[WORK SESSION ]
[00:00:07]
WORK SESSION THIS EVENING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE JOSH AND WENDELL GO OVER THE ADDITIONAL TWO CODE REVIEW CODE AMENDMENTS. SORRY. THEY'RE COMING BACK TO US FOR A SECOND REVIEW. ALL RIGHT. JUST FOR THE RECORD, JOSHUA ROGERS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE TWO ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT I'M DISCUSSING AT THE WORK SESSION TONIGHT WILL REFER TO THIS BOARD FROM THE TOWN BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 3RD. THEY CONSIST OF SOME AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER TWO, 27 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE CONSISTS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ADULT USE CANNABIS LAW. I'LL START WITH CHAPTER 227. I'M GLAD CAMI IS HERE. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AT CODE REVIEW FROM A MEETING BACK IN OCTOBER. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAD ACTUALLY BROUGHT TO CODE REVIEW SOME AMENDMENTS THAT THEY WANTED TO PRESENT TO THAT COMMITTEE REGARDING THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS CODE, SPECIFICALLY, AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. CHAPTER 220 7-8 UNSAFE, UNSAFE SIDEWALKS NOTICE TO REPAIR AND APPEALS. BEFORE I GET INTO IT NOT TO THROW YOU ON THE SPOT, CAMI, DO YOU WANT TO KIND OF JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FROM THE ENGINEERING SIDE, AND THEN I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE AND WHERE THEY WHERE THEY KIND OF CAME FROM AND WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. JUST SO THE PLANNING BOARD IS AWARE, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH A SIDEWALK, IT IS DETERIORATING. IT IS DAMAGED IT.
THE COMPLAINTS GO TO ENGINEERING. AND IF SOMEONE LOGS A COMPLAINT, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GOES OUT AND VERIFIES THE CONDITION, MARKS THE SIDEWALK, AND WE SEND A NOTICE TO THE LANDOWNER. OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SIDEWALK. PER THE CURRENT CODE, THEY HAVE EIGHT MONTHS TO CORRECT THE ISSUE, AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT NOT ONLY TO BE EXTREMELY LONG, BUT VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO CONCRETE SIDEWALKS IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. SO PEOPLE TEND TO MAYBE DRAG THEIR FEET, OR THE WEATHER TENDS TO SHIFT SUDDENLY, AND THEN WE END UP HAVING ISSUES BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS WANT THE SIDEWALKS ADDRESSED. AND THE RESIDENT STILL HAS TIME. AND THEN ENGINEERING ALSO HAS TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE WITH AN EIGHT MONTH CLOCK. IT CAN BE VERY CHALLENGING WITH EVERYTHING WE HAVE GOING ON. SO THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO US WAS ADJUSTING THIS TO ADDRESS WHAT WAS A MORE REASONABLE TIMELINE, BUT TO HAVE SOME ROOM TO ADJUST ACCORDING TO SEASON SO THAT IF A COMPLAINT WERE TO COME IN, LET'S SAY RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT A RESIDENT COULD ADDRESS THEIR CONCRETE IN THE IN AS THE WEATHER IS GETTING COLDER. ONCE IT'S 45 BELOW, WE TEND TO AVOID CONCRETE WORK. SO WE WOULD ALLOW IT WOULD ALLOW ENGINEERING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH THE RESIDENTS TO BE SURE THAT THEY DO IT DURING REASONABLE TIMES, BUT ALSO TO ADJUST FOR WEATHER ON WHAT OUR APPROPRIATE SEASON IS. SO FROM THERE, WE WE SPOKE ABOUT IT AT CODE REVIEW. JUST AS A REMINDER, CODE REVIEW INVOLVES MYSELF, CINDY, AS PLANNING BOARD CHAIR, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ZONING BOARD, THE TOWN BOARD, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, CONSERVATION BOARD. SO IT'S A VERY DIVERSE BOARD. AND WHEN WE HAD ORIGINALLY PRESENTED IT IN OCTOBER, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT 90 DAYS SINCE THEN. WE THEN HAD FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHO SUGGESTED THAT WE INCREASE THAT TO 180 DAYS. THE REASON BEING FOR 90 DAYS, IF YOU TRY TO GET A CONTRACTOR FOR, YOU KNOW, DOING ANY TYPE OF WORK NOW, I MEAN, YOU MIGHT BE PUT ON A WAITING LIST, IT MIGHT BE THREE MONTHS TO EVEN HEAR FROM SOMEBODY. SO 90 DAYS AFTER TALKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A SUFFICIENT TIME PERIOD.
SO WE THEN INCREASED IT TO 180 DAYS. AS A REMINDER, THIS BOARD GIVES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD, SO FEEL FREE TO COMMENT WITH AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME AS YOU SEE FIT.
BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRESENTING IT TO THIS BOARD, WE DID 180 DAYS. AND THEN ALSO AFTER CONVERSATION WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE ADDED A CLAUSE, AS YOU SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN, SEE. SO THE CHANGES JUST TO GO OVER THEM RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS EIGHT MONTHS AFTER TALKING WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE CHANGED THAT LANGUAGE TO 180 DAYS. SO THEN WE ALSO MADE THAT CHANGE HERE UNDER C FROM EIGHT MONTHS TO 180 DAY PERIOD. AND THEN WE ADDED THIS CLAUSE THAT SAYS IF THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY IS ISSUED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1ST AND APRIL 1ST, THEN THE DATE WHERE THAT 180 DAY PERIOD WOULD COMMENCE IS ON APRIL 1ST. AND THOSE ARE THAT LANGUAGE THAT WE GOT DIRECTLY FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AND THOSE ARE THE THE MAJOR CHANGES TO THIS SECTION THAT WE REFERRED, LIKE I SAID, FROM THE TOWN BOARD TO THIS BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, TO THEN GET SENT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD. THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE AMENDMENTS FOR DECEMBER 8TH. SO WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME IF, YOU KNOW, WE NEED AN EXTRA MEETING OR SO. BUT IN GENERAL, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE AMENDMENTS. WHAT CAN BE PRESENTED. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AT CODE REVIEW ONCE WE
[00:05:01]
TALKED ABOUT IT AGAIN AT CODE REVIEW WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. HERE ARE SOME OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS BOARD TO THEN SEND ON TO THE TOWN BOARD. JOSH, PROBABLY MORE FOR CAMI IS NOVEMBER 1ST THE RIGHT DATE TO PUT ON HERE? IF SOMEBODY GOT A NOTICE A WEEK AGO TODAY, WOULD THE TEMPERATURE BE OKAY FOR THEM TO GET IT FIXED WITHIN 180 DAYS? ALSO REALLY QUICKLY NOT TO CUT IT, BUT RIGHT BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION, CAMI FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THEY WANTED TO NOT JUST BE ARBITRARY AND THROW OUT A DATE. SO I BELIEVE THE THERE'S LIKE A PARKING BAN BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1ST. SO THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN CODE OF THINGS THAT AREN'T. SO THEY USE THE PARKING BAN AS A NOVEMBER 1ST TO APRIL 1ST AS A BASIS FOR THAT. SO THEY DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE LIKE AN ARBITRARY DATE LIKE NOVEMBER 1ST. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? THEY AT LEAST WANTED TO USE THAT AS A FOUNDATION. SO TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION, IT IS TOUGH BECAUSE IF SOMETHING HAD BEEN ISSUED RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DAYS LIKE RIGHT NOW WHERE WE'RE SEEING 50S, THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY. BUT THEN AGAIN, WE ALSO KNOW WHAT OUR WEATHER HAS BEEN LIKE IN OTHER OCTOBERS, WHERE IT'S JUST BEEN IMPOSSIBLE. SO 180 SO WE'RE TALKING SIX MONTHS. IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO JUDGE. I THINK IT GIVES US ROOM TO WORK STILL WITH THE RESIDENTS. BUT AGAIN, I LIKE THAT IT DOES COINCIDE WITH AN EXISTING REGULATION WITH THE PARKING BAN. AND IT GENERALLY COINCIDES WITH HOW OUR SEASONS GO. I MEAN, IF YOU THINK BACK TO THIS PAST APRIL AND MAY, THE RAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM, BUT WE HAD NO WAY TO SEE THAT COMING. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CANNOT YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING CONCRETE AND POURING RAIN BECAUSE IT WILL ADJUST YOUR MIXTURE OF WATER VERSUS MATERIALS AND COULD CAUSE YOU PROBLEMS THEN TOO. SO WE'D LIKE TO WORK WITH THE RESIDENTS, BUT WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING MORE SOLID. MIGHT IT? ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS? THIS IS MEMBER MCCORMACK B INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT IF THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY IS ISSUED IN THAT PERIOD, TO INSTEAD SAY IF THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY OR IF THE 180 DAY PERIOD CONCLUDES BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1ST AND APRIL 1ST, THAT WE WILL GIVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS BEYOND THAT WINDOW TO ACCOMMODATE WEATHER. SO THEN YOU'RE STILL USING THAT WINDOW. BUT IT'S MORE THAT IF IT CONCLUDES BECAUSE I AGREE WITH BILL THAT LIKE TRYING IF YOU GOT A NOTICE OCTOBER 15TH, TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE TO GET THE WORK DONE IN THE 180 DAY PERIOD ENDS IN EARLY APRIL, AND THAT'S THAT CAN BE TOUGH. I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE. SINCE I WAS A PART OF THAT ORIGINAL DISCUSSION, I, I AGREE WITH ALL THREE OF YOU. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAD GONE THE ISSUE WHEN WE HEARD IT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT. THIS IS AT LEAST A TIMELINE, AND I DON'T. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS FOR SURE, BUT I THINK THAT IF THEY GOT A TICKET ON THE ON THE 29TH OF OCTOBER, I THINK SOMEBODY IN CODE ENFORCEMENT, BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD, WOULD PROBABLY GO WITH THE 180 DAYS FROM NOVEMBER 1ST. I'M NOT PUTTING THAT IN STONE, BUT BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT, THEY'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH RESIDENTS. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THERE WASN'T A SPECIFIC ENOUGH.IT WAS TOO LONG AND LEGAL, WEIGHED IN ON THIS PRETTY HEAVILY. SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE VERBIAGE. I JUST THINK THAT THE TIMELINE I YOU KNOW, I AGREE ABOUT THE WEATHER, BUT THERE'S NO WAY WE AT LEAST WE HAVE A GUIDELINE. AND MY QUESTION IS IF THEY DON'T, IF THE RESIDENT DOES NOT RESPOND TO THIS VIOLATION, DO THEY END UP IN COURT? IS THAT WHERE THIS GOES? NO, NO, THAT THE TOWN JUST DOES IT AND SENDS THEM A BILL? YES. OKAY. SO THE TOWN PER THIS CODE SECTION, HAS THE RIGHT TO REPLACE THAT SIDEWALK AND PUT IT ON THEIR TAX BILL.
