO HOURS WITH ALCOHOL AND CHAMPAGNE TOAST.
BUT THEY NEEDED TO TELL US THAT AT THE TIME THAT THEY APPLIED AND THAT WAS NEVER TOLD TO US.
THEY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY TOLD TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND I CAN'T, I CAN'T LOOK AT WHAT THEY TOLD TO THE TOWN BOARD.
I'M THE PLANNING BOARD AND SO I CAN ONLY LOOK AT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME AND GATHER THE INFORMATION AS BEST I CAN.
AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, AND EVERYBODY SAID THE PLANNING BOARD'S HANDS ARE TIED IF THEY WANT OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE OR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF INDOOR ALCOHOL USE, BEING IN THE TENT ON THE BEACH, ON THE SIDEWALK, WHEREVER OUR HANDS AREN'T TIED AND BASED ON WHAT THAT RESOLUTION SAYS, WE HAVE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DONE.
HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE WERE TO REVIEW THE SITE PLAN BASED UPON THE CONDITIONS THAT THE TOWN BOARD HAD PROVIDED AND THAT UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS CONSISTENT THAT THERE ARE NO OUTDOOR ALCOHOL BARS ON THE SITE PLAN, ARE WE GONNA GET THE APPLICANT TO TELL US THAT IT'S NOT ON THE SITE PLAN AND THAT THERE'S STILL A LEGAL ROUTE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS TO ALLOW TO HAVE OUTDOOR ALCOHOL SALES? NO, NOT A IS ISSUED, NOT ACCORDING TO THE ZONING, BUT IT CAN BE ISSUED BY CODE COURT.
JUST PERMIT WE TALKED ABOUT NOT SPECIAL PERMIT, I'M SORRY, SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT.
THERE ARE A CONDITION, THE REZONING, I AGREE WITH CINDY THAT THEY, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASK THAT.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE DID TALK TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
UM, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE AGREED UPON BY THE PLANNING BOARD, THE TOWN BOARD AND THEN CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD DO IT ONCE A SEASON.
UM, AND BEING THAT THAT WAS SO LONG AGO, UM, THAT, THAT ISN'T IN THE PICTURE AND THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS, SO WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THAT AT OUR MINUTES FROM JUNE 21ST, 2023.
AND THAT WE SAID THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS, UM, A PRIVATE EVENT CENTER.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS COMING BACK TO THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN JULY OF 2023.
THAT JUNE 21ST, WE MADE IT THAT TIME, YEAH, 21ST, BUT IT DATED IN JULY, LIKE THE FINAL VERSION.
THAT'S AS WHEN, BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NOT SPECIALTIES PERMITS.
AND AGAIN, EVEN THE DISCUSSION HERE TODAY, AND AGAIN OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THERE WERE SIX MONTHS IN THE TOWN FROM THE TOWN BOARD WHERE THERE WERE SOME CHANGES BEFORE IT CAME BACK TO US.
AND PART OF THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HERE IS WHAT IS AN EVENT CENTER? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF USE? AND THAT HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT CONCERN FROM THIS BOARD IN THE MINUTES ALL ALONG ABOUT WHAT IS AN EVENT CENTER, WHAT IS THE TYPE OF USE, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND THEN HOW DOES THAT BECOME REFLECTED AND, AND SEEKER IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, IN TERMS OF NOISE, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING.
AND SO THAT, AGAIN, WHATEVER WE DO, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE CONSISTENT.
AND IN ADDITION TO JUST THE SITE PLAN, THE APPLICANT IS NOTED A COUPLE TIMES THAT, WELL, IT'S NOT SHOWN ON SITE PLAN.
PART OF WHAT WE GET FROM A MOST OF OUR APPLICANTS AND OFTEN IS WE'LL GET A LETTER FROM THEIR COUNSEL THAT INDICATES WHAT THEIR INTENT AND PROVIDING A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT COME FORWARD SO THAT WE HAVE IT MEMORIAL MEMORIALIZED IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT SITE PLAN APPLICATION ABOUT WHAT'S THERE.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HERE TODAY AND GETTING THOSE FIRM RESPONSES FROM YOU BACK IN WRITING AGAIN TO PROTECT EVERYBODY INVOLVED SO THAT IT'S IN THE FILE IN WRITING IS ALWAYS SUPER HELPFUL, RIGHT.
LIKE AND I THINK MAKING SURE WE HAVE, THERE'S A 200 PAGE SUPPLEMENT THAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED SIX MONTHS AGO THAT HAD ALL THAT INFORMATION.
