[WORK SESSION]
          [00:23:48]
          STRONG LANGUAGE MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST THING, BUT MAYBE SOFTEN IT AND REMOVING IT FOR A SPECIAL 
          [00:23:57]
USE PERMIT FOR THE PARKING IN FRONT. THAT COULD WORK. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH, IT 
          [00:24:01]
WOULD BE. THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI I'D BE DOWN FOR. I WOULD AGREE WITH A SOME KIND OF CHANGE LIKE 
          [00:24:07]
THAT. BUT YOU RAISE A MORE INTERESTING POINT ON IF SOME OF THE MU DISTRICTS ARE IN THE 
          [00:24:14]
WATERFRONT OVERLAY, THEN THERE'S AN INHERENT CONFLICT BECAUSE THE BACK OF THE BUILDING IS THE LAKE, AND YOU WOULDN'T WANT THE CARS THERE. YOU WANT THEM IN THE FRONT ON THE ROADSIDE. SO THOSE CAN'T COEXIST, RIGHT? RIGHT. WELL, AND ONE THE ONE WE HAD WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING. RIGHT. AND THERE'S DIFFERENT PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW YEAH, PARKING DIFFERENTLY IN EXISTING STRUCTURES. BUT YEAH THAT DOES MAKE YOU'RE RIGHT. IT WOULD BE I WOULD LIKE TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THEY'RE ENCOURAGED TO HAVE THE PARKING IN THE BACK, UNLESS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE FINE. BUT SOME KIND OF EXCEPTION MECHANISM FOR WHEN IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, OR IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR THE PARKING TO BE IN THE FRONT. I LIKE HAVING LANGUAGE SPECIFIC TO THAT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WAS AT RALEIGH BOULEVARD, THE ONLY WAY WE WERE ABLE TO EVEN HAVE PARKING BE IN THE FRONT IS BECAUSE THE TOWN BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE 
          [00:25:04]
CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN THE ONE THAT WAS WRITTEN WHERE THE TOWN BOARD IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE ENTITY THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO DO SO. SO I'M OBVIOUSLY I'M OPEN FOR ANY SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT THIS BOARD WANTS TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD. WE CAN HAVE THAT BE ADDED TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE PARKING BE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WE CAN LEAVE IT AS IS. WE CAN WE CAN DO WHATEVER WHATEVER THIS BOARD THINKS. CHAIR GRONINGEN, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD STRIKE IT. I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE AS OF THREE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS. IS THE THREE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS INTIMATED IN REGARDS TO. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A SETBACK TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING UNDER SPECIAL USE PERMIT. OKAY. SO ONE QUESTION I HAVE FOR THIS BOARD IS FOR APPROVAL OF AN MU ONE. OBVIOUSLY THE PLAN HAS TO BE IRONED OUT AND IT GOES TO THE TOWN BOARD. 
          WHO RECOMMENDS WHO SENDS IT TO THIS BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN IT'S ULTIMATELY APPROVED FOR OR APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD. AT WHAT POINT HAVE WE HAVE PARKING APPROVED BY A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT BE APPROVED BY THIS BOARD DURING THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT? SO, OKAY, SO WE'LL HAVE LANGUAGE. I JUST WANT TO HAVE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC TO HOW HOW DOES THAT YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT FOLLOW. SO WE'RE CONTINUING THE REZONING ASPECT OF THE TOWN BOARD APPROVING IT. BUT PARKING SPECIFIC TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT WILL BE DONE BY THIS BOARD WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL. OKAY. RIGHT. SO I WILL WORK ON I'LL WORK ON THAT LANGUAGE THAT THEN GOES TO TWO 8410. GREAT SEGUE. SO OFF STREET PARKING, IF YOU LOOK AT TWO 4810 A SO WE HAVE PARKING IS NOT A PERMITTED USE AND MAY ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PRINCIPAL BUILDING. SO OUR SUGGESTED CHANGE WAS PARKING, IF ANY, SHALL BE LOCATED ENTIRELY BEHIND THE BUILDING. NO PARKING SHALL FRONT ON ANY STREET. SO IT SAYS THAT CLEAR AS DAY, NO PARKING SHALL FRONT ON ANY STREET. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS MORE OF A KIND OF LIKE WE SAID. SIMILARLY, HAVING LANGUAGE SAYING ENCOURAGED INSTEAD OF NO PARKING SHALL BECAUSE THAT SEEMS VERY DEFINITIVE, AS IN NO PARKING AT ALL SHALL BE ON THE STREET. AND LIKE I SAID, WE'VE HAD TWO PROJECTS THAT HAVE NEEDED PARKING ON THE FRONT. WE HAVE NEW ONES THAT MAY BE IN THE WATERFRONT GOING DOWN THE LINE, WHERE IT MAY BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT PARKING IN THERE. SO LIKE I SAID, I'M OPEN FOR ANY IDEAS. BUT ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS PROVISION FOR OFF STREET PARKING AND THE LANGUAGE THAT IT CURRENTLY READS? MEMBER MCCORMICK I THINK WE SHOULD DO SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE WITH SIMILAR LANGUAGE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PROCESS WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL. OKAY, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT SUPPORTS THAT? POINT OF CLARIFICATION? CHAIR GRONINGEN. SO THERE IS NO PARKING IN AN MU1 DISTRICT ON THE STREET. THERE IS NO PARKING ALLOWED ON THE STREET IN AN MU1. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? SO. WELL, THIS IS THE OFF STREET PARKING SECTION. NO. OKAY. YOU CHAIR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO WHERE IT WAS. THERE CAN BE ON STREET PARKING. IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE ROAD. RIGHT. SO YOU COULD HAVE ON OR OFF STREET BUT THE. RIGHT. YEAH. 
          WELL YOU KNOW WHICH ONE I'M THINKING ABOUT. YEAH. OKAY. THIS DOESN'T THIS DOESN'T UNDO ANY OF THAT. WELL, THAT PROJECT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WILL HAVE TO AMEND THEIR REZONING ANYWAY. 
          SO THEY, THEY HAVE THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT OTHER THAN, THAN PARKING. BUT IT WON'T. CHANGE THEIR PROJECT. NO. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE BIG AMENDMENTS FOR MU ONE. 
          SO JUST TO RECAP, JUST SO I'M CLEAR. SO I BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS. WE'RE SUGGESTING HAVING PARKING BEING REQUIRED TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BE APPROVED BY THIS BOARD AS ALONG WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL, LIKE IT TYPICALLY WOULD PARKING IN THE FRONT IN THE FRONT. AND WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING THE DEFINITIVE WORDS LIKE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED AND NO PARKING, SHALL THAT WE SAY ENCOURAGE OR HAVING LIGHTER LANGUAGE THAT IS MORE ENCOURAGING. BUT INSTEAD OF BEING DEFINITIVE. BILL CLARK AND IF WE'RE CONSIDERING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS FOR PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER EXPANDING THAT TO NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDS ALSO. SO THEN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS COULD ALSO HAVE A MAIN STREET, OR WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO HAVE A MAIN STREET FEEL. AND IF SOMETHING'S NEW, WE BUILT AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS THE MIXED USE. I 
          [00:30:02]
REMEMBER. MCCORMICK, I THINK THAT HAS POTENTIAL. WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS MORE AND SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF BENEFIT AND TRAFFIC AND A POSITIVE TRAFFIC, FOOT TRAFFIC, COMMUNITY TRAFFIC FOR THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE MORE OF A COMMUNITY FEEL RATHER THAN WE HAVE. MCKINLEY MALL IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, WHERE WE HAVE A TON OF PARKING AND IT'S NOT ACCESSIBLE. AND SO THAT THAT IT HASN'T SPURRED FURTHER REDEVELOPMENT. 
          SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAPTURE IT TODAY, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT AS WE WORK THROUGH UPDATES. OKAY. AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, BILL, FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR NEW BUILDS, HAVING PARKING BE REQUIRED TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BEFORE THIS BOARD IF IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE FRONT, IF IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE FRONT. SO THE SAME THING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOR MIXED USE, ALSO APPLYING TO COMMERCIAL, THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. YEAH, BUT IF ONLY ONLY IF PARKING IS GOING TO BE IN THE FRONT FOR NEW BUILDS, FOR NEW BUILDS EXISTING, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. MEMBER MCCORMICK WE MAY ALSO WANT TO THINK ABOUT HOW THAT MAY VARY BASED ON C1, C2, LIKE IF THAT'S DIFFERENT BASED ON THOSE. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WOULD BE I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. YES. YEAH, WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT FOR SURE. 
          OKAY. AND THOSE WERE, THOSE WERE ALL MY AMENDMENTS. SO I THINK OUT OF THE FIVE THAT I PRESENTED, FOUR I BELIEVE ARE READY TO GO AND MU1, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND WE WILL BRING BACK TO THIS BOARD ON JUNE 4TH. ARE YOU BRINGING IT BACK AS FINAL JUST WITH THESE REVISIONS FOR I GUESS WE'LL CALL IT FINAL WITH THESE FURTHER REVISIONS FOR YOUR REVIEW FOR LIKE THE TOWN IS DONE. AND HERE'S THE FINAL VERSION FOR YOUR REVIEW, BECAUSE HOW IT'LL GO IS IT'S GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION ANYWAYS. OKAY. SO I'M, I'M GOING TO TAILOR IT AS IF THIS IS THE BOARD'S OPINION. AND OBVIOUSLY WE CAN CHANGE IT ON THE FLY IF NEED BE ON THE FOURTH. BUT I'M GOING TO TAILOR IT AS IF THIS IS WHAT THIS IS WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO SEND TO THE TOWN BOARD. OKAY. YEAH. I WAS JUST THINKING A BIT ABOUT THE PARKING AND MAKING IT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS DEFINITIVE AND THEN ALSO ENCOURAGING, BUT I THINK IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DRAFT IT, BECAUSE YOU COULD PROBABLY EVEN GET AROUND ENCOURAGEMENT AND JUST SAY PARKING IS IN THE BACK. AND IF THAT'S NOT WHATEVER WORDS YOU WANT, REASONABLE OR FEASIBLE, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD BE OBTAINED OR WHATEVER THE WORDS ARE. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN NEED TO BE LIKE, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PARK IN THE BACK LIKE YOU GOT TO PARK IN THE BACK, RIGHT? AND IF YOU CAN'T COME GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, OKAY. AND WITH THAT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU JOSH AS ALWAYS. OKAY. WELL IT'S 704 AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE MAY 21ST PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER. ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MEMBER. SAMARRA, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? WILLIAM CLARK HERE. KATELYN SHIMURA HERE. KIM FINLEY HERE. AUGIE GERACI HERE. CINDY GROENEKAN PRESENT. KATELYN MCCORMICK HERE. MARGO VALENTE HERE. THANK YOU. WE DID NOT HAVE. WE DID NOT HAVE MINUTES FOR THIS TO BE REVIEWED. IS THAT CORRECT? WE PUT THE WE PUT THE TRANSCRIPT IN ON LIKE MONDAY. SO THAT'S AFTER THE DEADLINE. SO I GUESS YOU CAN SAY TECHNICALLY TECHNICALLY NOT OKAY. NO. SO WE'LL REVIEW LAST MONTH'S LAST MEETING'S MINUTES AT THE NEXT MEETING. SURE. SO EVERYBODY'S HAD TIME TO REVIEW OKAY CHAIR. YES, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO START LOOKING AT THOSE MINUTES. AND I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING, BUT I RECOGNIZE I WASN'T HERE. SO THIS MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT THE MEETINGS THAT WE'RE GETTING, THE MINUTES AS THEY'RE BEING PREPARED BY THIS NEW SYSTEM ARE NOT HELPFUL OR REALLY EASY TO FOLLOW IF YOU ARE NOT AT THAT MEETING. AND IT ALSO DOESN'T IDENTIFY WHO EACH SOME OF THOSE LINES, WHO THE COMMENTER IS OR WHERE IT IS. AND I WOULD MAYBE UNTIL WE FINALIZE GETTING THIS NEW SYSTEM UNDERWAY, WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CONSIDER MAYBE HAVING ALSO ONE OF THE OLDER VERSION OF THE SUMMARY OF THESE MINUTES, JUST SO THAT WE MAKE SURE WE HAD THEM, BECAUSE IT WAS QUITE DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW. AND I REALIZE WE'RE WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT, BUT SO IT IS WORKING ON IT. THE OLDER VERSION IS NOT AVAILABLE. AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE MEETING, THEY'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE WATCH THE VIDEO. SO IT IS AVAILABLE. AND THEY ARE THEY ARE AWARE OF 
          [00:35:02]
THE ISSUES WITH THE TRANSCRIPT. BUT THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER VERSION. AND THEY'RE STILL IT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING AT THIS POINT. I KNOW. BUT THERE'S NOTHING MORE THAT THE OLDER VERSION IS. THE OLD VERSION IS NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO US. I MEAN, I WOULD I GUESS I CAN SHARE THEM ELSEWHERE, BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF WE WERE TO NEED THEM TO REFER BACK TO ON SOME OF THESE MEETINGS, IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THEM AS A RECORD, AS WE OFTEN DO, YOU KNOW, WE ALL DO. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A USEFUL THING TO DO. NO, BECAUSE THE VIDEO IS NOT ALWAYS THERE AS THE FORMAL RECORD. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER FORM OF RECORD THAT IS AVAILABLE. JOSH, CAN YOU SPEAK TO IT? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOTIONS AND THE RESOLUTIONS ARE THERE'S ANOTHER FORM, AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO LOOK INTO IT TO TELL YOU WHICH ONE. BUT I DID TALK TO IT. AND THERE'S ANOTHER FORM THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON IT. IT DID SAY THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON A VERSION THAT HAS ALL THE MOTIONS AND ALL THE RESOLUTIONS KIND OF TAKEN OUT OF THAT 5040 PAGE, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER LONG IT'S GOING TO BE. BUT THAT IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS. IT IS NOT COMPLETE AT THIS TIME. SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW ARE THE TRANSCRIPTS PULLED FROM THE AGENDAS FROM THE VIDEO. AND THAT'S THE OTHER. I KNOW A COUPLE OF YOU WEREN'T HERE WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS PROCESS, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF WHEN SPEAKING. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT A PERFECT WORLD RIGHT NOW. AND IT'S BEEN A LOT TO REVIEW. BUT THEY DID RECOMMEND GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE VIDEO, WHICH I DID. AND I WAS HERE BECAUSE READING THE MINUTES WAS JUST A CHORE, QUITE FRANKLY. BUT IT'S A PROGRESS AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AND IT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THIS POINT. SO MEMBER VALENTE, THAT IS THE VIDEO PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. YES. LIKE FORMALLY. YES. ON FACEBOOK. NO, WE'RE NOT USING FACEBOOK. NO. SO NOW IT'S ALL ON THE YOU'RE JUST FOR RECORD FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR THIS BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOW STREAMED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE. SO IF YOU GO TO THE TOWN'S WEBSITE, THERE'S A LIVE MEETING MENU TAB. AND WHEN YOU CLICK ON THAT IT STREAMS ALL TOWN BOARD AND ALL PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. IT USED TO DO ZONING BOARD TOO, BUT THEY CHANGED THAT. SO WE HAVE TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES. AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE ARCHIVED VIDEOS DATING BACK UP THROUGH COVID, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED RECORDING THESE VIDEOS. SO THEY ARE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE UNDER THE LIVE MEETING MENU TAB. SO THEY'RE NOT STREAMED ON FACEBOOK ANYMORE. THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE. AND WE ALSO ON AT LEAST FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING BOARD. I'VE ADDED THAT SPECIFIC LINK SO THAT IF YOU GO TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAGE OR THE PLANNING BOARD PAGE, IT'S RIGHT ON, IT'S RIGHT ON THE FRONT PAGE SO THAT YOU CAN CLICK ON IT IF YOU WANT TO SEE A MEETING. OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE VOTING ON ANY MINUTES TONIGHT. AND WE'LL BE READY FOR THE JUNE 4TH MEETING. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES. NO. OKAY. SO WE OUR 
          [1. Brian Becker – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a mixed-use development on vacant land, east side of Riley Boulevard (SBL #171.05-1-11)]
FIRST CASE THIS EVENING IS BRIAN BECKER. IS MR. BECKER HERE THIS EVENING? COME ON UP. REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON VACANT LAND EAST SIDE OF RALEIGH BOULEVARD. 