BUT THERE'S A CONVERSATION AT LEAST. YEAH. CORRECT. AND OF COURSE, WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACTOR IN OUR BACK POCKET READY TO DO SIDEWALKS. WE DO IT. WE TRY TO GROUP THEM TOGETHER.
WE TRY TO DO IT. SO LET'S SAY YOU HAD A RESIDENT THAT COMES IN AND SAYS THE SIDEWALK WON'T BE DONE, BUT I CAN SHOW YOU I'M UNDER CONTRACT WITH A CONTRACTOR. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, HE'S JUST WAITING FOR, LET'S SAY, THE RAIN TO STOP. YOU KNOW, HE'S READY TO SCHEDULE IT WITHIN WEEKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD FIND ACCEPTABLE. WE WOULDN'T SEND OUT OUR OWN CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT WAS CLEARLY LINED UP AND BEING HANDLED. THE ONES WE HAVE ISSUES WITH ARE THOSE THAT JUST NEVER CONTACT US, NEVER DO ANYTHING, AND SORT OF IGNORE ANY NOTICE WE SEND THEM. RIGHT.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE WHOLE IT'S THAT WE HAVE A GUIDELINE OF SOME SORT AND THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS CAN TAKE PLACE BETWEEN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE RESIDENT, AS WITH THE
[00:10:05]
RESIDENT THAT DOES NOTHING THAT THEN THE TOWN CAN STEP IN AND JUST DO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT THIS IS MORE OF A GUIDE THAN TO A SOLUTION, THAN IT IS AN ENFORCEMENT. AND THEN IT TURNS INTO ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE. RIGHT. IT'S HOW WE WOULD LOOK AT IT AS SINCE ENGINEERING DOES INVOLVE OURSELVES A LOT IN THIS ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO SIDEWALKS. SO FOR ENGINEERING, IT'S IT'S HAVING THE RIGHT TO TURN IT INTO AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION WHEN THE TIME WHEN WHEN THE RESIDENT SHOWS THAT THEY'RE JUST NOT WILLING TO, TO DO THE WORK. OKAY. OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS MEMBER SHIMURA. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NUANCES WITH THE ACTUAL THE EXACT TIMING OF WHEN CERTAIN NOTICES ARE ISSUED AND SO FORTH. BUT I DO AGREE THAT BY PLACING A TIMELINE THAT'S TIED TO AN EXISTING TIMELINE, LIKE THE PARKING BAN AND SO FORTH, THAT'S KIND OF READILY AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ASSUME WINTER CONDITIONS, I.E. NOT CONDUCIVE TO SITE WORK AND CONCRETE WORK TO BE NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL, THAT I THINK THAT THIS HELPS TO PUT IN STRUCTURE TO ALLOW FOR SOME ENFORCEMENT, AND I WOULD SUPPORT IT. ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION. GOOD EVENING, MR. FARRELL. FARRELL. SO WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO A SHORTER TIME PERIOD ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE? NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, OR SECONDLY, WOULD BE SEGREGATING THE ISSUE OF WHERE YOU HAVE A STANDARD NEW BUILD OR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHERE THERE'S A TIME PERIOD THAT YOU'RE PLANNING AND YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH WINTER AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS ON, AS OPPOSED TO A VIOLATOR WHO HAS A SIDEWALK THAT'S BEEN CITED FOR DISREPAIR. OTHER REASONS THAT HAVE TO REPLACE IT AS A HAZARD TO PEOPLE WALKING DOWN AND THE COST INFORMATION TO ANSWER. I CAN ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION YES. AT CODE REVIEW, WE DID TALK ABOUT THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF THE EIGHT MONTHS THAT WAS THEN CHANGED TO 180 DAYS, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS ONE OF THE DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEYS WHO WAS AT CODE REVIEW SUGGESTED THAT 90 DAYS WOULD BE TOO TIGHT, WHERE SOMETIMES, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOME WORK FROM CONTRACTORS, YOU MAY NOT EVEN HEAR FROM SOMEBODY IN 90 DAYS.SO AT LEAST 100 DAYS. IT'S NOT EIGHT MONTHS. IT'S ALSO NOT 90 DAYS, LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD CAN FEEL FREE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE, BUT I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD FROM ANY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER THAT 180 DAYS WAS THERE WAS ANY ISSUE TO THE SECOND PART, AT LEAST FROM A CODE STANDPOINT? THE ONLY THING THAT WE CONSIDERED WAS WHENEVER THERE IS A NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY. SO FOR VIOLATORS, I DON'T THINK WE EVER TALKED ABOUT IF THERE'S NEW BUILD OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. NO, THIS SECTION WAS INTENDED FOR VIOLATORS AND AND PROBLEM DISREPAIR, SIDEWALKS.
AND SPECIFICALLY, IS IT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE? YES. IF IF I MEAN JOSH NOT IN FRONT OF HIS COMPUTER, BUT I BELIEVE AT THE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS ABOUT SIDEWALKS NEEDING REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT. YES. SO THIS SECTION IS SPECIFICALLY FOR UNSAFE SIDEWALKS. AND THEN WHEN THE TOWN NOTICES INDIVIDUALS RIGHT HERE. YEAH. SO NEW SIDEWALKS WOULD NOT QUALIFY UNDER A A REPAIR. SO. YEAH, I THINK I THINK THE BETTER APPROACH IS TO SHORTEN THE TIME FRAME AND ADD A ABILITY TO GIVE IT AN EXTENSION OR RENEWAL PERIOD. IF THEY CAN SHOW THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE PROGRESS AND THEY HAD DIFFICULTY OBTAINING A CONTRACTOR. BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY PERSONAL MY VIEW ON IT. WELL, AND I KNOW ENGINEERING AND PLANNING, WE KICKED THAT IDEA AROUND TOO BEFORE THIS WENT TO CODE REVIEW ABOUT PUTTING A SHORTER DURATION, BUT HAVING THE OPTION TO ISSUE AN EXTENSION WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CALLED FOR IT. AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THIS IS WHERE IT'S AT NOW AFTER GOING THROUGH CODE REVIEW, I THINK OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS 90 DAYS AND I CAME BACK TO US SAYING THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND 180. AND SO THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION AND THE KICK AROUND BASED ON THE TIME.
CERTAINLY IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IF YOU HAVE ONLY 90 DAYS AND IT'S PEAK CONSTRUCTION SEASON AND YOU'RE JUST DOING A SMALL SECTION OF SIDEWALK, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HIGH PRIORITY FOR A CONTRACTOR. THAT WAS PART OF THE ARGUMENT, RIGHT? SO IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF DO WE WANT TO TIGHTEN IT AND ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION, OR DO WE JUST WANT TO STICK WITH THE THE 180 TO ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR THAT FLUCTUATION? I THINK THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD IN CODE REVIEW WAS THE FACT THAT WHEN WE WENT TO THE 180, JUST AS LIKE THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE THE 90 DAYS DURING A PEAK PERIOD, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE TO DO IT WITHIN 90 DAYS. AND THEN IT CREATED THAT MUCH MORE WORK FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO EXTEND IT. AND THEN THERE WAS MORE WORK INVOLVED. THAT'S WHY THE HAPPY MEDIUM OF THE 180 DAYS BASED ON
[00:15:03]
THAT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE ARGUMENTS. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT HAVING TO DEFEND ALL THE LITIGATION, OVERSEE ALL THE LITIGATION, DEFEND AGAINST THE TOWN AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS, I'VE BEEN HERE. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE A 30 DAY WINDOW IN MANY JURISDICTIONS, OTHER OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. AND SO I'M JUST SAYING MY RECOMMENDATION, IF SOMEONE'S TALKING TO ME ABOUT IT WOULD BE TO TO ALLOW FOR AN ESCAPE VALVE FOR THAT, IF THERE'S A REASONABLE PROGRESS OR REASONABLE, LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THE DELAY. BUT THE 180 DAYS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT GETS TAGGED ON TO A FIVE MONTH DELAY OVER THE WINTER, IS, YEAH, IS, IN MY MIND, A LITTLE TOO LONG, BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY IS GOING TO CITE WAS WE HAD NOTICE AND WE DIDN'T ACT SOON ENOUGH. SO BUT. SURE.ABSOLUTELY. MEMBER. BOARD MEMBER STEWART. LET'S SAY THAT WE THEY THEY NOTICED THE SIDEWALK NEEDED TO BE REPLACED IN MAY 1ST. COULD THAT GO FROM MAY 1ST TO SAY SIX MONTHS, HAVE A SIX MONTH WINDOW FROM MAY 1ST TO SAY NOVEMBER 1ST? AND DURING THAT PERIOD THEY HAVE 90 DAYS TO FIX IT OR. SEEING THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID THEY THEY MAY HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING A CONTRACTOR, BUT IT'S THEY HAVE ADEQUATE WEATHER DURING THOSE DAYS TO GET IT DONE. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN'T GET THAT TYPE OF WORK DONE BETWEEN MAYBE NOVEMBER AND MAY BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER. RIGHT? WE CERTAINLY CAN SUGGEST THAT AS A AS A RECOMMENDATION THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, YOU GUYS ARE ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER. I THINK SOMETIMES THE DIFFICULTY IS HAVING ALL THOSE CLAUSES OF, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS HERE, BUT THEN IF IT'S IN MAY, THEN IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, PIECEMEALING IT SOMETIMES CAN BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT AND IT MAKES THE CODE A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO READ AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A RECOMMENDATION THAT, LIKE I SAID, I CAN PASS ALONG TO THE TOWN BOARD AND THEY HAVE THE FINAL SAY. SO ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I, I, I DO AFTER HEARING ATTORNEY FARRELL, I DO AGREE ABOUT THE 90 DAYS BECAUSE THERE'S TWO SIDES TO IT. ONE FROM THE FROM THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF IT. AFTER 90 DAYS THEY CAN GRANT AN EXTENSION. BUT ON A LEGAL PART, I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE ARE WE TIED UP IN COURT WITH? IF THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM THAT IT'S CREATING COURT CASES OR CREATING, THERE'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT PORTFOLIO OF THEM. BUT BUT YEAH, OF OF LITIGATIONS. THE ONLY THING I HAVE A QUESTION FOR IS ISN'T IT. THE NEWER PROCESSES ALLOW MUCH MORE POURING IN THE COLDER, NOT NECESSARILY THE WORSE COLD MONTHS, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY DON'T THEY WARM THE CONCRETE MIXED SLURRY SLURRY AT A TIME AND TAKE IT OUT TO THE SITE? I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A NEWER I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY USE THAT ALL THE TIME, BUT IT'S THERE ARE METHODS IN ENGINEERING TO TO IN CONSTRUCTION TO EITHER YOU WARM THE WATER IN THE CONCRETE MIX, YOU CAN USE BLANKETS TO ALLOW THE CONCRETE ENOUGH TIME, ALMOST INSULATE IT. THERE ARE WAYS THE GENERAL INDUSTRY STANDARD WOULD SAY ONLY DO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TO. SO AGAIN, IS IS IT THE BEST CHOICE, ESPECIALLY FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE GOING TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY ON THIS? SHOULD THEY HAVE PROBLEMS IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME? YOU KNOW, NO ONE IS GOING TO WARRANTY THAT SIDEWALK FOR TOO LONG. SO IT MIGHT PASS ONE SEASON. BUT WHAT WHAT'S REACTION TWO THREE SEASONS LATER? SO AGAIN, I'D HATE TO PUSH A RESIDENT TO SAY THERE ARE METHODS. USE THEM AND THEY END UP WITH A WORSE QUALITY PRODUCT AND HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEM AGAIN AND SEND THEM A NEW NOTICE DOWN THE ROAD THAT SAYS YOUR CONTRACT IS NOW LIKE, LIKE SPALLING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IT'S, WELL, YOU MADE US GO RUSHED US THROUGH THE WINTER TRYING TO DO SPECIAL METHODS. SO THE PREFERENCE IS DEFINITELY TO DO IT IN THE RIGHT SEASON. YEAH, YOU ALWAYS GET A MORE BRITTLE RESULT LIKE QUENCHING STEEL. YOU KNOW THE COOLING CURVE IS STEEPER. YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A MORE BRITTLE PRODUCT EVEN WITH CONCRETE. YES. AND AGAIN WE HAVE USED THOSE METHOD AND ENDED UP WITH GOOD CONCRETE. BUT YOU'RE TALKING A VARIETY OF CONTRACTORS, A VARIETY OF METHODS. MAYBE YOU HAVE A CONTRACTOR THAT TYPICALLY DOES NOT WORK DURING THE WINTER BUT DECIDES TO PUSH IT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO ROLL THE DICE ON SOMETHING THAT CAN BE UNCERTAIN. OKAY, I THINK I'VE HEARD ONE RECOMMENDATION OF HOW IT'S WRITTEN. I'VE HEARD A RECOMMENDATION OF SHORTENING IT TO 90 DAYS AND ADDING A CLAUSE QUESTION I HAVE JUST TO BUTTON THIS UP IS IF WE DO ADD A CLAUSE TO ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION, WHO IS THAT ENTITY THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING? IS IT THE
[00:20:02]
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT? IS IT THE TOWN ENGINEER WHO IF AN APPLICANT WANTS AN EXTENSION, THEY DON'T MADE IT IN THE 90 DAYS. WHO IS IT THAT THEY THEN ASK FOR THAT EXTENSION? AND WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? WELL, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY TAKES COMPLAINTS AND SENDS OUT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE. AND IF THERE IS A DETERMINATION THAT THE TOWN HAS TO STEP IN AND REPAIR THE SIDEWALK, IT'S ENGINEERING WHO ORGANIZES THAT. SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS TO BE TOWN ENGINEER. I THINK ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD BE ADEQUATE. AND THEN I WOULD JUST SAY REQUEST IN WRITING, BUT EMAIL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THAT WAY WE CAN PRINT THAT AND PUT IT IN THE FILE. BUT AS LONG AS IT'S IN WRITING OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? OKAY, I WILL PUT THIS IN THE FORMAT OF HOW WE USUALLY DO IT FOR RECOMMENDATION. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE TIME, I WILL BRING IT TO THE NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING, ALONG WITH THE SECOND CODE AMENDMENT THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT. OKAY. THE SECOND THING, YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. OUR CURRENT EXISTING ADULT USE CANNABIS LAW. WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING FOR AMENDMENTS ARE, IF YOU GUYS RECALL, THIS LAW I THINK WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2023. NOW IN 2025, THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT, THERE ARE SOME UPDATED THINGS THAT OUR CURRENT LAW DOESN'T INCORPORATE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE REMOVING LIKE COMMUNITY FACILITY, HAVING PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. THERE ARE SOME ARTICLE NUMBERS WITHIN THE EXISTING LAW THAT ARE OUTDATED SECTION NUMBERS. SO UPDATING THAT AND THEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY OF WHERE RETAIL DISPENSARIES ARE ALLOWED SPECIFYING ALLOWED WITHIN C-2, THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND THEN MICRO-BUSINESSES ALLOWING THEM IN M2, THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. IF YOU RECALL, LAST TIME WE HAD BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO LIE AND HAVE SOME OTHER USES, WE ENDED UP NOT DOING THAT. WE ENDED UP STILL AMENDING SOME OF THE USES OF THE M2 DISTRICT, BUT WE ACTUALLY NEVER WENT FORWARD WITH SUBMITTING THIS TO THE TOWN BOARD TO AMEND THE ADULT USE CANNABIS LAW. BUT NOW WE ARE REFERRING IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION TO GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD TO ACTUALLY ADOPT THIS. SO YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. WE'RE JUST BRINGING IT BACK, STARTING THE OFFICIAL PROCESS OF SENDING IT TO THIS BOARD, DOING THE COUNTY REFERRAL AND STARTING THE LOCAL LAW AMENDMENT PROCESS. SO THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE THE AMENDMENTS. YOU'VE SEEN THESE ALL BEFORE. ANY THOUGHTS QUESTIONS CONCERNS? BOARD MEMBERS. ANYBODY I KNOW I DO LIKE THE THE NEW DEFINITION FOR THE PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. I THINK THAT CLEANS IT UP QUITE A BIT. STRIKING OUT THE COMMUNITY FACILITY. I LIKE THAT BETTER.OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO I, I LIKE WHAT'S THERE. CHAIR. MY ONE COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE IS THAT IT'S ONLY PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. SO YOU COULD HAVE A, A DAYCARE, A YMCA, A NON-GOVERNMENT OWNED YOUTH CENTER OR, OR KIDS EVENT SPACE THAT CAN BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT'S JUST NOT OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SO MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE RESTRICTING THIS TO ONLY GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT OWNED, AND WHETHER OR NOT, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF WHETHER IT'S A GYM, A SPORTS, A YMCA, BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THOSE I WOULD SAY ARE ARE YOUTH FACILITY THAT IS GENERALLY OPEN AND AND NOT ONLY JUST FOR MEMBERS BUT FOR EVENTS OR VISITORS THAT ARE OFTEN MINORS. SO THE THE PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY IS THE DEFINITION. THAT'S FROM THE GUIDELINES FROM OCM. MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION MORE FOR ATTORNEY FARRELL, BUT I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT DEGREE WE CAN LOCALIZE THAT DEFINITION, BECAUSE THAT PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY DEFINITION THAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS TAKEN RIGHT FROM OSHA'S GUIDELINES. AND WE'RE JUST UPDATING WHAT THEY HAVE. BUT REMEMBER, MCCORMICK'S SUGGESTION IS IF WE CAN LOCALIZE THAT OR CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THAT. GENERALLY, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE MORE DESIGN, IMPOSE MORE. YEAH, YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT UP CLOSER FOR IT TO GENERALLY. GENERALLY, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE MORE ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS THAN THE FLOOR THAT'S SET BY THE STATE. BUT IN THIS CASE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE NUANCE TO IT. AND WE'VE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY RESEARCH A FEW MONTHS AGO, BUT I'M I THINK MR. TUTTLE, WHO'S ACTING FOR THE ZBA, HAD DONE SOME RESEARCH. IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO CIRCLE BACK WITH HIM AND MYSELF. WE I HAD THIS ACTUALLY BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THIS WHEN I SAW HIM COVERING TONIGHT FOR YOUR AGENDA. AND I SPOKE WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
[00:25:04]
JEFF SKRIPAK ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE WAS IN PART OF THE DISCUSSION. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE THAT DISCUSSION. BUT AGAIN, IN GENERAL, YOU'D SAY, YES, YOU COULD ADD SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT. THE REASON THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STATE WAS THAT THERE WAS TROUBLE AMONG ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES OR NOT ALL, BUT MANY REGARDING THIS DEFINITION, AND IT BECAME STICKY WICKET. AND SO THEY PROPOSED SOMETHING THAT WAS WAS A BETTER WORDING. SO THAT'S GOOD. BUT AS MEMBER MCCORMACK HAS POINTED OUT, IT KIND OF LEAVES A GAPING HOLE FOR SOMETHING WHICH WOULD BE PRIVATE SECTOR OR NONPUBLIC FACILITIES OF ALMOST IDENTICAL NATURE AND PURPOSE. AND SO AGAIN, I THINK IT WISE TO JUST KIND OF CIRCLE BACK AND SEE THAT WE'RE NOT TREADING ON ANYTHING THAT THEY'VE BECAUSE THE CANNABIS LAWS ARE CRAFTED PRETTY SPECIFICALLY. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. JUST THE GENERAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT YOU CAN ADD ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT EXCEED THE NORMAL FLOOR, THAT THE STATE SETS. SOUNDS GOOD. I'LL CIRCLE BACK WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND IT'LL BE BACK ON THE 19TH ANYWAYS, SO WE'LL HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU. AND THAT'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD WANT JOSH TO ADDRESS IN THIS THAT YOU NOTICED WHEN YOU WERE REVIEWING IT? NO, WAIT TILL THE DECISION.I THINK YOU'RE GOOD. SOUNDS GOOD. SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE ON THE 19TH. WELL, YOU'RE NOT LEAVING US TONIGHT, BUT. YEAH. NOPE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. OVER THERE. OVER THERE. SOMEBODY. SCULPTURE. IT'S LIKE A RUBBING. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. IS IT BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE LIGHTS? MAYBE THEY'RE HEARING A BEEPING IN THE WALL? YEAH, I HEAR IT.
IT WAS. THINKING A SECOND TIME I WAS JUST READING THE STUDY. WHERE DOES IT COME? IN THE DOOR OVER THERE. THAT'S A WORKSHOP BEHIND THAT DOOR? NO, I DON'T KNOW IN THAT WAY. ROUGHLY THAT DIRECTION. YOU GUYS HEAR A BEEPING UP THERE? YES. COMING FROM OVER THERE. YEAH. I DON'T HEAR IT RIGHT NOW EITHER. DID YOU BRING YOUR BEEPER WITH YOU TONIGHT OR. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY? THIS IS HE. HE'S IN THE WRONG PLACE. COULD THAT BE CAUSING IT? THE MICROPHONE, I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NO, IT'S NOT ALL RIGHT. WELL, HAVING SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO CALL THE. LET ME JUST GET SET UP HERE BEFORE I CALL ANYTHING. OKAY. I NOW WILL CALL THE NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE OF 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. NOW I HEAR IT, NOW I HEAR IT, I HEAR IT. JOSH IS ON THE HUNT. I'M HERE NOW, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. SO SORRY. GOOD MEMBERS. TOMORROW, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? SURE THING. WILLIAM CLARK HERE. CAITLIN SHIMURA HERE. KIM RYAN HERE. AUGIE GERACI HERE. CINDY GRONINGEN HERE. CAITLIN MCCORMICK. PRESENT. BRIAN STEWART HERE. AND THIS EVENING FOR ATTORNEY GOGAN IS IS ABSENT. AND WE HAVE ATTORNEY KEN FARRELL WITH US FROM THE TOWN.