I HAVEN'T, I YEAH, I WELL WE'RE STILL HAVING THEM AND THERE'S, THERE'S STILL CONTINUED CONFUSION AND THERE'S NO, I MEAN, TO YOUR POINT, KATE, THE WRITTEN STUFF, I DO THINK ONE OF IS STILL A, I'M LISTENING TO YOU ALL AND WE ARE VERY, VERY DEEP DOWN THREAD HOLE AND I, I'M UNSURE HOW WE GET TO LAY PEOPLE TERMS ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE WANT TO DO BECAUSE DENNIS IS SAYING, YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS IS AN EVENT CENTER AND THEN JOE'S DEFINING IT AND CINDY ARE DEFINING EVENT CENTER.
AND THEN, UM, YOU, MR. RAPIER ARE SAYING, WELL
[02:10:01]
IT IS AN EVENT CENTER BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PRESCRIBED TICKETED EVENT.RIGHT? SO THEN WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO CAITLYN IF A BOCCE LEAGUE, A PREPAID TAKE AN EVENT BECAUSE IF IT IS, THEN YOU'RE IN BOCCE LEAGUES, WHICH YOU DENNIS DOESN'T THINK YOU ARE BECAUSE YOU JUST TOLD HIM YOU'RE NOT.
SO NO ONE IS UNDERSTANDING THE SAME DEFINITION HERE.
SO WE NEED CLEAR WHATEVER'S IN THE ZONING WRITTEN UP ON THAT ZONING.
BUT, BUT, BUT SO NO, THOSE AREN'T THE TYPES OF EVENTS THAT YOU CAN HAVE.
SO YOU CAN HAVE A BUNCH OF, BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT DENNIS IS HOSTING HIS FAMILY REUNION AND THEY'RE PLAYING BOCCE AT THE FAMILY REUNION? OR DOES THAT MEAN THAT EVERY TUESDAY NIGHT YOU HAVE BOCCE LEAGUE? THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND I THINK THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD AS TO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
IS IT A FAMILY REUNION WITH ACTIVITIES OR IS IT A REOCCURRING WEEKLY EVENT? AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS AND HOW THAT OPERATES REGARDLESS.
GOING BACK TO BILL'S ORIGINAL QUESTION AND CINDY'S ORIGINAL POINT IS THAT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT WE NEED TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME TYPE OF SEEKER AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THAT.
UNLESS THIS BOARD DISAGREES THAT THE NEXT STEP IS, REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING WE NEED TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IF WE NEED TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION, THERE'S SOME CONFUSION FROM THIS BOARD ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT GOES INTO THAT.
AND IF WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE CASE, AND IF THERE'S A MAJORITY OF FOLKS THAT THINK THAT WE DO NOT NEED YOU TO SEE, OR WE NEED YOU GO BACK, THEN WE SHOULD PROBABLY TABLE THIS AND SCHEDULE A, A LEGAL MEETING WITH THIS BOARD, KEN FARRELL AND, AND JOE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL IN ALIGNMENT AND THAT THAT GETS HASHED OUT WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE, WHAT THEIR INTENT ABOUT ALCOHOL USE IF I DON'T EVEN USE THE LIQUOR APPLICATION, BUT BASED ON THE INTERVIEW AND THE PAPER ON THE WEBSITE, I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THE OUTDOOR ALCOHOL USE AND WHAT THE ATTENTION OF IS OF THE APPLICANT IS.
AND I WOULD LIKE THAT IN WRITING IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WANT.
I MEAN, I'LL CERTAINLY UNDERST TO THE MINUTES, RIGHT? BUT IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO RESPOND TO, WE WILL DO.
SO I JUST DON'T WANNA MISS ANYTHING
I I REALLY THINK THAT SUGGESTION, HANG ON.
UM, I REALLY THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT THEY HAVE OUT THERE, IF THEY WOULD'VE, AND I'M SAYING THIS RESPECTFULLY AND I'M LOOKING AT YOU 'CAUSE I'M SAYING THIS FROM THE HEART.
IF YOU WOULD'VE BROUGHT HALF OF THE ENERGY THAT YOU TOOK TO THE PUBLIC AND BROUGHT IT TO THIS PLANNING BOARD, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE WHOLE PICTURE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO PUT IT TO YOU.
WE NEED EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT.
YOU HEARD THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE UPSET BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE GONNA DO.
YOU HEARD THE BOARD SAY TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
THEY'RE UNCLEAR OF WHAT IS ON THERE.