          AND THIS EVENING, WE AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR US TO VOTE ON THE. WE JUST WANT TO REVIEW THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE RESOLUTION AND TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF THERE'S IF THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS COMPLETE. YEP. CORRECT. SO GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. ANTHONY PANDOLFI, PROJECT ENGINEER WITH CARMINA WOOD DESIGN. YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS PLAN QUITE A FEW TIMES NOW. SO I'LL JUST BE BRIEF. WE'RE PROPOSING A MIXED USE BUILDING ON RILEY BOULEVARD. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE SITE PLAN UP THERE, IT'S A TWO STORY BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR CONSISTING OF A GYM, FITNESS CENTER, AND THEN A SMALL PORTION FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR CONSISTS SIX APARTMENT UNITS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. WE'VE COMPLETED THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. WE HAVE SEWER APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY JUST WAITING ON BACKFLOW APPROVAL FROM THE WATER AUTHORITY, SO WE'RE QUITE FAR ALONG IN THE PROCESS. BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I CAN TAKE THEM. OKAY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD AT THIS POINT? YEAH, I WANTED TO ADD. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BOARD WILL CONSIDER UNDER THE CONDITIONS ARE THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD BACK IN MARCH. SO THERE ARE SOME TOWN BOARD CONDITIONS THAT THIS PROJECT SHOULD MEET, WHICH I BELIEVE IT DOES. AND THEN THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WETLANDS BACK IN 
          [00:40:05]
FEBRUARY. THE DEC ASKED US IF THERE WERE WETLANDS ON THIS PROPERTY WHEN WE DID THE COORDINATED REVIEW. AND I THINK THIS PROCESS WILL ALSO BE HELPFUL AS WE GET PROJECTS DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE OF THE NEW WETLANDS REGULATIONS. SO WE SUBMITTED A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TO THE DEC TO DO A DESKTOP REVIEW. THEY TOOK THE FULL 90 DAYS AND DIDN'T GIVE US A RESPONSE. SO THEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE THEN GAVE THEM A CERTIFIED LETTER, AND THEN THEY TOOK ANOTHER TEN DAYS TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND THE LETTER THAT THEY GAVE BACK WAS THERE ARE NO JURISDICTION, NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ON THIS PROPERTY. SO WE GOT THAT LETTER. 
          IT'S BEEN FORWARDED TO THIS BOARD. WE GAVE IT TO THE APPLICANT. THAT'S GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS. SO THAT'S ALSO JUST GIVING A SNAPSHOT OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE HAD. THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS THAT'S MET THAT TIMELINE WITH THE DC WETLANDS AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS. SO I KIND OF JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT AS A LITTLE BIT OF FOUNDATION FOR WHEN WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE WETLANDS ISSUE. OKAY. ENGINEERING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER THIS EVENING? NOTHING TO ADD. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, REVIEW. EVERYBODY SAW THE LETTER FROM THE LETTER OF NO JURISDICTION FROM THE STATE. AND THEN I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS HERE. I HAVE ONE DATED THE 21ST AND THEN I HAVE ONE WITH THE TOWN OF ONCE FOR THE REZONING. OKAY. THIS IS WHAT THE TOWN BOARD VOTED ON BY MISTAKE. SORRY. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE HAVE THE. I GUESS WE NEED TO TALK, DISCUSS THE SIDEWALKS. YES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A HARD COPY AND I HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN FOR THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. SO I'LL MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. BIGGER. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO. SO IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS THE FIRST ONE IS JUST COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOUR ZONING CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED BY THE TOWN BOARD. I BELIEVE YOUR ENGINEERING DATE IS MARCH I MEAN MAY 20TH. YES. SO I'LL FIX THAT. SO THIS WILL SAY. 520. SO THIS PROJECT IS AT THAT BEND OF RALEIGH BOULEVARD. SO I HAD SIDEWALKS AS A QUESTION FOR THIS BOARD TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO WITH, WITH THIS PROJECT IN REGARDS TO SIDEWALKS. WELL, WE KNOW HOW THE TOWN BOARD FEELS ABOUT SIDEWALKS, AND THEY'RE DEFINITELY WANT SIDEWALKS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. DOES ANYBODY SEE ANY REASON WHY THERE WOULDN'T WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE SIDEWALKS IN HERE, ESPECIALLY IN THAT AREA? I, I THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO BECOME MORE WALKABLE, IF YOU WILL. AND I THINK THAT THE SIDEWALKS SHOULD BE THERE. MR. FARRELL, YOU HAVE TO SIT OVER HERE. YES, BECAUSE OF THE NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE. ALSO, BECAUSE TAMMY'S GOT A COLD. YOU PROBABLY CAN'T. AND CAN WE SIT. YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING NEXT TO YOU. DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING NEXT TO TAMMY. WE LOVE HER DEARLY, BUT SHE'S IN QUARANTINE. I THIS IS MEMBER MCCORMICK. I WOULD AGREE WITH CHAIR GRONINGEN'S SUGGESTION ON THE SIDEWALKS THAT THEY BE INCLUDED. JOSH, DO YOU WANT TO. 
          OH, YEAH, I'LL MOVE THAT ALSO QUICKLY. JUST GOING TO PULL UP A AERIAL TOO, JUST SO THAT WE KIND OF HAVE A VISUAL OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. YEP. THIS IS MEMBER SHIMURA. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY THINK SIDEWALKS SHOULD BE EVERYWHERE, BUT WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED THAT IT NEEDS TO MAKE SENSE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STREETSCAPE OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN THE SOUTHWESTERN LEADING UP TO THE PROJECT SITE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED, BUILT, OCCUPIED, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS AND I DO NOT SEE ANY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE CONNECTING TO THE SIDEWALKS AT SOUTHWESTERN, PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS ON THEIR OWN. AND SO I'M NOT I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOOK AT THE AREA ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS THE PARCEL HERE. AND THIS IS THE BEND OF RILEY. AND THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO EXISTING SIDEWALKS ON THIS BEND. AND THEN IF WE GO TO THE STREET VIEW JUST SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WE DID REQUIRE THEM ACROSS THE STREET AS THEY'RE BUILDING OUT ACROSS THE STREET, THOUGH. THAT IS TRUE. AND SO SOME OF THIS IS ACCESSIBLE. AND AS PEOPLE ARE MOVING THROUGH THIS AREA WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE STREET, THOSE TWO OTHER PARCELS ACROSS THE STREET ARE DOWN. WE HAVE REQUESTED TO HAVE SIDEWALKS. WELL. CAN YOU MAKE A COMMENT? HANG ON. OKAY. JOSH, 
          [00:45:18]
COULD YOU POINT TO WHERE THIS IS? SHIMURA, COULD YOU POINT TO WHERE THOSE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RILEY BROOK UP HERE, RIGHT? KAYLA. YEAH, THERE'S THE TWO ONE. LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNDER ACTIVELY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. YEAH. SO AND THEN THE ONE ADJACENT TO IT. YEAH. SO RILEY BROOK APARTMENTS AND TRYING TO THINK WHAT THE OTHER PROJECT WAS. WAS THAT A STORAGE PROJECT. YES. SO A STORAGE PROJECT IN RILEY BROOK APARTMENTS, WHICH ARE GOING IN THIS CORNER, ARE ALL BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE SIDEWALKS. SO THE SIDEWALKS WOULD BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, CORRECT? CORRECT. OF THAT OF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MAP FOR THE RECORD AND THE TWO CONSTRUCTION SITES THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF ARE OPPOSITE OF THE BEND AND A LITTLE HOW WOULD YOU SAY LIKE A MILE DOWN FROM THE BEND. YEAH. OKAY. SO TWO MEMBER SHIMURA'S POINT TO PUT SIDEWALKS ON THIS SIDE WHERE THERE ARE NON CURRENTLY. TO CONNECT TO ANYTHING THAT ELSE THAT'S THERE. 
          WHAT'S WHAT. THAT'S QUALITY FARM AND FLEET OR TRACTOR SUPPLY. TRACTOR SUPPLY. SORRY MY MICHIGAN SHOWING AGAIN. SO THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON THAT SIDE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY SIDEWALKS THAT TRACK THERE. SIDEWALKS. THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. I DON'T LIVE FAR FROM THERE. I DRIVE TO THERE QUITE A BIT. AND THEN I ALSO THINK THE APPLICANT HAD SOMETHING THAT HE WANTED TO MENTION. OKAY. YES. YES. BRANDY FOUNTAIN I'M AN ADVISOR FOR WITH BRIAN ON THIS PROJECT. AND THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS YOU HAVE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOW GOING TO BECOME SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS, I BELIEVE, FROM THE SENIOR CENTERS. AND THEN YOU HAVE FRONTIER SCHOOL IN THE BACKGROUND THERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, AS YOU CAN SEE. SO IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF STUDENTS. TRAFFIC GOING BACK AND FORTH FROM ADMINISTRATION BUILDING TO THAT, IF THE SIDEWALKS GO ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD, NOW YOU HAVE PEOPLE CROSSING THE ROAD TO GET TO A SIDEWALK, TO WALK DOWN JUST ACROSS THE ROAD, BACK AGAIN, TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE. SO I'M JUST SAYING FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, I WOULD SAY YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. WE LOVE SIDEWALKS. WE LIVE IN THE VILLAGE, LOVE THE SIDEWALKS. BUT AGAIN, THEY SHOULD LEAD TO SOMEPLACE. AND FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, THOSE SIDEWALKS ARE MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE USED BY THAT SUBDIVISION THAT'S GOING IN THERE, THE APARTMENT THERE, AND FROM THE FRONTIER SCHOOL TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. WHAT I WANTED TONIGHT WAS A DISCUSSION, AND THAT'S WHAT WE GOT. AND I WANTED THE DISCUSSION ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM VARIOUS PARTIES ABOUT HOW THIS BOARD DOES NOT TALK ABOUT SIDEWALKS. AND I WANTED IT ON THE RECORD DISCUSSED. I THINK THAT THIS WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION. I DO AGREE, I WISH THAT THERE COULD BE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT GIVEN THE JUST THE PREVIOUS, I CAN'T. I CAN'T SUPPORT IT JUST ON THAT AREA ON THE CORNER. I ALMOST WOULD WANT THEM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THEN I. I CAN'T SUPPORT IT ON THIS CHAIR. SO, CHAIR MEMBER MCCORMICK. YEAH. SO MEMBER MCCORMICK. YES, BUT THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT IS MEANT TO BE ACCESSIBLE, LIKE THIS IS A GYM. SO IF SOMEBODY IS COMING AND THEY'RE CROSSING THE STREET TO COME INTO THIS PROPERTY, LIKE I'M THINKING ABOUT ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY AND WALKING ALONG THIS FRONTAGE TO COME INTO THIS FACILITY, IT I THINK THAT THE GOAL IS TO CONTINUE TO ADD SIDEWALKS INTO THESE AREAS, AND WHILE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO ADD THEM, WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO ADD THEM WHEN THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARISE. 