[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., RMV Holdings LLC – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal to construct six (6) contractor shop buildings on a parcel of land previously subdivided at 4021 Jeffrey Blvd]
SO HAVING SAID THAT, WE HAVE OUR FIRST MEETING, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR RMV HOLDINGS REQUESTING A SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A SIX CONTRACTOR SHOP BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED AT 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? SO TONIGHT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO TO BRING FORWARD? THANK YOU. HERE WITH I'M KEVIN CURRY AND HERE WITH ME IS ONE OF THE OWNERS MATT[00:30:06]
GREGORY DOUG FROM CARMINA WOOD. ADDITIONAL OWNERS ARE ALSO IN ATTENDANCE. WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOU ENTERTAINING OUR REQUESTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. IT'S BEEN A BIT OF A LONG PROCESS, BUT WE'RE GLAD TO BE HERE THIS EVENING FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL TRY TO KEEP OUR PRESENTATION SHORT AND THEN HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS THAT THAT YOU MAY WISH TO OFFER. WHAT WE HAVE TONIGHT IS A SUCCESS STORY. WE'VE GOT A INDUSTRIAL PARK THAT WAS DEVELOPED FOR THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE. AND IT'S IT'S AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND HAS BEEN NOTED. IT'S FILLING UP. AND THEN WE HAVE A COMPANY THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THAT PROCESS AND IS INVESTING NOT ONLY IN THEIR COMPANY, BUT ALSO TO HELP OTHER COMPANIES GROW.WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS, THREE WEEKS AGO, ACTUALLY, YOU ASKED TO SEE A FEW ITEMS, AND SOMETIMES WE'RE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ASK FOR. RARELY ARE WE ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL THE THINGS THAT THAT YOU ASK. AND WE CERTAINLY DID OUR BEST TO DO THAT. AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT THAT WE DID ADDRESS EVERYTHING.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE STILL OPEN TO COMMENTS. WHAT WE DID DO WAS WE PRESENTED ELEVATIONS. AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE IN SOME OF THE SLIDES AS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. YOU ASKED IF WE COULD DO THE DEVELOPMENT TO COMPACT IT A LITTLE BIT, TO ALLOW A LITTLE MORE GREEN SPACE TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND WE DID THAT. YOU ALSO ASKED IF WE COULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, AND NOT ONLY DID WE DO THAT, WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS. WE ALSO REDUCED THE NUMBER OF UNITS. YOU ALSO ASKED IF WE COULD PROVIDE A BEEFIER SCREENING, MORE ROBUST SCREENING AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT IN TWO WAYS. ONE, I BELIEVE WE PROVIDED SOME PHOTOS TO INDICATE WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITION IS, WHERE THERE IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL EXISTING SCREEN THERE. THAT'S ALSO ELEVATED. SO IT'S IT'S MORE BENEFICIAL THAN IF IT WEREN'T ELEVATED. AND IT'S PRETTY ROBUST. ADDITIONALLY, WE AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, WE ADDED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE POND AND THE EXISTING SCREENING. WE WOULD NOT BE TOUCHING ANYTHING IN THAT AREA OF EXISTING SCREENING. WE WOULD ONLY BE ADDING TO IT. SO IN SUMMARY, THOSE ARE THE THINGS I THINK THAT WE WERE ASKED TO ADDRESS AND WE WORKED TO DO THAT, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS WE'VE PROVIDED. THIS COLORED RENDERING. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR THE BETTER PART OF THE YEAR. AND DUE TO SEASONALITY AND WHATNOT, WE'RE HOPING TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION BASICALLY IMMEDIATELY AND NOT ONLY ALLOW FOR EXPANSION OF THIS COMPANY, BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR EXPANSION OF OTHER COMPANIES IN THE TOWN.
HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS NOW. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO. MEMBER SHIMURA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE NOTICE? SURE. LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT SIX CONTRACTOR SHOP BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED AT 421 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN A, SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. THANK YOU. A PUBLIC HEARING IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SHARE INFORMATION ON HOW THEY ARE IMPACTED BY A PROJECT. A THREE MINUTE RULE WILL APPLY. IT IS A QUESTION. IT IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. ALL STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AS WELL AS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS PROJECT, ARE GIVEN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE APPLICANT AND FOR REVIEW. SO AT THIS TIME, I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUR HOLDINGS, LLC. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS PROJECT? PLEASE STEP FORWARD. I'M GONNA TURN. SURE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO
[00:35:15]
SPEAK INTO THE MIC, PLEASE. AND NAME YOUR. INDICATE YOUR NAME. SPELL YOUR LAST NAME. HI. MY NAME IS JOE MERLINO. M E R L I N O. I LIVED IN THAT AREA MOST OF MY LIFE. I USE JEFFREY BOULEVARD A LOT AND JUST NOTICED THAT PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR WAS PRETTY RUNDOWN.A LOT OF DEADFALL TREES AND GARBAGE. PEOPLE WERE DUMPING STUFF THERE AND IT WOULD JUST BE NICE TO SEE IT TURNED INTO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS NICE AND WE CAN ACTUALLY USE AND IS A LITTLE MORE PRODUCTIVE. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KEVIN HOLLENBECK. I LIVE DOWN IN THE VILLAGE OF BLAISDELL. CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US, PLEASE? H L L O B I C K Y. THANK YOU. I USE THAT ROAD DAILY. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE NICE TO SEE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S NOT BEING DRAGGED OUT INTO THE ROAD LIKE EVERY OTHER THING DOWN. GOING DOWN TOWARDS BLAISDELL. NEW BLACKTOP, NEW EVERYTHING. COMMERCIAL SPACE. BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE BLOWING UP SMALL RENTALS EVERYWHERE, BUT NOTHING COMMERCIALIZED. SO THAT'D BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO GET BIGGER BUSINESSES IN THERE AND GO FROM THERE, THAT'S ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS CASE? SECOND, CALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AT RMB HOLDINGS AT 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR RMB HOLDINGS. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. JOSH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AT THIS POINT? SURE. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I'LL ADD IS AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THIS BOARD DID AUTHORIZE US TO PRODUCE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS. YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, WE WILL HAVE TO AMEND IT, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY'VE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF BUILDINGS FROM 6 TO 4. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE ARE OUR STANDARD CONDITIONS. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO OBVIOUSLY THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THIS BOARD WANTS TO IMPOSE. OKAY. THANK. BOARD MEMBERS. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? I ASKED FOR THE LANDSCAPING.
THIS MEMBER MCCORMICK, I APPRECIATE THAT THEY MADE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS AT THAT ADDITIONAL SCREENING. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD WAS FOR CAMMY. AND IS THERE ADEQUATE ACCESS ON THE SITE PLAN FOR ANY MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER POND, OR DO YOU NEED ANYTHING TO TO ADDRESS THAT? SO MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT TO ACCESS THE POND. I BELIEVE YOU DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PATH, SO I WOULD SUGGEST LOSING JUST A SMALL SWATCH OF LANDSCAPING IN ORDER TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THAT POND FOR MAINTENANCE. OKAY, SO SOMETHING MAYBE ADJACENT TO THE DUMPSTER OR SOMETHING IN THE CENTRAL AREA SO THAT IT DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THE NEIGHBORS. BUT I WOULD MAKE REQUEST THAT CHANGE. KIMMY, CAN I ASK YOU SO OFF FROM THE PARKING LOT, THAT ROW OF TREES THERE. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO COME BACK UP, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MEMBER. CLARK. WHAT? WHAT DATE IS THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT YOU HAVE UP RIGHT NOW? 1030. SO THE. RESOLUTION NEEDS TO BE AMENDED, RIGHT? OKAY. YEAH. SO IN THE RESOLUTION WILL SAY I THINK THE SITE PLAN IS ALSO 1030 AS WELL. YEAH. YEAH. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. AND SO THERE ARE NO MORE THAN SIX CONTRACTOR SHOP BUILDINGS, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WITH QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. KAMI, DO YOU KNOW THE DATE OF YOUR ENGINEERING LETTER? IT'S ALSO 1030 OH. SOMEBODY WAS NOT GETTING READY FOR HALLOWEEN. EVIDENTLY. I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO ADD THE CONDITION THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO
[00:40:02]
THE FOR MAINTENANCE FOR THE POND. WELL. ISN'T THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN? SO IT NEEDS TO BE STATED THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN NEEDS TO BE AMENDED, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO SEE IT. NO, IT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHICH ISN'T THERE ALREADY, BUT IT'S A AND SHALL INCLUDE. ADEQUATE. ADEQUATE, ADEQUATE ACCESS. I MEAN, GRANTED, THAT'S A PART OF YOUR ENGINEERING REVIEW, ISN'T IT? IT IS NOT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE TYPICALLY ENGINEERING DOESN'T REVIEW LANDSCAPING. SO AS I'M LOOKING AT IT ON THE SCREEN, IS WHEN I REALIZE THAT THERE WAS STILL NOT ACCESS. SO IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. YES. OKAY. DOES THAT SUFFICE AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO THE STORMWATER POND? OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? BOARD MEMBERS? NO, NO. OKAY, SO I KNOW ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO JUMP ALL AT THE SAME TIME AND WANT TO READ THIS, BUT MAYBE DID YOU FIX IT IN THE TOP ONE TWO? YEAH. THANK YOU. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.I ALMOST FELL OFF THE CHAIR. OKAY. R&D HOLDINGS LLC, 3.13 ACRE PARCEL AT 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. CONTRACT SHOP, BUILDING SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 ONE SEEKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE RMV HOLDINGS LLC PROJECT INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR CONTRACTOR SHOP BUILDINGS, INCLUDING ON SITE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SITE LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING ON A 3.13 ACRE PARCEL ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFREY BOULEVARD, AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RAVENSWOOD NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. EIS, BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION AND INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED EIS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDING, AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN PART THREE OF THE SHORT FORM E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM S. E WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER SHIMURA. IS THAT THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION APPROVED. SECOND MOTION SITE PLAN APPROVAL. BASED ON THE REVIEW OF RMV HOLDINGS LLC. CONTRACTOR SHOP BUILDINGS, PROJECT MATERIALS, AND HAVING COMPLETED THE SEEKER PROCESS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY APPROVES THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED OCTOBER 30TH, 2025. SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED OCTOBER 30TH, 2025 SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. POND, POND, ALL PROPOSED LIGHTING ON THE PROJECT SHALL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR CONTRACTOR SHOP BUILDINGS BUILT AS DEPICTED. I AS DEPICTED ON THE OCTOBER 30TH, 2025 SITE PLAN. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER SHIMURA. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER GERACI? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? NONE OPPOSED. YOUR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN GRANTED. YOU'RE ALL SET. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO OUR NEXT CASE IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JOE COLON. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD EVENING.