I KNOW THAT THIS, THAT'S A SITE PLAN, BUT HOW DO I, HOW DO I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SLEEP AT NIGHT WHEN I HAVE THIS PAPERWORK TELLING ME THAT THERE'S A BAR WHERE YOU'VE GOT THAT PLA PLATFORM THERE, MARK 17 ON THAT PLA ON THAT SITE PLAN WHEN YOUR INTENT, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTENT, THAT YOUR INTENT IS TO PUT A BAR THERE.
HOW TO, HOW, HOW I CAN'T VOTE ON THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME, NOT IN NEW YORK.
I'VE BEEN DOING IT IN MICHIGAN FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
AND I CAME HERE AND I HONESTLY, I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO TORN ABOUT A CASE IN ALL THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS.
AND I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO COME FORTH AND TELL THE BOARD, THIS BOARD NOT THE TOWN BOARD, NOT ANYBODY ELSE, NOT THE NEWSPAPER, NOT THE CH CHANNEL TWO, UH, UM, MORNING, GOOD MORNING BUFFALO.
COME TELL THIS BOARD WHAT YOU WANT.
AND THIS BOARD WILL REACT ACCORDINGLY.
AND IF IT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, THEN WE CAN VOTE THE, UM, I WILL CERTAINLY RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION AND OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I KNOW AND I WILL LISTEN TO THE MINUTES.
UH, I DON'T WANT TO MISS ANYTHING.
SO THERE, I I DON'T NEED TO ASK YOU TO, TO SEND ME, TO SEND ME A LETTER, BUT IF SOMEHOW, IF I CAN GET ON THE SAME PAGE SO THAT I DON'T MISS IT AND HOWEVER WE CAN WORK THAT OUT, I'LL DO THAT.
I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE IN TOUCH WITH, UM, ATTORNEY GROGAN, I THINK THAT WILL, YOU GUYS CAN WORK IT OUT.
WHEN DO WE WANNA TABLE THIS FOR? HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU LIKE? UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK? SURE.
SO THEY'RE PROVIDING A LETTER OF INTENT ON EVERYTHING THAT THEY PLAN ON DOING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DONE A PART TWO AND A PART THREE ANALYSIS, WHICH GOES TO SEEKER.
USUALLY WE DON'T GO OVER IT BEFORE A PROJECT LIKE THIS.
[02:15:01]
WE DID IT MONTHS AGO BASED OFF OF THEIR LETTER OF INTENT.WOULD YOU LIKE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO PUT TOGETHER A PART TWO AND PART THREE ANALYSIS BASED OFF OF EVERYTHING THAT THEY DESCRIBED SO THAT WE CAN GO OVER IT AT THE NEXT MEETING? 'CAUSE THAT WILL HELP OUR SEEGER DETERMINATION.
NO, I THINK WE NEED TO REVIEW, WE NEED TO, WE FIRST NEED TO REVIEW FROM MARCH, LATE FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
NO, WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT THEIR INTENT IS FIRST TO SEE IF IT'S IN OUR, I'M SAYING ACT LIKE ACTUALLY WE GET IT.
WE WOULD, WOULD ASK THAT RIGHT? THEN WE, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK WE WOULD WANNA HEAR IT AND MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE TO MOVE FORWARD AND THINK OF AND TO CLARIFY THIS IS TO MAKE A SECRET DETERMINATION? NO, THIS IS TO, NO, IT'S NOT TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION.
IT'S TO HEAR WHAT THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS FOR USE OF THIS, UM, SITE.
I THINK SO THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK SHE'S ASKING ABOUT THE PART TWO AND PART THREE AFTER WE GET THE LETTER OF INTENT, WHENEVER THEY GET IT AT A MEETING.
FOLLOWING THAT, GOING OVER THAT TO HELP YOU MAKE A SECRET DETERMINATION.
WELL WE HAVE A SITE PLAN FIRST AND THEN WE HAVE CEDAR SECRET, FIRST SECRET.
YOU CAN'T, WE HAVE TO SECRET US TO HAVE DECISION.
SO I THINK WHAT WE NEED IS SOME, WE NEED THE LETTER OF PROTECTION OF USE AND INTENT AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE WE NEED SO THAT WE CAN AS EFFICIENTLY WITH THAT INFORMATION MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN IF ANYONE ON THIS BOARD WANTS TO TALK IN THE INTERIM WHILE THEY'RE PULLING THAT TOGETHER WITH OUR ATTORNEY ABOUT KER AND THE, THE NEED FOR THE DECISION AND THE PROCESS THERE.
THEY'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT AND HAVE A, A LEGAL MEETING WITH HIM.