          I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE NOT OTHERS THERE NOW, BUT AS WE ARE HAVING OPPORTUNITIES OR THERE'S REVISIONS AND CHANGES THERE IF WE NEVER PUT THEM IN, I THINK THIS IS THE ARGUMENT WE'VE HAD BEFORE OR DISCUSSION, NOT ARGUMENT, IS THAT IF WE NEVER PUT THEM IN, THEN WE ALWAYS END UP IN THE SAME SPOT AND THAT AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO START PUTTING THE SIDEWALKS IN. AND SO IF SOMEBODY WERE TO COME FROM THOSE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OR TO WALK AROUND THE CORNER, BERKELEY PLACES BACK AROUND THE OTHER SIDE AND TO COME ON THE SIDEWALKS AND WALK OVER TO TRY AND EVEN ACCESS THIS BUSINESS TO WALK OVER THERE, OR THE FOLKS IN THAT APARTMENT. LIKE THERE ARE SCENARIOS WHERE INDIVIDUALS MAY BE TRYING TO USE THOSE PATHS TO GET INTO THAT AREA, AND IF WE NEVER HAVE THEM, WE'LL NEVER HAVE THEM. BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. CAN YOU EXCUSE ME, MEMBER. OGGY. OGGY. OGGY. HANG ON. OGGY, CAN YOU LOCATED ON THIS MAP? RIGHT 
          [00:50:09]
THERE. RIGHT THERE. OKAY, THIS IS MEMBER VALENTE. I WAS GOING TO ASK THE SAME THING. JOSH, CAN YOU EASILY PULL UP THE SITE PLAN JUST SO WE CAN SEE THE ORIENTATION OF THE OF IT? SO THE THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING LOT THAT ABUTS THE ROAD. YEAH I DON'T I UNDER LIKE CAITLIN. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. AND I ALSO WANT SIDEWALKS AT ALL TIMES. BUT A SIDEWALK IS ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. AND WE HAVE HEARD MANY MANY, MANY TIMES AT THIS BOARD THAT RILEY BOULEVARD IS A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE. AND I REALLY DON'T WANT I I'M WITH THE APPLICANT. I THINK THAT THE SIDEWALKS SHOULD STAY ON THE SCHOOL SIDE. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER ONES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD FOR SAFETY OF THE MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE ON FOOT. MEMBER FINDLAY. WELL, THERE COULD BE A CHANCE OF CHILDREN CATCHING A SCHOOL BUS HERE. NOW, IF THERE'S NOT A SIDEWALK THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO EITHER BE STANDING IN THE ROAD OR IN THE PARKING LOT. 
          AND TO ME, THAT IS A BIGGER SAFETY CONCERN. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE A CHILD STANDING IN THE PARKING LOT, ESPECIALLY IN OUR WINTERS OR IN THE ROAD IN OUR WINTERS. I THINK WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO, WE'VE DONE THIS ON MANY PROJECTS IN THE PAST IS HAVE LIKE A CUTOUT PAD AREA NEAR THE NEAR THE DRIVEWAY THERE AS AS A BUS STOP. WE'VE DONE THAT ON, YOU KNOW, BIGGER MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN THE PAST. SO I THINK WE'D BE WILLING TO MAYBE DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          YEAH. AGAIN, RANDY FENTON HERE, EVEN MAYBE EVEN AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE DRIVEWAY ON THE FAR SIDE, MAYBE PUT A PAD THERE OR SOMETHING THAT COMES INTO THE INTO THE PARKING LOT. THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIDEWALK RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING THERE, AND THAT IS CLOSER TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT ACROSS THE ROAD, THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THEM. THE DRIVEWAY THAT YOU SEE THERE IS RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES INTO THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. SO TO PUT A PUT A PAD THERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTS, BUT WE WANT TO THE OPPOSITE END TO PUT A PAD TO GET THROUGH. MEMBER MCCORMICK ONE I DON'T THINK THAT THE SCHOOL BUS IS GOING TO COME INTO THE PARKING LOT. THEY WILL PROBABLY YOU NEED TO VERIFY THAT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEY MAY ONLY PICK UP AT THE AT THE CURB, AT THE ROAD, AND THEN TWO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE APARTMENTS UP THERE IN THIS BUILDING, LIKE SO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTS IN THE APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR GETTING ON THE BUS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE BUSSES TYPICALLY WILL COME INTO THE PARKING LOT. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING PUTTING A PAD OUT AT THE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AT THE CURB AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE DRIVEWAY. MEMBER SHIMURA, YOU WERE SAYING AT THE NORTHERN END. SO THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL BUILDING VERSUS. RIGHT. SO IT WOULD BE ON UP THERE. YES. SO IT WOULD BE SO THAT THEY WOULD PULL OFF OF THE ACTUAL SIDE OF THE ROAD OUT OF THE TRAFFIC AND HAVE A LANDING SPOT, AND THAT WOULD ALSO AVOID ANY CHILDREN WALKING THROUGH THE PARK. IT'S JUST A PLACE FOR THE CHILDREN TO STAND AND WAIT FOR THE BUS ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. CAN YOU POINT TO IT ON THE MAP? SO WE HAVE A SIDEWALK HERE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BUT WE PROBABLY DO THAT. IT'S JUST EXTEND THAT SIDEWALK OUT TO THE ROAD HERE AND HAVE LIKE A LARGER CONCRETE PAD FOR THE KIDS TO STAND IN, WAIT FOR THE BUS TO COME RIGHT ALONG THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. RIGHT. THAT IS A NARROW ROAD. SO THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A BUS TO PULL OVER. GET OFF THE ROAD, RIGHT? ESPECIALLY GOING THAT WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SHOULDER ON, ON ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE WHERE, WHERE WE ARE AND THERE'S NO SHOULDER. THERE'S ALL SINGLE OR SINGLE. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE KIDS LIVING THERE. SEE, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATELY IT IS. YEAH. NO, IT'S DEFINITELY POSSIBLE. BUT SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING I CAN I CAN SEE THAT PART OF IT. AND WE NEED, IF THERE ARE OTHER KIDS THERE OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, THEN WE CAN KEEP THE KIDS OUT OF THE PARKING LOT. AT LEAST THEY'RE NOT WALKING THROUGH A PARKING LOT. THEY CAN WALK IN SIDEWALK ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET, AND THEN THEY CAN HOP A BUS THERE IF WE IF THEY NEEDED TO DO THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO ACCEPT ANY PEDESTRIANS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALKS THAT WILL BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT GOING ON, ON THE ROAD THAT CONNECTS UP ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT UP TO OUR PROPERTY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE, MEMBER CLARK? I 
          [00:55:08]
THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS. OKAY. MEMBER MCCORMICK. ARE YOU STILL IN FAVOR OF SIDEWALKS? YES. MEMBER. VALENTE. I'M GOING TO GO LAST. NO, THAT MEANS NO. NO SIDEWALK. 
          NO, IT MEANS I COULD BE SOLD IN EITHER DIRECTION. BECAUSE I CAN SEE THE ARGUMENT FOR NOT HAVING SIDEWALKS. BECAUSE MOST OF THE STUFF IS ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT IF WE'RE. ARE WE VOTING ON THIS TODAY? I'M JUST. I'M JUST DOING A GENERAL. I WANT TO GET SOME IDEA HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION IF WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THIS. BECAUSE WHAT I ACTUALLY WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT THE BUSSES ARE GOING TO DO, LIKE IS A BUS HOW THIS IS RIGHT BEHIND THE SCHOOL. THESE KIDS, THESE PRESUMABLY THESE CHILDREN ARE NOT WALKING. HOW IS THE BUS ROUTE GOING TO LOOK IF THEY ALSO HAVE TO PICK UP AT THE NEW APARTMENT BUILDING, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE PICK UP ON ONE SIDE AND THEN PICK UP ON THE OTHER. BUT I DOUBT THE KIDS CAN CROSS A ROAD THIS BUSY. SO LIKE, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO NOT SPECULATE AND JUST KNOW WHAT THE BUS IS GOING TO DO. WELL, BEFORE WE GO INTO THE BUSSES AND THE SCHOOL AND ALL OF THAT, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE STATE LAW IS. 
          IF YOU HAVE ONE BEDROOM, IF YOU CAN RENT TO SOMEONE WITH CHILDREN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE ATTORNEY EVEN KNOWS THAT IF ATTORNEY FARRELL WOULD KNOW THAT BECAUSE AND I'M JUST SHARING THIS. I WAS A LANDLORD BACK IN MICHIGAN. HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH MICHIGAN. BUT I HAD A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT AND I COULDN'T I COULDN'T RUN IT TO A FAMILY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE HERE IN IN NEW YORK, IF THAT'S EVEN SOMETHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. IF YOU COULD RENT, IF BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HAVE THEIR OWN BEDROOM. SO IF YOU CAN'T EVEN RENT TO KIDS, THEN THIS CONVERSATION ISN'T ARE YOU SPEAKING? IT'S ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT. IT'S A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT. SO IS THERE THE IS THERE A POSSIBILITY? YEAH. YOU'RE ON IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE CHILDREN WHO RESIDE IN THERE WITH THE TENANT WHO HAS CONTROLLED THE PROPERTY, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT CHANGES IF BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO I'M NOT UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, AGAIN, YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT RENTING THAT PERSON. WHO'S THE TENANT SUBLETTING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO. CAN YOU RENT AN APARTMENT TO SOMEONE WHO HAS CHILDREN WITH A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT? THAT'S MY QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S NO REGULATION HERE IN NEW YORK. REGULATION? IN FACT, WE FAIRLY MOST OF THE I DON'T KNOW, I'D HAVE TO RESEARCH, BUT MOST OF THE NEW YORK LANDLORD TENANT REGULATIONS ARE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION WHERE YOU CAN'T. IT'S THE PRECLUDE YOU FROM LIMITING TO CERTAIN PEOPLE, WHETHER YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS OR NOT, NECESSARILY, AS LONG AS THEY'RE SOMEONE THAT YOU'VE GIVE PERMISSION TO AND MAYBE, IF APPROPRIATE, PERMISSION TO LANDLORD. SO I WANT TO GO INTO DETAILS ALL THE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. IF IT'S A MANUFACTURING OR OTHER STYLE OF HOUSING. BUT I MEAN THAT'S USUALLY THE TREND. SO OKAY. I GUESS A QUESTION I HAVE IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN WHO COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN THESE APARTMENTS, BUT YOUR THE BASE OF YOUR BUSINESS FOR YOUR GYM MEMBERSHIP AND THE SERVICES ARE FOR I'M ASSUMING YOUNG ADULTS ADULTS RIGHT. THERE'S NOT LIKE CHILDREN ORIENTED CLASSES PER SE. RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TO BE YOU HAVE YOU HAVE TO MOVE UP TO THE MIC PLEASE AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YEAH I'M BRIAN BECKER. SO THE GYM IS 18 PLUS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE TO HAVE AN UNLIMITED MEMBERSHIP AT THAT GYM. OKAY. IF THE CONCERN IS CHILDREN RESIDING IN THE BUILDING AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD EMPHASIZE THAT THEY ARE A SINGLE FAMILY. SINGLE, I'M SORRY, SINGLE BEDROOMS. AND THEN WITHIN THAT BLOCK, THE SIDEWALKS WITHIN THAT BLOCK ON THAT SIDE, YOU WOULD BE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD THE SIDEWALKS WOULD ONLY BE IN THAT PROPERTY EVERYWHERE ELSE. THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS. SO THEN THAT GOES BACK TO THE FACT OF YOU'RE INVITING CHILDREN FROM ACROSS THE STREET OR THE SCHOOL TO COME ON TO THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD FOR THOSE SIDEWALKS. NOW, CHILDREN FROM ACROSS THE STREET. IF THE IF THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT A BUS, THE BUS HAS RED LIGHTS. THE BUS HAS A STOP SIGN. YEAH, I GUESS I GUESS I GUESS MY QUESTION IS JUST WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN. OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE ARE CHILDREN LIVING IN THE APARTMENTS ABOVE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT I DON'T ENVISION THIS AS A DESTINATION FOR CHILDREN TO BE WALKING TO THIS GYM THAT THEY'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN. SO THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT SLASH QUESTION THAT I DON'T KNOW IF CHILDREN ARE REALLY GOING TO BE USED. AS I SAID, IF THEY'RE LIVING IN THE APARTMENT, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT THIS IS THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A DOLLAR GENERAL WHERE CHILDREN ARE WALKING TO THIS PLACE FOR DESTINATION, FOR A DESTINATION. THEY'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT ATTRACTING CHILDREN TO ACROSS THE STREET TO HANG OUT AND PLAY FROM THE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET WHEN WE DON'T 
          [01:00:01]
WANT TO INVITE THEM. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WE DON'T WANT THEM IN THE STREET. 
          LET ME LET ME CONTINUE WITH MY QUESTION NUMBER. SHIMURA, WHERE ARE YOU? I STILL DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SIDEWALKS ALONG RILEY BOULEVARD IN THIS PROJECT AREA SHOULD BE WARRANTED. I DO SUPPORT CONNECTING THE SIDEWALK THAT RUNS ALONG THE BUILDING TO RILEY BOULEVARD, AND HAVING SOME SORT OF LANDING SPOT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WOULD BE A BUS PICK UP. THAT SPOT COULD ALSO BE POTENTIALLY USED FOR RIDE SHARING AS WELL TOO. SO YOU ARE MAKING IT MORE, MORE ACCESSIBLE. 