[00:45:08]
MATT DUBOIS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. WELL, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL GOING ON THAT WE RECEIVED. I'M GOING TO WAIT FOR EVERYBODY TO WALK OUT SO WE CAN CUT DOWN ON THE NOISE. I EXPECTED THEM ALL TO BE HERE FOR I KNOW, I KNOW, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I SAID. DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY COULD COULD YOU CLOSE THAT DOOR BACK THERE? WOULD YOU MIND? THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THIS IS WE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING STILL OPEN ON THIS HAZELWOOD TERRACE AND LAKESHORE ROAD. WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS LETTERS. I'M HAPPY TO SAY THE RESIDENTS HEEDED OUR ADVICE AND WROTE TO US. AND WE HAD WE REVIEWED MANY OF THEM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THIS EVENING THAT HAS NOT WRITTEN, NOR PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO THIS BOARD THAT WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE PROJECT OR TO THE COMMENTS? THIS IS ANYONE THAT HAS NOT ALREADY SPOKEN OR WRITTEN A LETTER. SHE DID. DID YOU ALREADY SPEAK, MA'AM? I DID, I WANT TO TURN IN MORE PETITIONS THAT WERE SIGNED. I HAVE WELL OVER 100 MORE SIGNATURES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD I KNOW. I TURNED IN WARDS THE LAST MEETING AND I WAS GOING TO SPEAK AGAIN, BUT I WAS GOING TO TURN THIS IN, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES THAT HAS NOT SPOKEN OR SUBMITTED A LETTER TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M GOING TO TURN[2. Continuation of a Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Joe Colern – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of a 3-lot subdivision to be located at Hazelwood Terrace and Lake Shore Road]
IT OVER TO THE BOARD FIRST. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JOSH, BECAUSE THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT OCCURRED SINCE WE LAST MET. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WAS WE GOT A CALL, A COUPLE, A COUPLE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, ALONG WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THE APPLICANT CLEAR CUTTING. THIS IS WHAT WAS REPORTED TO US THAT THE APPLICANT HAD CLEAR CUT WAS CLEAR CUTTING THE THE PROPERTY. SO CODE ENFORCEMENT WENT OUT THERE. WE HAVE A LETTER FOR FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT READS AS FOLLOWS. THE TOWN OF HAMBURG BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID A SITE VISIT AT 6014 LAKESHORE ROAD ON OCTOBER 23RD. THERE WAS A CONTRACTOR THERE WITH A BRUSH CUTTER ON IT THAT WAS REMOVING OVERGROWN BRUSH. THIS MACHINE IS CAPABLE OF CUTTING BRUSH ONLY AND NOT TREES. ALL OF THE TREES WERE LEFT STANDING, INCLUDING SOME DEAD TREES. IT IS ALLOWABLE FOR THE DEAD TREES TO BE CUT AT THIS TIME. A DUMPSTER WAS DROPPED OFF AND WAS FILLED WITH DEBRIS. DEBRIS LEFT FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS THAT WAS MIXED IN WITH THE UNDERBRUSH. THE DEBRIS CONSISTED OF OLD TIRES, CAR PARTS, METAL AND PLASTIC DRUMS, ETC. THE TOPSOIL WAS NOT DISTURBED. I SPOKE TO THE CONTRACTOR AND I AND ALSO THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT WHERE WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS, AND WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I MADE A RETURN SITE VISIT ON OCTOBER 27TH, AND SAW THAT THE DUMPSTER AND EQUIPMENT HAD BEEN REMOVED AND THE PROPERTY CLEANED UP, AND THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MICHAEL VELLA. SO WITH THAT, NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MISTER ROGERS.JUST TO FURTHER EXPOUND UPON THIS PROJECT. IF YOU GUYS RECALL, LAST TIME THIS BOARD DID ASK FOR ME TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A DEEP DIVE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I DID TAKE IT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS OR ANY PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS IN THE FOLDERS FOR ALL THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, AND THEY'VE HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT. THERE WERE TWO PREVIOUSLY COMPLAINTS AND TWO PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS THAT PREDATED MISTER COLON, OR OWNING THE PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM A PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER. THERE WAS ONE COMPLAINT ABOUT STORAGE CONTAINERS. THAT VIOLATION WAS THEN CLEARED OUT. IT WAS ADDRESSED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT BACK IN 2017. THERE ALSO WAS A COMPLAINT FOR A VIOLATION OF DUMPING ON THE SITE ALSO BACK IN 2017, AND THAT WAS ALSO ADDRESSED AND CLEARED OUT BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO THERE'S NO ACTIVE VIOLATIONS OR ANY ACTIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. LIKE CHAIR GREINER SAID, WE DID RECEIVE 17 COMMENTS TO DATE IN WRITING AND OBVIOUSLY A LOT MORE SIGNATURES ON THE PETITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS THROUGH THE REVIEW OF THE COMMENTS. A LOT OF THEM TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, A LOT OF TALK ABOUT SAFETY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, WILDLIFE CONCERNS, JUST FOR A MATTER OF CLARIFICATION, ONCE AGAIN, WHILE ALL THESE CONCERNS ARE THERE VALID IN TERMS OF JUST A ZONING ASPECT, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2. WHAT THAT MEANS IS WITH THIS PIECE
[00:50:05]
OF PROPERTY THAT CAN BE SPLIT INTO THREE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, TWO FRONTING ON HAZELWOOD, ONE FRONTING ON THE LAKESHORE, WHAT CAN BE BUILT OR WHAT IS ALLOWED ON EACH ONE OF THE LOTS, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, IS AT MOST A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX. I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT.APARTMENTS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON ANY ONE OF THE LOTS OR THE PROPERTY AT ALL. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON ANY OF THE LOTS OR ANYTHING INVOLVED. WHEN I SAY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, I MEAN STORES, ANYTHING RETAIL, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE BY THE ZONING, WHAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR. ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS OF THE WILDLIFE AND THE TRAFFIC, THOSE ARE ALL VALID CONCERNS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN GO ON THE THREE LOTS, THOSE ARE THE ONLY USES THAT ARE ALLOWED. OTHER THAN THAT, THE BOARD ALSO DID ASK FOR ME TO SEND THIS PROJECT. WHILE IT WASN'T AN OFFICIAL COORDINATOR REVIEW, YOU DID ASK ME TO SEND IT TO SHPO, THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, AND YOU DID ASK ME TO SEND IT TO DC TO DATE. AS YOU SEE IN YOUR FOLDERS, WE DO HAVE A LETTER OF NO EFFECT FROM SHPO, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THAT OFFICE DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC OR CULTURAL OR ARCHEOLOGICAL CONCERNS. TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL LETTER FROM DC BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, IT WASN'T A COORDINATOR REVIEW, BUT THEY STILL HAVE SOME TIME TO COMMENT ON IT. I WILL REACH OUT TO DC LATER THIS WEEK, JUST TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT THOSE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT THIS BOARD ASKED FOR ME TO DO. AND THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AS YOU SEE FIT. THAT WAS A LOT. JOSH AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONSTANT CONTACT BECAUSE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE. I AM GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD IN A MINUTE. I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO THANK THE RESIDENTS AND ENCOURAGE ALL OF THEM TO CONTINUE WRITING TO BOARDS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE IS THAT EACH BOARD HAS. PARAMETERS ON WHAT WE CAN DO, SO WE'RE NOT THE TRAFFIC POLICE, WE'RE NOT. WE'RE THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH MEANS WE OVERSEE WHAT IS ZONED FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND WE DON'T MAKE THE LAWS. WE DON'T MAKE THE RULES AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS IF IT'S ZONED FOR IT. WE LOOK OVER THE PROJECT THAT IS PRESENTED TO US AND DO THE BEST WE CAN TO PROTECT NOT JUST THE RESIDENTS, BUT THE TOWN WHEN ANY NEW PROJECT COMES ABOUT. THE THING ABOUT THE LETTERS, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC.
THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE ONE HOUSE OR TWO, TWO RESIDENTS PER LOT, SO IT REALLY CAN'T BE A CONCERN. AND WE DID GET A LETTER FROM A RESIDENT WHO NO LONGER LIVES HERE BUT GREW UP IN THE AREA. AND SHE SHE WAS VERY SHE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT. AND THE REASON WHY SHE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT IS BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT WHEN SHE MOVED HERE, HER HOUSE TORE SOMEONE ELSE'S GREEN SPACE DOWN. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE WORD GREEN SPACE. AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS DRIVING HERE BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EMOTION IN THIS CASE.
AND IF EACH ONE OF YOU OWNED 20 ACRES AND YOU DECIDE BECAUSE YOU OWN IT, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR WHAT IT'S ZONED FOR. AND THAT'S WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE HERE IN FRONT OF US TO DO. SO IT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ZONE. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CODES. AND IN THE PAST, WHERE YOU GUYS LIVED AT ONE POINT, THIS LAURA SMITH WHO WROTE THE LETTER HAS GOT A VALID POINT. EVERYBODY BUILT THEIR HOME ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S GREEN SPACE AT ONE POINT. I WANT TO STRESS UPON EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT A HOWARD ROAD. THERE WAS A LOT OF LETTERS THAT COMPLAINED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON HOWARD ROAD. AND WHEN HOWARD ROAD GETS DONE, THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROJECT. IT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. IT WAS PROPERTY OWNED BY SOMEONE. THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND NOW THEY'RE BUILDING ON IT, AND THERE'S BUFFERS AND THERE'S GOING TO BE TREES AND THERE'S WETLANDS. AND THERE WAS A LONG, LONG PROCESS. AND IT CAME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. SO THESE MEMBERS SITTING AT THIS TABLE SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN GOING INTO EACH AND EVERY CASE. AND YOUR LETTERS WERE ALL REVIEWED. AND WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN OUR PARAMETERS AS A PLANNING BOARD. HAVING SAID THAT, I'M NOW GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. QUIET BOARD TONIGHT
[00:55:07]
MUST BE THE STORM. I GUESS I'M GOING TO KICK IT OFF ON ROUTE FIVE. DO YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE A CURB CUT FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY? DO YOU KNOW THAT THE CURB CUT IS GOING TO HAPPEN? YEAH, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN EXISTING CURB CUT, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE IF THERE'S NOT ALREADY ADDED ON THERE. SO THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS TO GET APPROVED.SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE CURB CUT WOULDN'T GET APPROVED? I GUESS YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE THAT SHOULD GET LOOKED AT BEFORE YOU GO FOR A THREE LOT SPLIT? I DON'T KNOW. I'M ASKING THIS MOSTLY AS A RESIDENT, BECAUSE WHEN I DROVE BY THERE ON ROUTE FIVE, ISN'T THERE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY OFF OF HERE? YEAH, THAT THAT DOES. OKAY. IT DOES LOOK LIKE ONE. YES. OKAY. IT'S I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CURB.