BUT I THINK THAT BASED ON THE DIRECTION THAT I'VE HEARD TODAY, IS THAT WE NEED THOSE PIECES SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE DO OUR PART AND THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR, EVERYONE'S CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT THE ASK IS WHY, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, I IDEALLY, ANYTHING THAT WE GET FROM YOU WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH ANY OTHER MESSAGING THAT APPLICANT HAS MADE TO THE PUBLIC.
AND SO, JUST REAL QUICK, THE LETTER OF INTENT, IF THAT THEN FOLLOWS WITH WHAT THE PROPOSED USES THAT BEEN SU APPLIED TO US OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF LAST SUBMISSIONS, REMAINS CONSISTENT, ARE YOU THEN GOING TO, ARE WE THEN GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE INTENTION OF, OF THE USE OF THE SITE AND THAT THE, THIS ALCOHOL APPLICATION FACTOR IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO THEN HAVE AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE IN DOCUMENT THE FULL INTENT USE OF THE STUDY? I'M NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION AS AN INDIVIDUAL BOARD NOTICE, I THINK LET'S SEE WHAT WE GET.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, FOR CLARITY.
AND THEN BASED ON WHAT WE GET, LIKE UNDERSTANDING USE AND IT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD, IF YOU COULD DEFINE FROM YOUR CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE WHAT AN EVENTS FACILITY IS AND WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EVENT.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WILL THEN WE'LL KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENT IS AND IT, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE ARE SEVEN OF US AND THERE'S PROBABLY AT LEAST FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT OPINIONS, IF NOT SEVEN I WHAT AN EVENT CENTER IS.
AND THAT PART HAS BEEN CLEAR AND THAT GOES BACK TO THE MISS.
SO IF YOU COULD JUST ADD WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND HOW YOU, HOW YOU'RE REPRESENTING THAT, THAT WILL THEN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR AND ON THE SAME PAGE AS TO WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND THAT, AGAIN, THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, NOT BEING THE REST OF THE BOARD WOULD ALLOW US TO EXECUTE THE PART TWO OF THE PART THREE AND MAKE SURE THAT ANY TRAFFIC NOISE, WHATEVER HAPPENS TO GO IN THERE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
IF I'M LISTENING TO YOU ALL, UM, THERE'S A NEED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE SPECIFICS AND WE GOT A SHORT FORM AS OPPOSED TO A FULL FORM.
AND SO THE FULL FORM WOULD'VE SAID LIKE OUTWARDS OF OPERATION, THE SHORT FORM DOESN'T GIVE US THAT KIND OF INFORMATION.
SO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE IN THE FULL FORM WOULD BE HELPFUL.
UM, MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF THESE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED, ARE DOCUMENTED ON THE SITE PLAN IN A WAY IN WHICH THEY NEED TO BE.
THE TERMS ARE DEFINED SO THAT WE CAN ALL TALK ABOUT THE SAME DEFINITION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS EVENT CENTER, WHAT DOES A, UM, AND UNDER THAT EVENT CENTER LIKE WHAT DOES TICKETED EVENT MEAN? UM, AND THEN SOME SPECIFICITY.
SO IT'S NOT JUST WOODEN PLATFORM BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA COME BACK TO US AND EVERYONE'S GONNA SAY, WELL, WHAT'S THE WOODEN PLATFORM THERE FOR? ARE YOU PUTTING THE BUBBLE BAR ON THE WOODEN PLATFORM? LIKE, WE NEED SPECIFICITY OR WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION HELP, HELP, HELP US JUST MOVE THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE, THE, THAT'S, THAT'S AT THE END OF THE DAY IS MY ASK IS HELP US WITH EVERYTHING ON THERE SO THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE YOU WANNA GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS PROCESS HAVE GONE THROUGH SO THAT WE'RE NOT ALL HASHING THIS.
UM, SO, OKAY, SO, UM, JUNE 5TH, DO WE HAVE IT OPEN? DID I GIVE YOU ENOUGH SIGN? IT WOULD BE THREE WEEKS.
SHOULD, IF NOT, I'LL LET, I'LL LET JOE KNOW ALREADY.
DO WE, WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL JUNE 5TH.
[02:20:02]
SECOND.WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON JUNE 5TH.
APPRECIATE YOUR HELPING IN THAT.
UH, WE HAVE SOME MINUTES THAT THE LAST ITEM RIGHT HERE? YES.
UH, I OH, YOU ARE WELCOME TO HANG OUT AS LONG AS YOU LIKE DENNIS.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1ST MEETING.
UM, THE MINUTES FROM MAY 1ST HAVE BEEN APPROVED.