          MEMBER FINLEY WHERE DO YOU STAND? I AGREE THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A SIDEWALK IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THE PAD FOR CONNECTING THE ONE SIDEWALK TO RILEY BOULEVARD AND A SPOT WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD BE PICKED UP IF THEY ARE LIVING IN THE APARTMENT FOR BUSSES OR, LIKE YOU SAID, RIDE SHARE. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. OKAY. MEMBER DJERASSI I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THE TWO PREVIOUS MEMBERS. I DON'T THINK SIDEWALKS SHOULD BE WARRANTED FOR THIS PROJECT, OTHER THAN WHAT'S ALREADY DESIGNATED IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT TWO FOR SIDEWALKS, ONE ON THE FENCE AND FOUR AGAINST SIDEWALKS. THE THING OF THAT, I'M GOING TO PUT MY COMMENTS ON THE RECORD. I THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS THE LAST COUPLE OF SPEAKERS THAT TALKED ABOUT THE BEND AND DRAWING A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WE DON'T WANT THERE, NOBODY'S GOT CONTROL OF ANYBODY. BUT I DON'T SEE THE SIDEWALK THERE. THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT WHEN TRACTOR SUPPLY WAS BUILT, NO SIDEWALKS WERE ADDED. AND THAT'S FAIRLY NEW. THE THING NEXT TO WHAT'S THE BUSINESS THAT'S NEXT TO. TO THE BANK. THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS THERE. AND THOSE ARE BUSINESSES THAT COULD HAVE UTILIZED SIDEWALKS. I DON'T SEE WHERE ON THIS BEND THAT SIDEWALK IS GOING TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS OR CREATE ANY OR RESOLVE AN ISSUE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK TO THOSE OTHER BUSINESSES AND SAY, OH, WELL, WE GOT A GYM BUILDING IN HERE. AND NOW YOU GUYS GOT TO ADD SIDEWALKS, TOO. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SAFE. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. SO BASED ON THAT MEMBER VALENTE, YOU WANTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS RESOLUTION TONIGHT OR DID YOU WANT TO POSTPONE IT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUSSING? HOW CAN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD? I JUST I DON'T LIKE MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON SPECULATION. BUT WE CAN GO FORWARD. OKAY. SO THE SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. BASED ON THE CONVERSATION AT LENGTH. WE WILL HAVE NO SIDEWALKS. AND THAT TAKES US TO LANDSCAPING. SO WHERE ARE WE WITH THE LANDSCAPING? SO YOU GUYS DID PROVIDE A LANDSCAPING PLAN, RIGHT? DO YOU KNOW THE DATE BY CHANCE? IT IS ACTUALLY. NO. 
          OKAY. AND THEN LANDSCAPING, I PUT A QUESTION MARK BECAUSE WE HAD A PREVIOUS PROJECT WHERE THE BOARD WANTED TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD WANTS TO APPROVE THIS ONE AS WELL, OR IF WE WANTED TO DO WHAT WE TRADITIONALLY DO AND REVIEW IT OR REFER IT TO THE CAB AND HAVE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVE IT UP TO THIS BOARD. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING? MEMBER MCCORMICK I THINK THAT'S I THINK THE SUGGESTION TO LET THE CAB REVIEW. AND TYPICALLY, IF THEY HAVE COMMENTS ON SPECIES MIXES, THEY'RE USUALLY PRETTY REASONABLE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. MEMBER CLARK IF THERE'S NOT SIDEWALKS, THERE'S ROOM FOR MORE LANDSCAPING. OKAY. ANY ANYBODY ELSE? I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
          MEMBER SHIMURA. THERE IS A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT WAS A PART OF THE SUBMISSION. AND SO TO MEMBER CLARK'S POINT WITH THE TREES PROPOSED ALONG RILEY BOULEVARD, IF THERE COULD BE MORE IN WHICH IN BETWEEN, IN ORDER TO HELP ENHANCE. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT. EXCUSE ME, YOU NEED TO GET TO THE MIC. I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S, I THINK MAYBE FIVE FEET BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE PARKING LOT. SO THAT'S THE ONLY SPOT WE CAN. TREES. WE CAN'T PLANT THEM IN THE RIGHT WAY. JUST RIGHT. LETTING THAT BE KNOWN. RIGHT MEMBERS, I WAS SAYING BETWEEN WHERE THE TREES ARE CURRENTLY PLANNED ON YOUR PLANNED INFILL OF LANDSCAPING. 
          OKAY, SHE'S NOT SAYING PLAN FOR THE NEXT COUNTY JUST RIGHT ON YOUR PROPERTY. OKAY, I AGREE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN ON THIS PROJECT WHERE THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE 
          [01:05:04]
REFERRING TO, WE DO NOT. AND SO WE HAVE SOMETHING TO GO BY. AND THAT'S WHY THIS BOARD IS COMFORTABLE. I FEEL I CONCUR WITH MEMBER MCCORMICK. OKAY. SO JUST TO RECAP. SO WE HAVE FOR SIDEWALK SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED. DO WE NEED DO WE WANT TO ADD A REASON OR SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED? DOES THAT SUFFICE BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AT THE TABLE WITH THIS BOARD AND THE APPLICANT? MEMBER SURE. ARE WE ASKING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE SIDEWALK FROM THE. OKAY. IT'S THAT'S NOT A SIDEWALK. IT'S A IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. SO WE'LL ADD THAT TO NUMBER SIX. 
          CHAIRMAN, I RAISE A QUESTION. YES. MEMBER VALENTI THAT'S KIND OF FOR EVERYBODY, BUT ALSO FOR YOU. IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH JUST CONDITIONING OUR REASONING ON THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD? LIKE I REALIZED THAT THAT MAKES PERFECTLY LOGICAL SENSE IN THIS MOMENT. BUT IF SOMEONE WAS GOING TO LOOK UP THESE DOCUMENTS IN FIVE YEARS, IS THAT SUFFICIENT TO JUST REFERENCE THE CONVERSATION WHICH SENDS THEM TO THE MINUTES, WHICH SENDS THEM TO THE VIDEO? WELL, SHOULD WE EITHER NOT PUT IN A REASON AND JUST SAY NO SIDEWALKS INSTEAD OF CONFUSING IT WITH A CONDITION? BUT IF EVERYONE ELSE IS FINE WITH THAT KIND OF CONDITION, I WILL STEP ASIDE. I JUST DON'T LOVE IT. BILL CLARK, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THAT CONDITION, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST SAY THEY'RE NOT WARRANTED WITH NO EXPLANATION, BECAUSE THAT SETS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PRECEDENT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SET. SO. AND, CHAIR, I THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION COULD BE ADDED OR HIGHLIGHTED IN SOME WAY, FORM OR FASHION BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT CAPABILITY AND ADDED TO THIS, TO THIS FILE. MEMBER MCCORMICK I DON'T I THINK WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING IN THE CONDITION IF WE HAVE A REASON OR A RATIONALE AND ARTICULATE BRIEFLY WHY IN THE CONDITION. I THINK IT'S CLEANER. AND WHEN WE END UP ON A HUNT FROM ONE DOCUMENT TO THE NEXT, IT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC. AND RECOGNIZING THE MINUTES, THE VIDEO, ALL OF THAT, AND THINKING BACK TO THE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM LIKE 1993 OR 80 SOMETHING, AND WE'RE GETTING ALL THE A CLEAN RECORD. WHOEVER'S SITTING ON THIS BOARD 20 YEARS FROM NOW WILL APPRECIATE US. RIGHT. BUT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE VIDEO. THIS IS A THIS NEW PROCESS. IT CAN BE HIGHLIGHTED IMMEDIATELY AND ADDED TO THE RECORD AS THE ONE TYPING IT, I THINK I THINK WE CAN I THINK WE CAN PUT IN OUR BASIS FOR WE HAD GOOD DISCUSSION ON WHY SIDEWALKS WEREN'T WARRANTED, AND I DON'T THINK IT'LL TAKE THAT LONG TO WRITE. SO THE REASON WHY SIDEWALKS WEREN'T WARRANTED WAS BECAUSE DUE TO THE LACK OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALONG THE SAME. ALONG ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND BOY, I MAY HAVE RUINED EVERYTHING. IF I IF I MAY MAKE A STATEMENT CONCERNING THIS RILEY ROAD MEMBER I LIVE ABOUT A HALF A MILE FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE ONLY REASON THERE CURRENTLY IS A ROAD THERE. ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO FOR SCHOOL BUSSES NOT TO COME OUT ONTO BAYVIEW ONTO SOUTH PARK, BECAUSE PRIOR TO THAT THERE WERE A FEW COLLISIONS BETWEEN AUTOMOBILES AND SCHOOL BUSSES RIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND THE ROAD WAS BUILT THROUGH THIS PROPERTY TO GIVE THE ABILITY TO SCHOOL BUSSES TO COME THROUGH IT, TO ACCESS ONTO SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, AND ALMOST ELIMINATE ANY REASON WHY A SCHOOL BUS HAS TO GO FROM BAYVIEW ONTO SOUTH PARK. THAT WAS THE REASON. ORIGINALLY, 20 PLUS YEARS AGO, THAT THAT ROAD WAS PUT IN THAT PROPERTY. THE ACCESS ROAD IS JUST ABILITY OF TWO AUTOMOBILES GOING ONE WAY EACH WAY, WITH LIMITED ACCESS TO THE CURBS. SO YOU VERY RARELY SEE PEDESTRIANS WALKING THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN HIGH SCHOOL KIDS WALK THROUGH THE GROUNDS FROM THE SCHOOL AND TAKE A SHORTCUT THROUGH THE WOODS TO GET TO SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. BUT I RARELY AND I DRIVE THROUGH THERE QUITE A BIT IN THE COURSE OF A WEEK, AND I RARELY SEE A PEDESTRIAN WALKING, OR I RARELY SEE SOMEBODY ON A BICYCLE GOING THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY. SO I 
          [01:10:04]
THINK, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE DUE TO THE LACK OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALONG A BUDDING PROPERTIES BOARD'S DISCUSSION OF SAFETY AND HAVING TRAFFIC. SURE. ON RILEY BOULEVARD, LIKE HEAVY TRAFFIC'S A REASON TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK. YEAH, I DO THINK IT'S I MEAN, THIS IS THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? IT'S HARD TO ARTICULATE OUR THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI. IT'S HARD TO ARTICULATE OUR EXACT ANSWER. AND I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THE REASONING IS THE LACK OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALONG ABUTTING PROPERTIES, BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION A MILLION TIMES WHERE IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME AND YOU MIGHT BE THE FIRST ONE TO BUILD A SIDEWALK, AND YOU STILL NEED TO BUILD A SIDEWALK SO THAT THE NEXT PEOPLE BUILD A SIDEWALK. SO THAT'S WHY I SAID I'VE RUINED EVERYTHING, BECAUSE MAYBE IT'S MORE, YOU KNOW, SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED DUE TO THE NATURE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND BASED ON BOARD DISCUSSION OR SOMETHING, I JUST I DON'T WANT IT TO BE SOLELY BOARD DISCUSSION. I GUESS I WOULD THAT JUST GOT STARTED ON THAT, BUT THAT'S FINE. I, I WOULD SAY TO HAVE IT BE BASED UPON THE NATURE OF WHATEVER MEMORABLE ENTITY SAID, BASED UPON THE NATURE OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES, SO THAT IT'S NOT CALLED OUT SPECIFICALLY. MAYBE BUILDING ON THAT. IT'S THE NATURE OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY'S CURRENT USE OF THE AREA AND CURRENT COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS. 
          NATURE OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS. YEAH. AND. FEEL FREE TO WORDSMITH THAT. BUT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OR EXISTING USE PATTERN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. EVEN THOUGH I STILL THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SILENCE, BUT UNDERSTOOD WHAT EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO ARTICULATE AND YOU CAN STILL PUT IN BASED ON BOARD, JUST LIKE ROBUST BOARD DISCUSSION OR SOMETHING. SO YOU KIND OF REMIND PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN CHECK THE MINUTES AND VIDEOS LATER, RIGHT? MAYBE. BUT AND OTHER REASONS AS DISCUSSED. 
          YEAH. 
          JOSH, I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT YOU ARE THE QUIETEST TYPER ON EARTH AND YOUR COWORKERS MUST LOVE YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. DID THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS AND THEN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AND WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND THEN WE HAVE DUMPSTERS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SHALL BE FULLY ENCLOSED. IS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATED 11 8:24 A.M. I OH, YOU GOT THAT THERE BY CARMINA WOODS DESIGN. AND THEN FOR OTHERS DO WE WANT TO SPECIFY THE CONCRETE PAD, SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE TOWARDS THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD REMEMBER MCCORMICK. WE SHOULD CLARIFY IF THE FINAL DISCUSSION LANDED ON A CLOSER TO THE MIC. IF THE FINAL DISCUSSION LANDED ON A SIDEWALK THAT EXTENDED TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE OUT FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, OR IF IT'S A CONCRETE PAD, I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE LANDED, BUT REGARDLESS, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW CLEARING AND WILL ENSURE THAT THAT SIDEWALK TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE IS CLEARED DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. MEMBER SHIMURA. THE SITE PLAN THAT IS ON OUR FILE. IT SAYS THAT IT'S DATED FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025. DOES THAT SOUND? YEAH, I THINK I BELIEVE YOU REVISED THE SITE PLAN AT LEAST ONCE. ARE THE DUMPSTERS ON THAT DUMPSTER AS WELL AS I, I, I CAN GET YOU THE DATES. I CAN LOOK TOMORROW AND GET YOU THE DATES FOR THE LANDFILL. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT THE LAND THAT WITH THE 
          [01:15:04]
DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE TO ALSO INCLUDE THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE, PER THE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO MAKE SURE. YEAH, I THINK THAT GOES ALONG WITH NUMBER FOR WHATEVER DATE WE PUT END UP PUTTING FOR THAT. FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, IT'LL BE INCLUDED ON THE IT'S SHOWN ON THERE. WHAT WAS THE DATE? FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025. OKAY. I BELIEVE CAITLIN ASKED. WELL, IF YOU GUYS HAD DECIDED ON WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO BE A SIDEWALK EXTENSION OR IF IT WAS JUST A CONCRETE PAD OR WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ON ON THAT PIECE. I THINK EASIER WOULD BE A SIDEWALK EXTENSION. ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT TO THAT? SO WE YEAH, I THE REASON I SAID PAD IS I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED LIKE A PAD AT THE ROAD. SO SIDEWALK WITH A WHERE IT KIND OF WIDENS WHEN YOU GET TO THE ROAD. IF THERE'S AGAIN AN UNLIKELY SCENARIO. BUT IF THERE'S A GROUP OF KIDS, YOU KNOW, NOT HUDDLED ON A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK, THERE'S A LITTLE NOT A HUGE ONE, JUST A LITTLE WIDER. THERE'S PROBABLY KIDS AT HOME WATCHING THIS MEETING GETTING READY. THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE. FOR THE RECORD, MAYBE ONE OF THE ADULTS IN ONE OF THE ADJACENT APARTMENTS WANTS TO WALK OVER AND GET AN EXERCISE IN. SO IT COULD BE A GROWN UP. 