YEAH. I BELIEVE THERE IS A CURB CUT EXISTING ALSO D.O.T. POLICY AND I'M NOT A LAWYER. SO THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. BUT I BELIEVE D.O.T. POLICY IS IF THERE ISN'T ADEQUATE ACCESS ON A SIDE STREET, THEN A CURB CUT HAS TO GO ON TO THE STATE HIGHWAY. IF THERE IS NO OTHER ACCESS FROM A SIDE STREET, IF THERE'S NO SIDE STREET, IF THERE'S NO SIDE STREET. CORRECT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP. YEP. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. YOU ALSO HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS AND YOU GOT COPIES OF THE LETTERS ABOUT THE BUFFERING BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND. WELL, WE'RE NOT THERE YET, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN. I CAN'T GO DOWN THAT ROAD. YEAH. NO, OKAY. I DON'T WE WOULDN'T NOT GET A SITE PLAN CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE DONE BY BUILDING PERMITS FOR EACH. CORRECT. SO THE THIS PROJECT IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION. SO THIS BOARD WOULD BE APPROVING THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT I SHOWED OF CREATING THREE LOTS. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER THEN DEVELOPS EITHER ONE OF THE LOTS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR DUPLEX, THAT'S HANDLED RIGHT THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT DOES NOT NEED APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD, WE WOULDN'T SEE IT AGAIN. THANK YOU. ENTERING A LANE THAT I SHOULDN'T BE IN.
OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS. NOTHING. OKAY. CHAIR, I, I THINK JOSH INDICATED THIS EARLIER IN HIS REMARKS, BUT JUST CLARIFYING FOR THE RECORD THAT EACH OF THESE THREE LOTS MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND IS A BUILDABLE LOT FOR THE R-2 ZONE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES OR ADJUSTMENTS TO BE DEVELOPABLE. CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S WE SHOWED THIS BEFORE IT EVEN HIT THE DESK OF THE PLANNING BOARD. WE GET EVERY PROJECT REVIEWED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT TO SEE IF IT NEEDS VARIANCES. THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T NEED A VARIANCE. THEY'RE NOT BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD. SO IT DOES MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WELL THE BOARD'S PRETTY QUIET. SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE. SO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN TABLE THE PROJECT TO A FUTURE MEETING. WE NEED TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION. AND WE ALSO IF THIS BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE, WE CAN PROCEED WITH DRAFT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER THOUGHTS, OBVIOUSLY, ON THAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION, IF YOU DO AUTHORIZE IT, WE CAN PUT CONDITIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY, THAT THIS BOARD DEEMS APPROPRIATE. BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION AND POTENTIALLY AN APPROVAL DECISION. JOSH, DIDN'T WE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS? SORRY. YEAH. BILL CLERK CAN WE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ALREADY? WE DID BEFORE, BUT WE WANTED TO GIVE MORE. WE WANTED TO GIVE ANOTHER CHANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK. WE ALSO NOW HAVE ALL OF THESE. RIGHT. YEAH. WE ALSO NOW HAVE THESE 100 MORE SIGNATURES THAT I WILL SCAN AND HAVE THE BOARD REVIEW SO THAT YOU CAN ALSO REVIEW THIS, THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, AND THEN WE CAN TABLE IT AND MAKE A DECISION AT A FUTURE MEETING, I THINK. MEMBER CLERK I THINK WE'RE ALSO WAITING BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR COMMENTS FROM THE DC TO RECEIVE THOSE COMMENTS. AND THEN WE WOULD NEED A THIS WAS ALMOST I DON'T RECALL IF WE HAD THE SHORT OR THE LONG FORM. WE HAVE A WE HAVE A SHORT FORM, SHORT FORM. SO WE WOULD NEED A PART TWO, PART TWO AND PART THREE FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS WELL. BUT DIDN'T JOSH JUST SAY WE COULD AUTHORIZE HIM TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS? BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THEM, SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE'D ASK THEM TO DO IT AGAIN. BECAUSE IF WE MAKE CHANGES TO IT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY WE'D AUTHORIZE HIM TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE PREVIOUSLY DID. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. I AUTHORIZED IT PREVIOUSLY. YOU DID? OKAY, I GOT A COPY OF IT.
NOW I'M OKAY. SO WHERE WHERE WE HAVE TO DO SEEKER. WE HAVE TO MAKE A SEEKER DETERMINATION, FIRST OF ALL. CORRECT. SO WHAT WE DO IS WE WOULD TABLE IT TO A FUTURE MEETING, WHETHER IT'S NOVEMBER 19TH OR BEYOND. I WOULD PRODUCE A PART TWO AND PART THREE FOR THIS BOARD'S
[01:00:02]
REVIEW, THE DRAFT APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS. I'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THEM, SEE IF THEY'RE WORTH NEEDED. UPDATE. IF NOT, I'LL PUT THEM IN THE FOLDER AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS AT THAT FUTURE MEETING. OKAY? OKAY. IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT TO THAT? I AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. OKAY I AGREE EVERYBODY'S SHAKING THEIR HEADS. SO AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY TALKING. SO I IT WAS A LATE NIGHT LAST NIGHT. ARE WE TABLING IT TO THE NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING OR A FUTURE MEETING. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TELL ME HOW MANY CASES WE HAVE IN THE 19TH, BECAUSE I'M AFRAID THE WAY YOU'RE LOOKING, I'M AFRAID TO ASK WHAT WE GOT ON THE 19TH. ON NOVEMBER 19TH? THERE ARE. SO I DID ANTICIPATE BUILDING THIS PROJECT IN. BUT RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT TABLING ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE, THERE ARE A COUPLE ON THE WORK SESSION. THERE'S CONFIRMED ON THE WORK SESSION. ONE, CAMI AND I ARE TALKING WITH AN APPLICANT WHO SUBMITTED MATERIALS, BUT WE HAVE TO SEE IF HE WANTS TO BE ON THE 19TH.AND THEN FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS WE'VE TABLED. THREE OTHER PROJECTS. SO THIS WOULD BE THE SEVENTH FOR NOVEMBER 19TH, BUT I'VE ALREADY BUILT IT IN. SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN WE CAN ADD THIS ONE AS THE SEVENTH. BUT I'M I'M CAPPING THE AGENDA AFTER THIS OKAY OKAY. YEP. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 19TH OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT CASE IS WATER
[3. Water Valley Gardens LLC – Requesting Site Plan Approval for an amended proposal of a development at 6666 Gowanda State Road]
VALLEY GARDENS LLC. REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDED PROPOSAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AT 6666 GOWANDA STATE ROAD. THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD EVENING. HI. HOW ARE YOU? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU. I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE YOU WITH YOUR SWEATSHIRT. SORRY. I WAS GOING INCOGNITO TODAY. OH, OKAY. YEAH. IT'S A DAY FOR BEING INCOGNITO.OKAY, SO YOU GUYS WANT TO BRING US UP TO DATE? YEAH, SURE. SO THE LAST MEETING WE WERE HERE, I BELIEVE, WAS THE END OF OCTOBER. YOU GUYS DID APPROVE OUR SITE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL AND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. SIR, YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR NAME. SORRY. FOR THE RECORD, IT'S DAN BILL SMITH. SO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS REQUIRING US TO REMOVE THE NORTH DRIVEWAY. WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S REQUIREMENT AND HAVE NOW SUBMITTED UPDATED SITE PLAN APPROVAL, REMOVING THE DRIVEWAY AND ADDING THE BARRIER, WHICH WE'RE USING PLANTERS WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE STATE TO DO SO.
OKAY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS THIS BOARD RECALLS, WE DID APPROVE THIS PROJECT SOMETIME IN OCTOBER. WE DID HAVE A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT DID SAY IN THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IF DOT CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW TWO DRIVEWAYS, THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK FOR AN AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ONE DRIVEWAY. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THAT SITE PLAN. YOU WILL ALSO SEE IN THE FOLDER. THEY ALSO DID SLIGHTLY REVISE THE AAF JUST A LITTLE BIT, JUST TO REFLECT THAT THERE IS ONE DRIVEWAY. THIS AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NEED A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IF THIS BOARD DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS, YOU CAN AUTHORIZE ME TO PRODUCE A DRAFT AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FUTURE MEETING. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT I ALSO HAVE BUILT IN TO THE OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE SEVEN IF THIS BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD TO THIS? WITH THE CHANGE IN THE SITE PLAN FROM ENGINEERING, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THE REVISED SITE PLAN. THE ONLY REQUEST WE HAD IS SHOULD THEY GET APPROVAL THAT WE GET SOME GRADES, A PLAN WITH SOME GRADES AND SOME EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROLS, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DO YOU MIND PLAYING VANNA WHITE FOR A SECOND AND JUST WALK ME THROUGH THAT? SO THE DRIVEWAY IS THERE AND I SEE THE PLANTERS. I THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. YOU'VE GOT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THERE'S LIKE A GAP. THE GAP IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THAT'S THE SAME PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE SETBACK. THE SETBACK IS A LONG A LONG AND WIDE. SO YOUR OKAY SO YOUR DRIVEWAY HANG ON HANG ON. CAN YOU GRAB THE MIC IF YOU'RE GONNA. SO WE CAN GET THIS ON RECORD PLEASE. I'M SORRY. SO THE DARK DASHED LINE IS YOUR PROPERTY LINE IN THE PIECE BETWEEN THAT DARK DASHED LINE WHERE THE PLANTERS START ALONG IT AND THE ROAD IS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO THERE WOULD BE, LIKE, A CONCRETE OR AN ASPHALT APRON. IT'S JUST NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY THERE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. YES, YES. AND ALSO THEY CANNOT DO
[01:05:02]
THE IMPROVEMENTS. WITHOUT A MAJOR. DRIVEWAY. THIS PIECE. CORRECT. SO CORRECT. AND I AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER OF IF THAT IS THE STATE PROPERTY OR OUR PROPERTY. I KNOW THAT THIS COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING VARIANCE FOR THE PARKING, BEING THAT IT WAS TEN FEET OFF OF THE STATE LAND, THE STATE PROPERTY WHICH REQUIRED. SO I BELIEVE OUR PARKING SPOTS START AT THAT TEN FOOT LINE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT THERE. SO BUT YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING UNDER THAT LINE BASED ON THE STATE RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT WOULD BE EXISTING PAVED AREA. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT WHOLE FRONTAGE THERE HAS THAT PAVEMENT ACROSS THAT'S CURRENTLY PAVED CURRENTLY A SIDEWALK. OKAY. AND YOU WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THAT AS THE ACCESS POINT THAT. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THE CURRENT THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY. SO THE THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH DRIVEWAY RATHER IS THE ONE ON THE LEFT.THE NORTH DRIVEWAY IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WHICH YOU NO LONGER SEE THERE. THE LITTLE CIRCLES YOU SEE ARE THE PLANTERS, WHICH WE ARE PUTTING THE BARRIER UP SO PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER USE THAT DRIVEWAY THAT MIGHT JUST CRASH INTO THE PLANTERS INSTEAD. AND THEN WE'LL KEEP THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT IS CURRENTLY PAVED IS CURRENTLY A DRIVEWAY.