          YEAH, GROWNUPS CAN USE SIDEWALK. SO I THINK THAT THE SIDEWALK SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE PAD. 
          YES. THAT THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHAT JOSH WAS FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK TO THE ROAD AND THEN UP AT THE CURB OF IT, LITTLE WIDER PAD ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK PAD OR. NO. YEAH. THAT'S MY QUESTION IS DO WE NEED A PAD? I THINK HE'S SAYING IF WE IF YOU GUYS DON'T THINK ONE'S NEEDED FINE, THAT'S FINE. IT WAS JUST JUST OUR SUGGESTION AGAIN. YEAH. IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THERE WHERE YOU NEED A BIG STANDING SPOT. I THINK A FIVE WOULD FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS STANDARD, WOULD BE PLENTY. SO THEN IT COULD BE THAT THE, THE FRONT SIDEWALK, THE SIDEWALK THAT ABUTS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WOULD EXTEND BACK OF THE CURB, BACK TO THE BACK OF THE CURB. IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT TO THAT DESCRIPTION? YES, I AGREE, MEMBERS AGREES BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO A LARGER AREA THAT PEOPLE COULD HANG OUT ON, SO THEY'RE NOT STANDING ON GRASS. I'M SURE THEY'RE GETTING READY WHEN WE GET DONE WITH THIS MEETING. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE THERE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL GO THERE AND ORDER AN UBER. YEAH. WHAT WAS THAT? I'M ON THE CONCRETE PAD. WE CAN ALL GO STAND IN ORDER AND WE'LL BE. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE THERE IF WE KEEP THIS UP. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. PATTERN? NO PAT, NO PAD, NO PAD. THAT THAT THAT DOES REMIND. THERE IS A LARGER OUTDOOR CONCRETE AREA NEXT TO THE BUILDING THAT THEY CAN WAIT IN. I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A ROOF OVER THAT TOO, SO THAT ALL OF US, THAT KIND OF WORKS BETTER. WE'RE GOING TO MEET THERE FOR COFFEE IN THE MORNING BEFORE WE ALL GO TO THE GYM. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT A PAD, IT'S JUST A SIDEWALK. WE'RE GOOD. I CAN'T READ BECAUSE MISS FINLEY'S HAD IS IN THE WAY, SO I WALKED IT ABUTS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. SHALL EXTEND TO THE BACK OF THE CURB. OKAY, OKAY. 
          NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS ALL DONE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION? MEMBER CLARK, WHO'S GOING TO SAY NO TO. BECAUSE THE SIDEWALKS. WELL, CAN I MAKE THE MOTION TO VOTE AGAINST IT? YOU CAN. I CAN MOVE IT. NO. ALL RIGHT, I'LL MOVE. OKAY. GO AHEAD. MEMBER VALENTI, I'M SORRY. IT'S MY FIRST TIME. DO I HAVE TO READ THIS? YES, YOU HAVE TO READ NOW YOU KNOW WHY. I ONLY MOTION TO GO HOME. SECOND, WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM THAT AT THE WAY YOU GUYS ARE GOING. WELL, THAT'S. THAT'S WHY I MOVED. BECAUSE I'M NOT IN SMALL PART RESPONSIBLE FOR 52 MINUTES OF THIS. OKAY, SO I MOVE THAT BRIAN BECKER, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT ZERO RILEY BOULEVARD. WE'RE DOING SITE PLAN, RIGHT SITE PLAN RESOLUTION BE APPROVED DATED MAY 21ST, 2025. WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM BRIAN BECKER REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING ALL PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE LOCATED ON AN APPROXIMATELY 0.79 ACRE PARCEL OF VACANT LAND AT ZERO RILEY BOULEVARD, SBL 171.05-111. 
          AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REZONING FROM C2 TO MU, ONE PROCESS. OH, AND THE TOWN BOARD APPROVED THE REZONING ON MARCH 24TH, 2025, SUBJECT TO FOUR 
          [01:20:05]
CONDITIONS. AND WHEREAS, A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND PROJECT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE TOWN BOARD IN CAPACITY. IN THEIR CAPACITY, THE ANITA WARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEQRA AND THE TOWN BOARD ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON MARCH 24TH, 2025, AND WHEREAS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WAS FILED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON MARCH 31ST, 2025. AND WHEREAS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT AT SEVERAL MEETINGS AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7TH, 2025, AND RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, TOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOWN'S CONSULTANTS. AND WHEREAS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING IMPOSED BY THE TOWN BOARD ON MARCH 24TH, 2025, AND THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE TOWN'S CODE PERIOD. YOU DON'T NEED AN ANSWER NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. OKAY, I'M GOING TO READ IT FROM UP HERE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOUR ZONING CONDITIONS TOO FAR. NUMBER ONE, CONDITION ONE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOUR ZONING CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE TOWN BOARD ON MARCH 24TH, 2025. TWO. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED 520 2025. THREE. SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED DUE TO THE NATURE OF A BUDDING PROPERTIES AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER REASONS. AS DISCUSSED DURING THE 521 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR THE LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AND WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. FIVE DUMPSTERS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SHALL BE FULLY ENCLOSED AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATED 220 2025 BY CARMINA WOOD DESIGN AND SIX. THE SIDEWALK THAT ABUTS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SHALL EXTEND TO THE BACK OF THE CURB AT THE ROAD. 
          IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I. ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED. MEMBER CLARK OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. YOUR RESOLUTION IS DONE. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR NEXT IS LESS DROUGHT. REQUESTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 
          [2. Les Draudt – Requesting Preliminary Approval of a two- lot subdivision to be located on vacant land, west side of South Abbott Road, south of Armor Drive]
ON A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT LAND WEST OF SOUTH ABBOTT AND SOUTH OF ARMOR DRIVE. BOARD MEMBERS, TONIGHT WE HAVE A DRAFT RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US FOR US TO APPROVE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION. IT'S THAT ONE. IS THERE. GOOD EVENING. HELLO. HOW ARE YOU? I'M GOOD. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? OH, EVERYTHING IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS IT WAS THE LAST TWO TIMES. IF THERE WAS ANY CONCERN OF ANYBODY THAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO TURN THE FARM INTO A SUBDIVISION. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. OKAY, WELL, THAT WASN'T MY CONCERN, BUT I AM STILL ABLE TO FARM. ALRIGHT. THERE YOU GO. SO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER? NOT AT THIS TIME. ENGINEERING. NOTHING TO ADD. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS. NO. OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL? YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IT SAYS INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE REASON WHY THEY'RE NOT WARRANTED IS THAT THIS IS JUST AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING PROPERTY. IF WE THAT THERE'S IT'S JUST A THE DAUGHTER'S HOUSE IS BEING BUILT ON THE, ON THE FARM AN EXTENSION. IT'S A SUBDIVISION FOR PERSONAL I WOULD SAY SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. THERE YOU GO. YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? OKAY. CAN YOU PUT THAT IN THE MICROPHONE SO THEY CAN ALL HEAR YOU? MEMBER MCCORMICK WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE SAY THEY'RE NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. 
          FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SAID IT, BUT. WORKS FOR ME TO ACCOMMODATE AN ADDITIONAL HOME. I JUST YEAH, JUST. ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS? OKAY. THERE'S NO NUMBER TWO THEN, JOSH. OKAY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO 
          [01:25:06]
MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT. THAT WOULD BE MEMBER SHIMURA. GO AHEAD. MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION LESS DROUGHT. TWO LOT SUBDIVISION FOR 779 CLARK STREET. SBL 183. OR PERIOD 12-29.11. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION. MAY 21ST, 2025. SEEKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY LESS DROUGHT, TO BE LOCATED AT 4779 CLARK STREET, SBL 183 .12, DASH TWO, DASH 9.11. BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS AND INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I NONE OPPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE LESS DROUGHT TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS. THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED, AS THIS IS A SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE AN ADDITIONAL HOME. 
          FINALLY, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT, AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT, IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER SHIMURA, SECOND BY MEMBER FINLEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. NONE OPPOSED. YOUR RESOLUTION PASSES. GOOD LUCK. HAPPY BUILDING AND HAPPY FARMING. AND HOPEFULLY IT STOPS RAINING SOON. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT FOR YOU. GOOD TO GO NOW. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR 
          [3. Cannaspace Inc. - Requesting a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval of a proposal to operate a cannabis dispensary at 4169 McKinley Parkway]
NEXT CASE IS CAN OF SPACE, INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED TO A PROPOSAL TO OPERATE A CANNABIS DISPENSARY. BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US FOR TONIGHT'S VOTE. IT IS RATHER LENGTHY. IT'S TWO AND A HALF PAGES, SO WE'LL GET STARTED. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING MORE THAT YOU NEED TO ADD, IS THERE? OKAY. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU NEEDED THAT YOU FELT THAT YOU NEEDED TO TELL THE BOARD? NO. NOT TODAY. JUST LOOKING FOR IN FAVOR MOVEMENT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. OKAY, SO LOOKING AT THE DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED OR CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE? NO. I THINK SEEKER IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          YOU'LL NOTICE IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER DISPENSARY. THEY'RE APPROVED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. 
          WE JUST LIST OUT UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMITS, THE SPECIFIC SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR ADULT USE RETAIL DISPENSARIES, JUST SO THAT IT'S CALLED OUT IN THE RESOLUTION. AND THEN UNDER PLAN FOR CONDITIONS WE HAVE SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ALONG MCKINLEY PARKWAY. ANY LIGHTING WILL BE SHIELDED, DARK SKY COMPLIANT, AND NOT NEON OR FLASHING LIGHTS. AND THEN I LEFT. IF THERE WERE ANY OTHERS FOR SITE PLAN SPECIFIC, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? OKAY, I WILL DELETE OTHERS IN. OKAY. IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS MOTION? I KNOW MR. CLARK WOULD LIKE TO FINALLY DO THIS. RIGHT. MEMBER. CLARK. ALL RIGHT. FIRST ONE IS SEEKER. WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR CANNABIS SPACE, INC. FOR RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY AT 4151 MCKINLEY PARKWAY. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THE PROJECT TO BE A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEEKER, AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7TH, 2025 AND RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. NONE OPPOSED? ABSTAIN. ONLY BECAUSE I WASN'T PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS. I'M JUST GOING TO. SO MEMBER MCCORMICK WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE FROM THE ENTIRE THING FOR JUST THIS MATTER. OKAY, I'M. WHAT I'M WANT TO CLARIFY IS YOU'RE ABSTAINING 
          [01:30:06]
FROM THE ENTIRE RESOLUTION, CORRECT? YES. ALL THE PARTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SEEKER IS PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION. GO AHEAD. NUMBER TWO, SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG HAS REVIEWED THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FROM CANNABIS SPACE INC. FOR RETAIL CANNABIS CANNABIS DISPENSARY AT 4151 MCKINLEY PARKWAY. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7TH, 2025, AND RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, IN REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PROJECT SPECIAL USE PERMIT, HAS DETERMINED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION TWO EIGHT, 0312 AND 28042 FOR PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARIES. THAT ONE. THE PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 280-312 SPECIAL USE PERMITS. TWO THE PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A HAZARD TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE. THREE THE PROJECT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOR WILL IT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ITS RESIDENTS. FOUR. THE PROJECT WILL NOT OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE. 428042 FOR PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARIES ONE. SETBACKS ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARIES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 200FT OF A HOUSE OF WORSHIP IF ON THE SAME ROAD AS MEASURED IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST ENTRANCE OF SUCH A HOUSE OF WORSHIP TO THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST ENTRANCE OF SUCH ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARY. BE WITHIN 500FT OF SCHOOL GROUNDS IF ON THE SAME ROAD AS MEASURED IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF SUCH A SCHOOL GROUNDS TO THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST ENTRANCE OF SUCH ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARY. SEE WITHIN 500FT OF A COMMUNITY FACILITY, IF NOT ON THE SAME ROAD AS MEASURED IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST ENTRANCE OF SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITY TO THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST ENTRANCE OF SUCH ADULT USE. CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARY TWO. ALL ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARIES MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING. SALE OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS VIA WALK UP WINDOW IS PROHIBITED. THREE. HOURS OF OPERATION. ADULT USE. CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARY MAY OPERATE ONLY BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 10 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND SATURDAYS FROM 12 NOON TO 9 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. ON WEEKENDS AND SATURDAYS 8 A.M. TO 10 P.M. WEEKDAYS AND SATURDAYS, 12 NOON TO 9 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. FOR SECURITY, THE APPLICANT MUST DETERMINE. THEY MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE INSTALLATION OF CAMERAS AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING. DARK SKY COMPLIANT. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG AND THEREFORE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS HEREBY ISSUED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. IT IS BASED ON SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD, WITH ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT PLAN. TWO THE PROJECT MEETS ALL SETBACK AS REQUIRED BY TWO 0-424B, ONE A THROUGH C, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE DIFFERENT IN THIS SECTION THAN THEY ARE IN THE LAST SECTION THAT I READ. YEP. SO ALL RIGHT, HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE FROM 9 A.M. TO 9 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND SATURDAYS, AND FROM 12 NOON TO 9 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. SO SHOULD WE CORRECT THAT. RIGHT. SO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SECTIONS ARE THE WHAT YOU JUST READ ARE WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE LAW THAT WE PULLED FROM THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAW. 
          THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY'RE OPENING AN HOUR LATER. SO THESE ARE THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THEY'RE ALLOWED 8 A.M. TO 9 P.M, THEIR OPENING 9 A.M. TO 9 P.M. SO THIS IS THE CONDITION FOR THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. ARE THEY AWARE THAT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS SOMETIMES GO PAST 9 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS? ALL RIGHT. 
          HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE NINE AND 9 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND SATURDAYS, AND FROM 12 NOON TO 9 P.M. ON SUNDAYS FOR THE PROJECT WILL BE FULLY WITH. IT WILL BE WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING, AND WILL NOT HAVE SALE OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS VIA A WALK UP WINDOW. FIVE SECURITY FEATURES WILL BE INCORPORATED AS LISTED IN THE ATTACHED LETTER OF INTENT PERMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. SIX THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED THEIR ADULT USE RETAIL DISPENSARY RETAILER LICENSE FROM NEW YORK STATE. BEFORE WE VOTE, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT? THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI. CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE HOURS? HANG ON, HANG ON. LET HIM. WE CAN WE'LL WE'LL LET HIM FINISH WHERE WE ARE AND 
          [01:35:06]
THEN WE CAN GO BACK. AND HE DID OKAY. OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. MEMBER VALENTI GO AHEAD. I JUST IT'S CONFUSING. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE IT SAYS NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT IT'S BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SO IT READS LIKE WE'RE CONDITIONING THEIR HOURS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE CONDITIONS ABOVE. SO CAN WE SAY SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS, AS PER APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL OR SOMETHING THAT THOSE ARE THEIR WORKING HOURS AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SOMETHING THAT WE CONDITIONED AT LEAST AS COUNCIL, WE'RE HAPPY TO ACTUALLY JUST STIPULATE THAT WE WILL BE WITHIN THE HOURS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THAT WAY, IN THE EVENT THEY DO GO AN HOUR EARLY, TAKE IT OUT. YEAH, LET'S TAKE IT OUT. GREAT. PERFECT. YEAH. BECAUSE I ALSO DON'T YEAH. WE CAN'T DICTATE YOUR BUSINESS HOURS AND SO I'D RATHER JUST NOT HAVE IT THERE IF THE BOARD'S OKAY WITH THAT. YEAH. PERFECT. 
          OKAY. MEMBER SHIMURA AGREES. MEMBER AGREES. MEMBER AGREES. OKAY. SO WE'RE REMOVING NUMBER THREE OUT OF THAT RESOLUTION. ROBERT ROBERT'S RULES. CORRECT. WAY TO AMEND THE MOTION. DO I HAVE TO MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION? NO, BECAUSE WE HADN'T VOTED YET. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I THINK YOU WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S A MOTION. AND YOU. BECAUSE THERE'S A MOTION. OH, NO WE DIDN'T. SECOND, SHE AMENDED IT. THAT'S JUST THE MOTION. OKAY, LET'S JUST DEAL WITH IT. IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE. OKAY, I JUST SAID THAT IT WAS AMENDED. I JUST EXPLAINED IT. NEVER MIND. OKAY. 
          LATER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ROBERT'S RULES CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE ALL OF A SUDDEN. OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN AMENDED, AND THE PRESENTER ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. CORRECT. MEMBER CLARK, YOU ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. YES. I'LL ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. AND NOW ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ONE ABSTAINED. OKAY. THE LAST ONE BEFORE WE GO TO THE LAST ONE. YES. NEXT TIME WE WRITE THIS. JOSH, COULD WE JUST SAY NOT WITHIN 500FT OF AND DO HOUSE OF WORSHIP, SCHOOL GROUNDS? AND IT WAS WHATEVER THE NEW ONE YOUTH WHATEVER FACILITY. 
          SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT REALLY LONG PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE STREETS IN THE CENTERS AND EVERYTHING THREE TIMES. SURE. THANK YOU. AS PER SECTION, SECTION, SECTION. I THINK YOU SHOULD READ EVERY CANNABIS RESOLUTION AND WE SHOULD PUT ALL OF IT IN THERE. JUST SAYING. 
          OKAY. ARE YOU YOU'RE NOT DONE YET. YOU KNOW THIS THIS PART WILL BE EASY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          SITE PLAN. THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANT SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CAN OF SPACE INC. FOR RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY AT 4151 MCKINLEY PARKWAY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ALONG MCKINLEY PARKWAY. 
          TWO. ANY LIGHTING WILL BE SHIELDED, DARK SKY COMPLIANT, AND NOT NEON OR FLASHING COLORED LIGHTS. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER FINDLAY? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, II1 ABSTENTION MEMBER MCCORMICK. YOUR YOUR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'VE BEEN HAVING SO MUCH FUN THIS EVENING THAT I NEGLECTED TO TELL THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT OUR CASE, NUMBER FIVE, COREY TIGER, HAS 
          [4. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Lardon Disposal Services – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal to operate a C & D transfer facility on the west side of Woodlawn Avenue, north of 1st Street]
BEEN POSTPONED. SO OUR LAST CASE OF THE EVENING IS LADAN DISPOSAL SERVICES. REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL SITE TO OPERATE C AND D TRANSFER FACILITY ON THE WEST SIDE OF WOODLAWN AVENUE. AND TONIGHT WE ARE DOING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO APPLICANT IS HERE. AND DO YOU BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO OFFER TO US TO THIS EVENING? CHARLOTTE CLARK WITHDREW. NO, I DO NOT. OKAY. SO WOULD YOU MEMBER SHIMURA, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE NOTICE? YES. LEGAL NOTICE. TOWN OF HAMBURG. PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY LADAN DISPOSAL SERVICES TO OPERATE A, C AND D TRANSFER FACILITY ON THE WEST SIDE OF WOODLAWN AVE, NORTH OF FIRST STREET. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON MAY 21ST, 2025 AT 7 P.M. IN ROOM SEVEN A, SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY, 
          [01:40:01]
THANK YOU. SO. I DON'T HAVE MY SHEET I THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS EVENING, AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THERE'S A THREE MINUTE RULE TO IN ORDER TO HEAR EVERYONE WITHIN A REASONABLE HOUR, WE ASK EVERYBODY TO SPEAK NO LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? COME ON DOWN. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARGARET VANARSDALE, AND AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE BUSINESS, LADAN AND THEIR RECYCLING PROCESS MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SHOW RESPECT AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO THEM, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE ON FIRST STREET. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE SIX DAYS OF OPERATIONS. THESE WILL BE LARGE TRUCKS AND QUITE A FEW OF THEM. AND I WAS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD CANNOT ASK THEM TO IMPROVE THEIR DRIVEWAY. I DID DRIVE DOWN THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY TO THE SITE OF THE AREA WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORKING. IT IS VERY BUMPY, DUSTY AND. OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE TRUCK DRIVERS, THE TRUCKS, AND ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE ON FIRST STREET. IF THEY WOULD FIND ANY WAY TO IMPROVE THAT ROAD, IT WOULD HELP EVERYBODY. AND I WOULD ALSO ASK THEM TO RESPECTFULLY PUT IN A ROW OF TREES ALONG THE CREEK THERE, SO THAT IT WOULD ABSORB NOISE AND DUST, AND THEN IT WOULD BE ESTHETIC FOR EVERYBODY ON ROUTE FIVE. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. SO I HOPE THEY CAN FIND A WAY. SOUNDS LIKE IT WILL BE A VERY LUCRATIVE BUSINESS. 
          LADAN IS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. I'VE UTILIZED THEIR SERVICES ON LAKE AVENUE AND I HOPE THEY WILL TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? HELLO, LEONA ROCKWOOD CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL HAVE COPIES OF THE MEMO THAT WE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO JOSH DATED APRIL 8TH, WHERE WE IDENTIFIED SEVEN POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THAT'S THAT'S MY FIRST THING. AND THE OTHER THING IS, THIS ISN'T EXACTLY A STATEMENT, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT THE FOUND OUT WHEN THEY EVALUATED CONSISTENCY OF THE PLAN FOR THE LANDOWNER FACILITY, ALONG WITH THE PLAN FOR REVITALIZATION OF THE WATERFRONT AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE COPIES OF THE MEMO FROM THE CAB DATED APRIL 8TH, I HAVE ONE FOR YOU. WE HAVE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. JOSH, I KNOW I HAVE IT IN MY EMAIL AND I HAVE IT. I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE IT'S SAVED IN THE FOLDER NUMBER. 
          MCCORMICK. NO, I HAVE IT. I JUST COULDN'T FIND IT IN THE FOLDER. IF IT'S THERE, I HAVE IT IN MY EMAIL. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE FILE. GOT IT, GOT IT. THANK YOU. I THINK WE CAN ADD IT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? THIS EVENING? THIS IS MY LAST CALL FOR ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR LADAN DISPOSAL SERVICES, REQUESTING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSAL TO OPERATE A C AND D TRANSFER FACILITY ON THE WEST SIDE OF WOODLAWN AVENUE. SEEING NONE. I AM NOT CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, AND THE REASON I'M NOT CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING IS BECAUSE WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE WHO ARE PREPARING THEIR RESPONSE, AND THEY WILL BE GETTING IT TO US BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. SO AFTER OUR DISCUSSION WITH JOSH THIS AFTERNOON, WHEN HE GOT THE CALL, WE DECIDED TO LEAVE THE OPEN. THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT THIS TIME, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? NO BOARD MEMBERS? NO. NO OBJECTION. SO NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT TO THE BOARD, TO THE PLAN, I'M SORRY, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER? YEAH, I DO, I KNOW AFTER A CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE, THE ENGINEER FROM FOR THIS PROJECT, SHE HAS SENT OVER SOME DOCUMENTATION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT. SHE HAS 
          [01:45:03]
SENT OVER A VIDEO THAT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR THIS BOARD. AND I ALSO WANTED TO GO OVER, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE DID A COORDINATED REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT. WE GOT SOME COMMENTS BACK FOR SOME AGENCIES WHICH I'VE SHARED WITH THE APPLICANT, WHICH I'VE ALSO SHARED WITH THIS BOARD, BUT I KIND OF WANTED TO GO OVER IT BECAUSE AS THIS BOARD KNOWS, WE'RE WAITING ON THE RECOMMENDATION, KEYWORD RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO THIS BOARD ALSO HAS TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION. SO BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO OVER ALL THE COMMENTS SO THAT YOU GUYS ARE AWARE AND WE'RE KEEPING THAT PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SO THAT ON THE FOURTH, SHOULD WE CLOSE IT, WE GUYS CAN MAKE A SECRET DECISION AND POTENTIALLY MAKE APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE. SO, CHARLOTTE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED ME TO PLAY THE VIDEO REAL QUICK AND JUST YOU GIVE LIKE A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THAT VIDEO IS AND GO FROM THERE. YEAH. CHARLOTTE CLARK WITH THROUGH. YEAH. JUST A LITTLE CAVEAT. WE AFTER RECEIVING COMMENTS FROM SOME OF THE OTHER ADVISORY COMMITTEES, HE JUST TOOK SOME SITE VIDEOS ON SITE. KIND OF GET YOU AN IDEA WHAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT VEGETATION EXISTS. I AM STANDING IN THE FRONT CORNER TOWARDS THE HOUSES, SO IT'LL BE FACING SOUTH. SEE THE RAILROAD TRACKS? THE HOUSES ARE ALL BEHIND THEM. TREES. THIS IS NOW FACING. NORTH. THIS IS NORTHWEST. WHICH A BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THE ROLL IN THE ROAD WHERE IT ALL PITCHES TO THE BUILDING. THIS IS FACING TO THE LAKE WHICH IS WEST. HERE'S THE BERM THAT THE CREEK IS BEHIND. 
          I'M BACK TO ZERO. OKAY JOSH. SO YEAH. SO THAT JUST GIVES SOME. THEY WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT VIDEO TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT, JUST TO GIVE A REAL WORLD VISUAL OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S EASY TO SEE SOMETHING ON A SITE PLAN, BUT I THINK HAVING THIS VIDEO ALSO GIVES SOME CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. AND THEN IN TERMS OF SEEKER. SO WE GOT COMMENTS BACK FROM THE DEC. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR COMMENTS, THEIR COMMENTS WERE THAT THIS PROJECT IS AT LEAST THE DC THEY'RE CURRENTLY PROCESSING A SOLID MANAGEMENT WASTE FACILITY APPLICATION. THEY SAID THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED A REVISED APPLICATION YET, BUT THAT'S BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE DEC. SO THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT. AND THEN THE DCC ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS IS IN A DESIGNATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA, WHICH WE KNOW AND THAT THEY ASK OR THEY HAVE STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY GET GUIDANCE FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, IT'S NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO COORDINATES THAT, IT'S THE COMMITTEE WHO GETS RECOMMENDATIONS, WHO GIVES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS BOARD TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION. AND THAT'S COORDINATED THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS. AND THEN THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH THIS BOARD ARE THAT WE GOT COMMENTS FROM STATE PARKS OR OTHERWISE KNOWN AS OPRHP, AND THEIR COMMENTS WERE AND I'LL MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. KEEP GOING. LET'S SEE. I I'M BRINGING YOU BINOCULARS AT THE NEXT MEETING. I'M JUST GOING TO GET THEM TRAINED UP TO FIT TO WIDTH. YEAH I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE IT ANY. OH YEAH I CAN. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BACK TOO. 
          I GOT HIM IN THE BACK THERE. READ IT. ALL RIGHT. THEY HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. SO WE AS YOU GUYS KNOW FOR THE COORDINATOR REVIEW PROCESS, WE INCLUDED OPRHP AS AN INTERESTED AGENCY BECAUSE THE STATE PARK IS ADJOINING THIS THIS PARCEL. SO WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO SEND IT TO THEM. 