IT'S BEEN A DRIVEWAY FOR DECADES, AS WAS THE DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? DOES IT? DOES IT DO ANYTHING TO THE PARKING? INCREASE IT? DECREASE IT? DOES IT CHANGE ANYTHING? IT DECREASES THE PARKING SLIGHTLY. HOW MANY? SEVEN SPOTS? I BELIEVE IT DECREASES IT. SEVEN SPOTS. CORRECT. WE HAD A PARKING MEMO DONE AND WE HAD TWO ENGINEERING FIRMS. SO A PARKING MAN, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE, WHICH SHOWS THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF PARKING SPOTS, IS ADEQUATE FOR THE SPACE DONE BY KARINA. WOULD WE ALSO HAVE ENGINEERING DO THE SAME THING? SO THE PARKING SPACE IS ADEQUATE FOR WHAT WE'RE USING. AND WE ALSO HAVE THE CARRYOVER PARKING THAT'S ON LADY BIRD CURRENTLY, WHICH IS ANOTHER 22 SPOTS. AND THERE IS ALSO STREET PARKING ALONG STATE. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU CAN DRIVE OFF OF YOUR PROPERTY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT ONTO THE ROAD TO GET TO LADY BIRD. YOU CAN DRIVE THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY RIGHT ONTO LADY BIRD. CORRECT. YOU HAVE TO GO ON THE ROAD TO GO. YOU DO HAVE TO GO ON.
THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE. THERE IS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THOUGH BETWEEN. NO I KNOW RIGHT. WE JUST NOTICED THAT THERE IS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO BECAUSE OF THE SIDEWALK. OKAY, LADY BIRD, WALK OVER. THERE'S TWO SEPARATE SIDEWALKS.
YES, WE ADDED ONE WHICH IS ON THE SITE. PLAN THERE AND THERE'S AN EXISTING SIDEWALK.
OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO IF THERE'S NO FURTHER.
DISCUSSION, CAN'T READ EVERYBODY'S FACES TONIGHT. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR THE 19TH. AND YOU'RE SCHEDULING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 19TH AS WELL.
AND WE'RE GONNA SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 19TH AS WELL. AND DID YOU LET THE NEIGHBORS KNOW BECAUSE YOU HAD A PRETTY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORS? HAVE YOU BROUGHT THEM UP TO DATE? SO ALL THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP I HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT DID NOT SHOW UP, THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE HERE, I MET WHEN THEY WERE HERE, AND THEY WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT. THEY WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE. RIGHT NEXT DOOR, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES IS ACTUALLY A TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR, STEVE. SO HE LIVES IN BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES AND HE DID NOT SHOW UP TO TO. WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM AS WELL AS WE DO WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ALONG THE ONE ROAD. ONE IS A PRIOR PERSON THAT RAN LADY BIRD, ANOTHER IS THE PRIOR BARTENDER. I MEAN SORRY, THE PERSON THAT RAN WATER VALLEY IN THE OTHER ONE WAS A BARTENDER AT WATER VALLEY INN. AND THEN EVERY SINGLE PERSON I SEE ON SOUTH CREEK WHEN I'M THERE DOING WORK ALSO IS HOW GREAT IT LOOKS, AND THEY'RE ALL EXCITED FOR IT. ONE MAN YESTERDAY ACTUALLY WAS SAD I WASN'T GOING TO BE A BREWING COMPANY CAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE HEARD. I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE HEARD THAT FROM THOUGH. HERMAN, WHAT DID HE HEAR? HE HEARD IT WAS A BREWING COMPANY AND I SAID NO. AND HE WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED. HE WAS GOING FOR A RUN PASS. AND HIS NAME WAS HERMAN. SO. YEAH. YEAH. CHAIR MEMBER MCCORMICK. GIVEN THAT. SO THERE WERE 36 PARKING SPACES PREVIOUSLY, THE 34 PLUS THE TWO ON YOUR PARKING. I HAVE YOUR PARKING MEMO PULLED UP. OKAY. WE MAY WANT THEM TO JUST AMEND THIS PARKING REPORT WITH AN ADEQUACY BECAUSE THAT DOES DROP IT DOWN LIKE 20% THERE.
DROPPING THAT NUMBER PARKING SPACES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN UPDATED EVALUATION.
BECAUSE IT IS A PRETTY DECENT REDUCTION. WELL, I THINK YOU DID CARMINA WOODS AND YOUR OTHER. SO CARMINA WOULD RAN THE NUMBERS, WHICH WERE IN ONE OF THE MEMOS THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU. THERE'S BEEN SO MANY NOW, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. AFTER THE STATE SAID THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY, IT WAS BEFORE THE STATE. BUT THE MEMO SUGGESTS SAID THAT THE 26 SPOTS WAS SUFFICIENT, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE 26 SPOTS THERE NOW, WHICH WOULD PREVIOUSLY SET AT
[01:10:03]
26, WAS SUFFICIENT. IT WAS BASED ON THREE PEOPLE PER ONE CAR, PER THREE PEOPLE AT THE EVENT. SPACE WAS MAYBE FOUR CARS FOR THE RETAIL AND 1 OR 2 FOR THE AIRBNB. I CAN'T RECALL I ONLY SEEING THE NUMBER 36 IN THIS MEMO. SO WAS THAT THAT WAS THE PARKING MEMO THAT WAS DONE BY GROSSMAN. THAT WAS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS DONE BY CARMINA. WOULD HOW MANY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE OTHER ONE. SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS DONE BY GR. NO THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO. YEAH.SO PIZARRO WAS DONE. THE SARAH ONE WAS DONE WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
LET ME FIND THE OTHER ONE. HOLD ON. HOW COME I DON'T HAVE IT IN MY SHARED FOLDER? I DON'T I DON'T EITHER. I DON'T HAVE THAT ONE. IF YOU COULD RESUBMIT THAT FOR THE RECORD. THE CARMINA PARKING MEMO. NO, THE SECOND ONE. WE NEED THE SECOND ONE, NOT CARMINA. CARMINA WAS DONE BEFORE THE PARKING AND THEN HE HAD A SECOND ONE DONE. YEAH. SO I HAVE THE ONE THAT'S FROM GROSSMAN IS IN HERE. I DON'T HAVE THE OTHER ONE. I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR THE MEMO RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE SUBMITTED IT. I MEAN, YOU DON'T IF YOU COULD JUST RESUBMIT IT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, I DON'T THAT WOULD JUST BE HELPFUL FOR US TO REVIEW. SURE WE CAN. WE CAN DO THAT. AND JUST A REMINDER, WE DO HAVE THE SPOTS NEXT DOOR AS WELL. OH HERE IT IS. WE DO HAVE IT. MEMBER MCCORMICK. IT'S BURIED IN THE SHARED FOLDER. THAT'S PARKING. THE MEMO IS DATED. THERE'S A SECOND ONE. THIS IS SCHUMANN. SCHUMANN. BUT THEN THERE'S THE ONE THAT WAS DONE BY PIZARRO. SO GROSS. SCHUMANN IS THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THE ONE HE SAID. IT'S NOT IT. THERE'S A DIFFERENT ONE. THAT ONE SAYS 36.
SO? SO INITIALLY THERE WAS 36 SPOTS. AND THEN SOMEWHERE IN ONE OF THE MEMOS, CHRIS WOOD FROM CARMINA WOOD DID AN ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY SPOTS WERE REQUIRED. AND THAT IS REFLECTED ON THIS CURRENT PLAN. I JUST HAVE TO FIND EXACTLY WHERE THOSE NUMBERS IS. AND I KNOW IT WAS 26. IT WAS BASED ON IN THE EVENT SPACE. IT WAS THREE PEOPLE PER CAR, WHICH IS STANDARD PROCEDURE. THERE'S NO ACTUAL LAW ON THIS. BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS A TOTAL OF SO MANY PER SQUARE FEET IN THE ACTUAL RETAIL SPACE. AND THEN IT'S A TWO BEDROOM AIRBNB.
SO IT'S BASICALLY FIXED ON THAT. SO THE AMOUNT OF SPOTS THAT WE HAVE DOES MEET THAT STANDARD PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR, YOU KNOW, DESIGNING PARKING LOTS FOR FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. 26. IT'S DATED. IT'S THIS IS THE TRIP GENERATION REPORT. IT'S WITHIN THERE OKAY. WE DO HAVE WE DO HAVE BOTH MEMOS. WE'VE GOT THEM OKAY. PEAK IS 26 AND EVEN PM PEAK IS 26. SO IT WAS EVEN LESS THAN WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY. MY QUESTION ON THAT WOULD BE ABOUT.