          THEY GAVE US COMMENTS BACK. AND IN SUMMARY, THEIR COMMENTS WERE THAT THEY NOTED THAT THEY CALLED IT BLAISDEL CREEK AND ITS ASSOCIATED WETLAND IS ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT SITE, AND THAT IT'S NORTH OF THE PUBLIC SWIMMING AREA. THEY NOTED THAT THERE THE CONDITIONS UPLAND OF WHAT THEY CALL BLAISDEL CREEK CAN IMPACT THE WATER QUALITY, AND THEY REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDER RETAINING ALL VEGETATION THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE PARCEL PROPERTY TO HELP PROVIDE A BUFFER AND HELP KEEP MATERIALS FROM MIGRATING INTO THE CREEK. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE ASKS OUT OF OPRHP. THEY ALSO MENTIONED THAT THEY LOOKED AT THE SITE PLAN, AND THEY NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A TRUCK TRAFFIC ROUTE ON AN ACCESS ROAD OFF OF ROUTE FIVE THAT THEY SAID WAS PARK PROPERTY, THAT THEY WOULD NOT GRANT ACCESS TO THE APPLICANT TO USE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO QUICKLY TOUCH ON THAT. I KNOW I, I JUST GAVE YOU THESE COMMENTS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, BUT AND I'LL PULL UP THE SITE PLAN JUST SO THAT. SO YOU GUYS AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW HERE. 
          [01:50:08]
BUT IF I GO TO JOSH, CAN YOU GO TO THE AERIAL? YEAH. 
          SO YOU GUYS HAVE YOU GUYS HAVE A DRIVEWAY OFF OF ROUTE FIVE, RIGHT. CORRECT. YEAH. CHARLOTTE WE WE'D BE THEY'D BE COMING OFF THAT ROAD THAT'S JUST IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE BLUE ROOFED. OH, HERE. WAIT. NO, NO. KEEP GOING. YEAH. HERE. THAT ONE. YEP. JUST SOUTH OF THE, I GUESS TAN. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE DRIVE OFF OF ROUTE FIVE. AND THEN THEY MENTIONED AN ACCESS ROAD THAT THEY SAID WAS ON YOUR SITE PLAN THAT YOU MIGHT BE USING. LET ME GO BACK TO THE COMMENT REALLY QUICK. THEY NOTED IN THE EAF PART ONE D TWO SECTION N DOT TWO THAT THERE WAS TRAFFIC INDICATED THAT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE PROJECT. THEY'RE INDICATING THAT ON THE PLANS USING AN ACCESS ROAD FROM ROUTE FIVE NORTH OF FIRST STREET, THAT ANY USE OF NEARBY PARK ROADS FOR ANY BUSINESS RELATED TRAFFIC WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED BY NEW YORK STATE PARKS LAW. YOU READ THAT SECTION ONE MORE TIME. D2 AND II TWO. SO I'M NOT SURE IF STATE PARKS IS THINKING THAT THAT DRIVEWAY IS THEIR PROPERTY. CHARLOTTE. YEAH, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THAT AS WELL. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I MEAN, HE'S USING THE DRIVING CURRENTLY. OKAY. SO ARE ALL THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ENTITIES OVER, AND YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ACCESS OTHER THAN THAT DRIVEWAY THAT WE JUST SHOWED THERE IS I MEAN, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES WOODLAWN SOUTH, BUT YOU CAN'T YOU CROSS THE RAILROAD, WHICH IS NOT FEASIBLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO. BECAUSE THERE'S ALMOST A ROAD THAT RUNS JUST ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE OF THE TRACKS THAT KIND OF GOES DOWN INTO WOODLAWN PARK. BUT WE WOULD NOT THEY WOULDN'T BE USING YOU WOULDN'T BE USING THAT. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN THE WE'LL WE'LL GO BACK TO THAT COMMENT. BUT THE LAST COMMENT FROM OPRHP WAS THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE PARK IN THEIR NATURAL STATE, AND THEY JUST WOULD ASK AND HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD USE DARK SKY COMPLIANT LIGHTING FOR ANY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. AND WE TYPICALLY ALWAYS REQUIRE SITE DARK SKY COMPLIANT LIGHTING IN OUR IN OUR SITE PLAN. SO I THINK THEY'VE ADDRESSED THAT COMMENT. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE COMMENT FROM OPRHP ON THEIR ON THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS? I BELIEVE THE ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THEY'RE ONLY USING THE DRIVEWAY OFF OF ROUTE FIVE, WHICH THE USER HAS ALREADY BEEN USING. THERE'S ANOTHER DRIVEWAY ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS, BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK YOU CAN USE SAID DRIVEWAY OR EVEN GET OVER THERE WITH A TRUCK OR A GATED OFF THE LAST TIME I WAS ON SITE. OKAY, SO MAYBE THEY'RE JUST DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE SAYING YOU CAN'T USE IT FOR FUTURE USE. JOSH, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE AERIAL? YEAH, AND I DON'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? I WAS I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE NUMBER. MCCORMICK MEMBER MCCORMICK. IF WE COULD GO BACK AND JUST IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT WITH THEM, WHAT THEIR COMMENT IS AND JUST CONFIRM WHICH ONE OF THE DRIVEWAYS THERE WERE, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM THEM SPECIFICALLY IF THEY COULD MARK UP A MAP OR SOMEHOW INDICATE TO CLARIFY THEIR COMMENT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE SAME THING CINDY WAS CHAIR. I WAS GOING TO SAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NOT ABOUT THAT LETTER. OKAY. MEMBER VELLANTE. COME BACK. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? SO MEMBER OKAY, I DROVE THE OTHER DAY TO THE PROPERTY TO GET A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE EVERYTHING WAS LOCATED. AND I AGREE WITH THE LADY THAT SPOKE ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THAT STREET. IT'S NOT IN THE BEST OF SHAPE. AND WITH HEAVIER TRUCK TRAFFIC, THAT ROAD IS GOING TO BE. IT'S IN BAD SHAPE NOW. IT'LL BE IN TERRIBLE SHAPE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. AND AGAIN, EITHER THE TOWN OF BLAISDELL, TOWN OF HAMBURG, OR THE COMPANY. TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT STREET. PRIOR TO THIS 
          [01:55:10]
BUSINESS GOING INTO OPERATION WILL BE A BIG HELP. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? MEMBER. DORSEY. 
          NO. OKAY, CHAIR, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? MEMBER MCCORMICK SURE. I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE CAMMY IS THE ENGINEER. KNOWS. WHOSE ROAD IS THAT? LIKE WHOSE ROAD IS THAT? I KNOW THERE ARE TIMES FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT, MAJOR THINGS, THAT THERE ARE BONDS OR REQUIREMENTS WHEN THERE'S A LARGE VOLUME OF HEAVY TRAFFIC OR SOME REQUIREMENTS TO UPGRADE OR MAINTAIN THAT ROAD AS PART OF ROAD USE REQUIREMENTS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WHOSE ROAD THAT IS AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS EVEN APPLICABLE OR IF THAT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE. TAMMY GERALD, TOWN ENGINEER THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE DRIVE AS FAR AS ACCESS AGREEMENTS AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES. I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THAT UNLESS WE HAD A RECENT APPROVAL THAT WHERE WE WOULD ASK THEM TO DOCUMENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT YES, THAT IS NOT A TOWN ROAD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. ANYTHING ELSE. MEMBER MCCORMICK I HAVE A LOT. FIRST THE ROAD IF THERE IF THAT ROAD IS YOUR ROAD, THAT TIES IN WITH WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY. SO WHEN THE NEW YORK STATE PARK RECREATION AND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION WROTE THIS ABOUT RUSH CREEK. RUSH CREEK IS RIGHT BY THAT ROAD. AND THEIR CONCERN IS ABOUT BUFFERING AND PROTECTING THE CREEK. NOW, WE'VE HAD SOME PROJECTS THAT WE'VE WORKED ON IN THAT AREA. WE'RE BIG PROPONENTS AT THIS TABLE ABOUT PROTECTING, YOU KNOW, VEGETATION AND WETLAND. AND I'M AND I'M WONDERING HOW WHAT A NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE, THAT CONDITION OF THE ROAD. IF I SAY THIS RIGHT, WHAT NEGATIVE IMPACT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD WILL HAVE ON RUSH CREEK? THAT'S A THOUGHT. AND THEN HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BUFFER ALL OF THAT FROM RUSH CREEK? OKAY. AND THEN WHAT IS THE DISTANCE OF THE OPERATION FROM THE FROM THE OPERATION TO RUSH CREEK. HOW WIDE IS THE LOT AND WHAT IS YOUR BUFFER PLAN OR YOUR BUFFERING PLAN FROM THE NEIGHBORS? AND JOSH, AGAIN, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE AERIAL, IF YOU CAN SCROLL, IF YOU CAN COME IN A LITTLE BIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE ROAD. 
          THERE WE GO. SO WHAT IS YOUR BUFFERING PLAN? FROM THE NEIGHBORS, FROM THE ROAD, AND FROM YOUR OPERATION TO THE NEIGHBORS? SO I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD START WITH RUSH CREEK, BECAUSE THAT'S RUSH CREEK RIGHT THERE. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT BY THE ROAD. SO WE HAVE A ROAD THAT'S IN ROUGH CONDITION. CREEK MAY BE THOUSAND AND SEVEN. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THEY SPLIT AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY COME BACK TOGETHER AT AT WOODLAWN. THERE IS REGARDLESS A CREEK THERE THAT CONSISTENTLY TESTS VERY HIGH FOR NUTRIENTS AND PHOSPHORUS AND DOES MERGE WITH RUSH CREEK BEFORE IT HITS LAKE ERIE. WELL, ACCORDING TO THIS LETTER THOUGH, THAT IS RUSH CREEK. I KNOW EVERYONE'S CALLED IT RUSH CREEK, BUT IT MAY BE AN UNNAMED. BUT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GO BLAISDELL CREEK COULD BE BLAZED ON CREEK IS CALLED IT. I'M LOOKING AT THE ERIE COUNTY GIS RIGHT NOW AND THEY HAVE RUSH CREEK IS SOUTH OF SEVEN. BUT REGARDLESS, THERE IS A CREEK THAT WE KNOW IS IMPAIRED. AND ALL OF THE AGENCIES COLLECTIVELY RAISED ISSUE WITH THE. QUALITY OF THE WATER. THAT WAS MEMBER VALENTI, BY THE WAY, THIS IS CHAIR GRONINGEN. SO DO YOU WANT TO TOUCH ABOUT THAT? DO YOU GUYS HAVE A PLAN? BECAUSE I KNOW JOSH JUST GAVE YOU THIS LETTER. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT IT, BUT DO YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS? AND CHARLOTTE CLARKE, WITH RUEFUL HONESTY, WE DON'T HE KIND OF WAS HOPING TO JUST, YOU KNOW, HE WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES. BUT THAT KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE ROAD. 
          PRIVATE WHO WHO OWNS IT AND WHO'S I MEAN, HE'S LEASING THE PROPERTY SO HE DOESN'T EVEN OWN IT. SO IN TERMS OF IMPROVEMENTS, I HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING HE WOULD, YOU KNOW, PAY THE BILL FOR THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT CONVERSATION IS GOING TO GO AND WHO WHO WOULD AGREE TO DO WHAT. OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY, IS THE ROAD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, MEMBER VALENTI THAT'S IN BAD SHAPE. THE SAME ROAD THAT PARKS IS SAYING IS THEIR ROAD OR ARE WE UNSURE ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW? NO, WE'RE NOT UNSURE. THEY ARE SEPARATE ROADS. I'M NOT SURE. I'M UNSURE, I'M UNSURE. I THINK THAT MAY BE THE SAME ROAD BECAUSE IT PROVIDES ACCESS FOR THE ROAD. THAT'S WHY I WOULD 
          [02:00:05]
LIKE CLARITY, BECAUSE. MEMBER MCCORMACK SO YOU'RE ASKING IF THIS ROAD WERE MY CURSOR IS A STATE PARKS ROAD. I AM ASKING WHICH ROAD. OVERALL I WOULD LIKE PARKS TO PROVIDE US CLARITY ON SPECIFICALLY LABELED ON A MAP WHICH ROAD THEY THINK IS THEIRS BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE AN EASEMENT OR OTHER PERMISSION. THAT MAY BE A PARKS ROAD. THAT IS AN EASEMENT BECAUSE IT CONTINUES DOWN TO GET BACK DOWN THERE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO OTHER ITEMS OR CONSTRAINTS THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT. SO, OKAY. MEMBER MCCORMACK, THIS IS CHAIR GROLNICK AND I WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THESE MAPS PRIOR, THERE IS ANOTHER ROAD. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE ROAD THAT THEY WERE USING AND IT WAS THE ROAD TO THE PARK. IT WASN'T THIS ROAD. AND I AND I APOLOGIZE THAT I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT MAYBE JOSH CAN WE CAN DO SOME RESEARCH ON IT BECAUSE WE DO. THERE IS A MAP BECAUSE IF YOU RECALL, WHEN IT FIRST CAME IN FRONT OF US, WE THOUGHT IT WAS ON SEVENTH STREET. YES. AND THAT'S WHERE THE ROAD WAS THAT WENT TO THE PARK. BUT THIS IS OFF OF FIRST STREET AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION CAME IN. 
          YEAH. SO IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE THEM JUST SEND US A SUPPLEMENTAL EMAIL TO CLARIFY IT FOR THE FILE. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT. YEP. IN REGARDS TO THE BUFFERING THAT THEY SPOKE ABOUT, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY PLANS OR CHARLOTTE CLARKE WITH YOU AT THIS MOMENT. NO. NO ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS ARE PLANNED OR ALONG THAT ROAD. I MEAN B OFF OFF OF HIS LEASED PROPERTY. IT'S I MEAN HE WOULDN'T HE'S NOT LEASING THE ROAD. HE'S LEASING BACK AND USING THAT ACCESS ROAD, WHICH I GUESS WE'RE IT'S UNDERSTANDING WHO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT HE'S USING THAT ACCESS ROAD. NOT THE ONE THAT WE SEE IN FRONT OF US. THE ONE THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF US? YEAH. 
          THE ONE THAT ONE'S JUST SOUTH OF THE TAN ROOF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. OKAY. AND THAT GOES. 
          SO TAKE US THROUGH THAT ROAD. AND, JOSH, IF YOU COULD BE OUR DRIVER, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THAT ROAD. YOU GO OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS TO GET TO THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE LAKE NOW. CORRECT. AND WE'RE FOLLOWING THE CREEK, WHICH WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT CREEK THAT IS. JOSH, IT'S A LITTLE TOO FAR. IF YOU ZOOM IN NOW THE LEASED AREA IS ALMOST EXACTLY RIGHT PAST THE SECOND RAILROAD TRACK. RIGHT THERE. RIGHT THERE. THOSE BUILDINGS ARE THOSE BUILDINGS OR ARE THOSE TRUCKS? YEAH. CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON MY EYES ARE BAD, TOO. OKAY. WELL, OKAY. SO IT'S RIGHT THERE. YES. THAT IS THAT BUILDING. YEP. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE USING THE TAN BUILDING UP IN FRONT AT ALL THAT. THAT'S NOT EVEN HIS PROPERTY OKAY AT LEAST. YEAH OKAY. AND SO THAT'S THE OTHER PART OF THE ROAD DISCUSSION IS I MEAN HE MADE THE POINT. HE GOES A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THAT ROAD. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHERE HE'S SORT OF LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO PAY TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVE EVERYONE ELSE IN THAT AREA JUST GO AHEAD AND DESTROY IT AGAIN. SO, SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, IT HAS ACCESS. YEAH. SO HE SAID THERE'S A THERE'S A SCRAP METAL FACILITY THAT'S NORTH. HE SAID THE LUMBER YARD THAT'S JUST NORTH OF HIM. THEY USE THAT ROAD. AND HE SAID THEY SEND SEMI LIKE LARGE SEMI TRUCKS OUT EVERY DAY WITH TIMBER LOADED. SO JUST FURTHER OUT NOT ON THAT PIECE. SO THEY USE THEY USE THE STRETCH PRETTY MUCH FROM ROUTE FIVE TO THE FIRST RAILROAD TRACK. AND THEN THEY SHOOT UP NORTH INTO THE LUMBER YARD. AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND FOR PARKS IS WHAT HAPPENS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, BECAUSE IN OUR ROAD THERE, AND NO ONE ELSE IS USING THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. SO YES. 
          CORRECT. THEY THEY MAY HAVE A SMALL SLIVER THAT HE IS HE IS CROSSING. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CLARIFY WITH, WITH PARKS, AS OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ALL THAT IS OWNED, LIKE EVERY PART UP TO HIS PROPERTY IS NEW ENTERPRISE STONE. WHO'S HE HE IS LEASING FROM? SO IF THE PARKS DO OWN PART OF THAT ROAD, THAT WOULD BE NEWS TO US. OKAY. SO WE I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE CLARIFICATION IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THAT FURTHER. MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT THIS WAS SENT TO SARAH, OUR PLANNER. I DON'T HAVE A DATE, UNFORTUNATELY, ON HERE BECAUSE IT'S CUT OFF, AND IT SAYS THAT THE ACCEPTED WASTE IS DRYWALL, CONCRETE, WOOD, METAL, TIRES, NON. PRINCIPAL MSW CARDBOARD, PLASTIC, GLASS, METAL CANS AND PAPER. AND I'M A LITTLE SHOCKED THAT THERE'S TIRES INVOLVED IN THERE. SO YOU GUYS ARE ARE RECYCLING TIRES. HE DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE IT OFF THE TABLE. HE SAYS SOMETIMES IN HIS DUMPSTERS HE WILL GET SOMEONE WHO WILL THROW A TIRE AND HE HE CAN PROCESS IT. AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S ALL GOING TO GO IN ONE DUMPSTER AND THEN GO TO A TIRE RECYCLING FACILITY. SO IT WAS MORE OF HE DIDN'T WANT THAT TO 
          [02:05:04]
BE A LIMITING FACTOR FOR REJECTING A WHOLE DUMPSTER LOAD. BUT MY CONCERN IS, IS THERE A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH TIRES? SO WITH NEW YORK STATE DC, THE PERMIT THEY'RE ONLY I THINK THEY LIMIT IT TO I THINK 500 TIRES ON SITE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. AND WE WROTE IT INTO THE FACILITY MANUAL AS WELL AS ENGINEERING REPORT THAT THAT'S HIS LIMIT. 
          AND HE HE EVEN AGREED. HE'S LIKE, I'M NOT GOING TO JUST LET TIRES SIT AROUND ONCE A, ONCE A ROLL OFF IS FULL OF TIRES THAT'S GETTING PICKED UP BY ONE OF HIS TRUCKS AND BEING TAKEN OFF SITE TO RECYCLE. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS SO OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A C AND D TRANSFER FACILITY, MEANING THAT THE STORAGE OF SAID WASTE PRODUCTS, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IS TEMPORARY. IT'S NOT STAYING FOR WEEKS ON END. IT'S GOING TO BE IN AND OUT ESSENTIALLY. 
          CORRECT. OKAY. JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS POINT. ANYONE ELSE? MEMBER VALENTE. YES. MEMBER. VALENTE, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THE HOURS OF OPERATION? BECAUSE WE SEEM TO HAVE SOME CONFLICTING INFORMATION OVER HERE. YES. SO I BELIEVE ON OUR EAF FORM, IT WAS INCORRECTLY PUT ON. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER AFTER THE FACT HE SAID, OH, I MIGHT BE OPERATING SATURDAY, BUT OFFICIAL HOURS WILL BE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 7 TO 5 AND THEN SATURDAY 7 TO 1. 
          OKAY, SO IT'S TEN HOURS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND THEN SIX FOR THE WEEKEND. GOT IT. SO IT'S A 7 A.M. START. AND SO YOU ARE A LITTLE FURTHER BACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN I THINK WE WERE INITIALLY THINKING. BUT IN THE EMAIL TO SARAH, I NOTE THAT THERE'S A CITATION FOR A NEW YORK STATE NAUSET NOISE ORDINANCE THAT IS A CERTAIN DECIBEL. THE TOWN IS NOISE ORDINANCE IS BASED ON NUISANCE. OKAY, SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO BEAR IN MIND. SO IT'S SLEEP DISRUPTION AND NUISANCE. IT'S NOT BASED ON A NUMERIC LIMIT OKAY. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MEMBER MCCORMICK IN THE DEP LETTER THAT CAME FROM THE COUNTY, THEY FLAGGED COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY AND SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDED DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN THE COORDINATED REVIEW. DID THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE GET THIS PROJECT IN THE COORDINATED REVIEW? THEY DID. 
          OKAY. AND SO THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IS BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS SPECIFICALLY ONE THAT REQUIRES A STATE APPROVAL, WHICH IS NOT USUALLY WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE IS A FORM THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY ON OUR BEHALF, MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE, IN ADDITION TO THE COORDINATED REVIEW, SUBMITTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE THOSE EXTRA STEPS. IF THE CHAIR AND THE BOARD AGREES THAT WE GET THAT SECOND SET OF DOCUMENTATION DONE, I'M HAPPY TO CONNECT WITH YOU OFFLINE ON SOME OF THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND WE GET WHATEVER FEEDBACK WE NEED FROM THEM. AND THAT MAY, I'M PRESUMING, FROM THE TIME WE GET TO THAT MAY TAKE UP TO 30 DAYS TO GET A RESPONSE. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT TO DO. AND IT WAS FLAGGED IN THE COUNTY'S COMMENT LETTER AS WELL. 
          JOSH, THAT PAPERWORK HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT. DID YOU SAY OR IS THAT ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK THAT WE NEED TO THAT? SO THAT PART IS ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK. WE SENT COORDINATE REVIEW TO DOS AS AN INTERESTED AGENCY. BUT THE FORM THAT MEMBER MCCORMICK IS TALKING ABOUT IS A SEPARATE PROCESS. AND DOES THAT INTERFERE WITH OUR SEEKER PROCESS AT ALL OR OUR TIMETABLE THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF HERE? IT DOES. IT'S WE NEED A REQUIRED TO HAVE COMPLETED THIS. WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS COASTAL REVIEW REVIEW PROCESS AND COMPLETE THIS BEFORE WE CAN MAKE A DECISION. 
          CORRECT. OKAY. BUT BUT THEN DO WE GET IT? I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT TIMETABLE HERE. SO ON THE TIMETABLE WITH SEEKER BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. CORRECT. DO WE NEED TO GET AN EXTENSION OR IS THERE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO ABOUT THE TIMETABLE. BECAUSE THIS MAY TAKE LONGER? NO WE DON'T WE DON'T NEED TO ASK FOR ANY EXTENSION AT THIS TIME. NO. 
          OKAY. THEY'RE RECOMMENDED NOT I, I'M FEELING DREW IN MY HEAD RIGHT THERE. RECOMMENDED AND NOT REQUIRED OKAY. DIRECTORY NOT MANDATORY OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS POINT LET'S DO A RECAP. 
          NUMBER ONE COMMENT I JUST WANT TO I GUESS STATE THAT THIS THIS BUSINESS OPERATES DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. AND IF THIS PARTICULAR USE WAS PROPOSED AT THAT LOCATION, COASTAL CONSISTENCY OR A LOT OF THESE OTHER REVIEWS BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T APPLY AT THE OTHER LOCATION. SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AT THIS LOCATION THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE MET AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION. CORRECT. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE? WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE COASTAL CONSISTENCY FORM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WANTS ME TO SAY WHAT THE RESULT IS. I DON'T THINK I SHOULD KNOW UNTIL WE GET IT, SO I WON'T THEN. NO, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S MORE THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY WE LEFT IT OPEN UNTIL JUNE. YEAH I KNOW 
          [02:10:05]
OKAY. SO BY THAT TIME THEN WE'LL HAVE EVERYTHING HERE. BUT THAT'S WHY I ALSO DIDN'T SAY RIGHT OKAY, OKAY. SO WE HAVE SOME HOMEWORK TO DO. RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT MORE FORMS TO DO. YOU'VE GOT SOME INFORMATION THAT WE AND I CAN REMEMBER MCCORMICK. WE CAN TALK OFFLINE, BUT I CAN FAST TRACK THE DOS COMPONENT BECAUSE I'M CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE TOWN'S HAMBURG OR THE TOWN'S LWR. SO I'M IN CONTACT WITH DOS REPS DAILY. SO WE CAN ADD THIS TO THE DOCKET OF THINGS WE TALK ABOUT EVERY DAY. OKAY. SO DO YOU THINK THAT WE'D BE READY BY JUNE 4TH WITH. I THINK I CAN HAVE A RESPONSE FROM DOS ITSELF AS WELL BY JUNE 4TH. WORST CASE SCENARIO JUNE 18TH. OKAY. IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT PART OF DOS. SO YEAH, IT IT MIGHT BE, BUT I THINK I CAN I KNOW PEOPLE, I THINK HE'S, I THINK HE'S, I THINK HE'S CONNECTED. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL THE 4TH OF JUNE. YEP. AND AT THAT TIME WE WILL LOOK WE WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW. AND A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN STILL COMMENT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. THAT'S CORRECT. ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT CAN AND THEY CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THOSE COMMENTS. YEP. OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE AT THIS POINT. THERE'S NO VOTING. RIGHT. SO WE WILL SEE YOU BACK ON JUNE 4TH. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR US? NO, I DO NOT. OKAY THEN YOU'RE ALL SET. CAN I THANK YOU? MEMBER MCCORMICK, I PRESUME THIS IS ALREADY MAYBE JUST NOT STATED, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT LETTERS AND THE FEEDBACK WE GOT. IT WOULD JUST BE HELPFUL FOR THE FILE IS YOU GOT THE COMMENTS THERE, THE COMMENTS FROM THE HEARING. CAN YOU PROVIDE US A LETTER WITH YOUR FEEDBACK AND RESPONSE TO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED? OKAY. ALL OF THEM THAT ARE APPLICABLE, I GUESS, JUST TO CLARIFY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE STATE, STATE PARKS, STATE PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING FROM ERIE COUNTY AND STATE. WHICH ONE DC DC, OKAY. AND THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. AND YOU GOT A COPY OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMO, RIGHT? YES. AND WE I HAVE A KIND OF A FORMAL NOTE RESPONSE FOR EACH COMMENT. 
          SO IT JUST IT WAS A ZOOM CALL. SO WE KIND OF VERBALIZED THOSE. BUT I CAN GIVE THOSE TO YOU IN WRITING OKAY. THAT'D BE PERFECT. YEAH. AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC TODAY, IT WAS MISS ARCHDALE THAT. OH, OKAY. YEAH, YEAH, I CAN SEND YOU THE LINK TO THE MEETING TO WATCH BACK. ALL THE COMMENTS ARE ON THERE. SO I DID FIND IT I GOT IT OKAY. GOTCHA. PERFECT. YEAH. 
          OKAY. WE'RE WE'RE ALL SET. WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE FOURTH. ALRIGHT. I MAY HAVE BROKE YOUR PODIUM, BUT I, I THINK I WAS THE STRAW THAT BROKE. AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T FALL, IS IT GOING TO FALL? YOU WERE THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE PODIUM. OH, I'VE BEEN WATCHING IT. OH, THE MEETING THE LAST TWO TIMES I CAME. SO I WAS LIKE YEAH IT WASN'T. IT'S BEEN DOING THAT ALL. MEETING YOU ARE THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK. YEAH. OKAY. IF I HAD A HAMMER. ALRIGHT. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT OUR JULY MEETING FOR THE. FIFTH, FOURTH, THE THIRD SECOND FOR THE SECOND HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE JULY MEETING. THE JULY 2ND MEETING HAS BEEN MOVED. THE JULY 2ND AND JULY 16TH MEETING HAVE BEEN MOVED TO JULY 9TH AND JULY 23RD. CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S GOT THAT ON THEIR CALENDAR AND A REMINDER THAT WHEN YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING, IF YOU CAN EMAIL MYSELF AND JOSH SO WE CAN NOTIFY IT AHEAD OF TIME, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO AN ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING. SO YOUR NAME DOESN'T APPEAR DURING THE MEETING. OKAY. SO HAVING THAT, IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO END THE MEETING. SECOND. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.