SO THAT'S THE TRIPS GENERATED. SO IF YOU HAVE LIKE AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S THERE ALL DAY, THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE A TRIP DURING A BUNCH OF THOSE HOURS. BUT I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
OKAY. SO WE'RE SET FOR THE 19TH. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYBODY NEEDS FROM THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 19TH? ALL RIGHT THEN WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE ON THE 19TH, AND WE'LL DO THE SECOND REVISED PUBLIC HEARING AND HOPEFULLY HAVE YOU MOVING OUT. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M JUST GONNA SAY ONE LAST THING ON THE PARKING. JUST THERE'S NO EXTRA WAY TO ADD PARKING SPOTS. I MEAN, WE HAD TO REMOVE THE SPOTS BECAUSE OF THE STATE REQUIREMENT, BUT THIS IS A RESTRICTION THAT WAS IMPOSED ON US, NOT THAT WE SELF-CREATED. WE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. OKAY. DID WE APPROVE TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS? YES. OKAY. OUR
[4. Ted Czosnyka – Requesting a use variance for an adult-use cannabis retail dispensary at 3231 Lakeshore Road]
LAST CASE IS TED CZARNIAK ZENECA. I'M MURDERING THE LAST NAME TED. SEE REQUESTING A USE VARIANCE FOR AN ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARY AT 3231 LAKESHORE ROAD. I KNOW[01:15:05]
YOU'RE NOT TED, BECAUSE YOU LOOK AWFULLY FAMILIAR. I'M NOT TED. AND I ALSO CAN'T PRONOUNCE TED'S LAST NAME. BUT I AM CORY AUERBACH FROM THE LAW FIRM OF BERKSHIRE. DAMON, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. OKAY, SO TELL US WHY YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. COREY. TO BE CANDID, I THINK I AM HERE BASED UPON A MISREADING OF THE TOWN CODE. MY MY CLIENT HAS A USE VARIANCE APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, I WAS INFORMED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT WE NEEDED TO COME FOR A PRELIMINARY REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS ARTICLE 44 OF THE ZONING CODE, AND IN THE WHEN REQUIRED SECTION OF THE CODE, IT SAYS THAT A SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, AND FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION THEREFORE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. SO WE'VE NOT MADE A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. WHY HAVE WE NOT MADE A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION? BECAUSE AT THIS POINT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF OUR USE IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED AT THIS LOCATION. THERE IS A PROVISION IN SECTION TWO 8312 C OF THE CODE. IT SAYS IN CASES ANY ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD IS REQUIRED, THE SITE PLAN SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF A PRELIMINARY REVIEW. AGAIN, WE HAVE NO SITE PLAN. WE HAVE NO SITE PLAN. APPLICATION PENDING. I TRIED TO MAKE THIS POINT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THEY APPARENTLY ADDRESSED IT WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AND SO WE ARE HERE. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SITE PLAN DEVELOPED, NO SITE PLAN PENDING, NO APPLICATION SUBMITTED. I HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHY THIS PROVISION IS IN THE CODE, AND I'LL VERY QUICKLY TAKE YOU THROUGH THAT. IN SECTION 274 A OF THE NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT IS SUBMITTED AND THAT SITE PLAN REQUIRES AN AREA VARIANCE, YOU MAY PROCEED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITHOUT THE DENIAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. AND SO THIS PROVISION IS FOR THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THAT REQUIRES, FIRST, THAT YOU MAKE A PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD. IN ANY EVENT, THAT IS ALL VERY ACADEMIC, BECAUSE I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A PLACEHOLDER. IF, IN FACT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS THE USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADULT USE CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITY AT THIS LOCATION, WE WOULD SUBMIT A SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND WE WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AT THAT TIME, WHEREIN I WOULD DISCUSS WITH YOU THE FACT THAT OTHER THAN SOME MODEST FACADE IMPROVEMENTS AND MINOR STRUCTURAL NECESSARY TO MAKE SOME REPAIRS, THERE IS REALLY NO MODIFICATIONS AT ALL TO THIS UNDERUTILIZED BUILDING IN THE TOWN'S COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND IN ITS HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. I'VE ALSO GOT SEVERAL ARGUMENTS TO MAKE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WHY I BELIEVE THE USE IS PERMITTED WITHOUT A USE VARIANCE, BUT I WILL NOT BORE YOU WITH THAT AT TEN MINUTES TO EIGHT, BECAUSE THIS IS, IN FACT A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF A SITE PLAN THAT DOES NOT EXIST.WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? I'LL JUST ADD JUST TO CLARIFY, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY DID NOT TELL THE APPLICANT TO COME HERE. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID I DON'T I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL APPLICANTS TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD OR NOT. I DID TALK WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS TO THROW THEM UNDER THE BUS, BUT THEY'RE THE ONES WHO SAY WHETHER OR NOT AN APPLICANT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD PRIOR PRACTICE. AS THIS BOARD KNOWS, EVERY TIME WE'VE EVER HAD SOMEBODY DO A USE VARIANCE, WE'VE BROUGHT THEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR PLANNING BOARDS. COMMENTS JUST TO SEND TO THE ZBA. LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T DIVE DEEP INTO THE CODE BECAUSE I CAN'T INTERPRET THE CODE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID AND DIRECTED THE APPLICANT TO CONTACT ME TO PUT HIM ON THE AGENDA. AND THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE. HE'S GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD ANYWAYS, JUST HERE FOR IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, HE'LL PROCEED TO THE ZONING BOARD TOMORROW. ANYWAYS, I DID MISSPEAK. IT WAS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, NOT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. APOLOGY ACCEPTED. OKAY, SO THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE DO AND IT DOESN'T FOR ALL IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A SITE PLAN. WE ARE. WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A USE VARIANCE AND THAT WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN OUR OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. IF WE HAVE ANY, GO TO THE ZBA. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THIS CASE, GOING IN FRONT OF THE ZBA. AND YOU KNOW HOW TALKATIVE THEY'VE BEEN TONIGHT. SO I'M. CAN YOU CLARIFY EXACTLY WHERE THIS
[01:20:06]
LOCATION IS? THAT'S, IS THERE LIKE A BOTTLE RETURN. IS THAT THIS CORNER, THE BOTTLE RETURN.THIS IS THE BOTTLE RETURN PLACE. THIS IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE DARK PURPLE. THIS IS THE TOWN'S HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THERE'S SOME MAJOR. THERE'S SOME MAJOR CONTRADICTIONS IN THE ZONING CODE AND SOME OF WHICH ARE. WE'RE PRESENTED TO YOU EARLIER IN THIS MEETING WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE CODE, PROBABLY IN LIGHT OF THIS SPECIFIC CONTROVERSY. BUT IT'S INTERESTING. SO A MICROBUSINESS IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND A MICROBUSINESS IS DEFINED IN THE TOWN'S CANNABIS LAW, AND A MICROBUSINESS INCLUDES AN ESTABLISHMENT WHICH CULTIVATES, PROCESSES AND DISTRIBUTES OR SALES AT RETAIL. ANY CANNABIS PRODUCTS WHICH REQUIRES A LICENSE BY THE CANNABIS CONTROL BOARD, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THEY ACTUALLY POINTED IT OUT TO ME. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT IF MY CLIENT HAD A LICENSE FOR A MICROBUSINESS, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO GROW, PROCESS, DISTRIBUTE AND SELL AT RETAIL, WE WOULD BE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. WE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE M3 DISTRICT AS A MICROBUSINESS. BUT MY CLIENT HAS IS AN ADULT USE RETAIL LICENSE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S EXPRESSLY PERMITTED AS A MICROBUSINESS, WHICH IS RETAIL, WOULD BE ALLOWED HERE WITH THAT LICENSE. ALL WE'RE DOING IS RETAIL. WE'RE NOT DOING CULTIVATING, PROCESSING OR DISTRIBUTING. IF WE WERE, WE'D BE ALLOWED. SO IT'S KIND OF A CONTRADICTION. THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOING LESS THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED MAKES US NOT ALLOWED HERE. SO THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL PRESENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOMORROW. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE USE IS PERMITTED IN THE M3 DISTRICT AS AN EXTENSION OF C-2.
THAT'S WHY YOU'LL NOTE, IF YOU LOOK BACK IN YOUR MINUTES TODAY, THERE'S A MODIFICATION BEING MADE TO THE TOWN'S CANNABIS LAW, WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THE WORD ONLY INTO THE STATUTE. SO IT SAYS CANNABIS RETAIL DISPENSARIES ARE ONLY IT'S JUST ONE WORD THEY'RE ADDING IN THAT SENTENCE ONLY ALLOWED IN SITU RIGHT NOW. IT SAYS IT'S ALLOWED IN C-2. THE WAY YOUR LAW IS, IS THAT IT'S PROGRESSIVE. RIGHT. THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN C-2 ARE ALLOWED IN M1. THINGS ALLOWED IN M1 ARE ALLOWED IN M2. THINGS ALLOWED IN M2 ARE ALLOWED IN M3. SO WE'VE ARGUED YES, IT'S ALLOWED IN C-2 AND BY EXTENSION IT'S ALLOWED IN M3, WHICH MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? IF IT'S ALLOWED IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IT SHOULD CERTAINLY BE ALLOWED IN THE TOWN'S HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE? WE'VE GOT A BUILDING THAT NEEDS A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT ON A NICE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. WE'VE GOT A POTENTIAL LESSEE THAT WANTS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS BUILDING, BRING IN A BUSINESS THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE TAX REVENUE RIGHT IN THE TOWN'S HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS SCREENED APPROPRIATELY FROM THOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS LIKE CHURCHES OR SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE MODIFIED BY THE CANNABIS LAW. BUT THE CODE IS GETTING IN OUR WAY. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT'S A WIN WIN. WE'RE GOING TO BRING TAX REVENUE, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A NEW BUSINESS. WE'RE GOING TO FIX UP THE BUILDING. IT'S THE TOWN'S HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
THE CODE, IN MY OPINION, ALLOWS IT. HOPEFULLY THE ZONING BOARD WILL AGREE. BUT THAT'S IT.
ARGUMENT FOR TOMORROW, NOT FOR TODAY, LITERALLY FOR TOMORROW, BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD MEETING IS TOMORROW. AND THEN IF THE TOWN ZONING BOARD SEES FIT, WE WOULD THEN FILE A SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND THEN BE BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR YOUR REVIEW. ONE FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION QUESTION ON THIS. SO JUST OFF YOUR SCREEN IF YOU DON'T MIND. SCROLLING TO THE SOUTH IS WOODLAWN PARK, WHICH I BELIEVE RIGHT THERE TO THE RIGHT WHERE THE BASEBALL DIAMOND IS THE GREEN SPACE. WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY? AND WOODLAWN PARK WAS THE CLOSEST DISTANCE? I DON'T KNOW, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT HAS ALREADY ISSUED A LICENSE FOR THIS LOCATION, SO THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY OUTSIDE THE REQUIRED BUFFER AREAS FOR LICENSING, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE I THINK THAT UNDER THE PUBLIC USE FACILITY THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY QUALIFY. SO MY QUESTION WAS JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WOULD BE 500FT FROM THE IT'S MORE THAN 500FT, OR THAT IT IS WOULDN'T HAVE ISSUED A LICENSE. I HAD ANOTHER APPLICATION BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, BECAUSE ACTUALLY, THAT WAS BEFORE YOU GUYS. I THINK BECAUSE THE TOWN ZONING CODE HAS A DEFINITION IN IT THAT WAS REPLACED BY THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE AMENDING THE CODE THE WAY THEY ARE TO BRING YOUR LAW IN LINE WITH THE STATE LAW, LIKELY AS A RESULT OF THAT PRIOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT I RECEIVED FOR A DIFFERENT CLIENT. ANYONE ELSE? IF I JUST MAY SAY ONE OTHER
[01:25:06]
THING. SURE. I WANT TO EXTEND MY GRATITUDE TO JOSH AND TO JEFF, WHO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. IT'S BEEN AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE THAT INVOLVES STATUTORY, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION AND JUST WANTED TO SAY MY GRATITUDE TO THEM FOR ALL THEIR HELP. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A PROCESS BECAUSE I, I HEARD ABOUT IT IN CODE REVIEW, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY. I THINK IT SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S MY OPINION. HOW DOES EVERYBODY ELSE FEEL? YEAH, I AGREE, I AGREE. I THINK WE SHOULD WE'RE I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS. I THINK IT SHOULD JUST PLAY OUT AND GO TO THE ZBA AND I AND THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT TO. SO GOOD LUCK TOMORROW. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT. YOU TOO.THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT WE'RE HAVING THE TRAINING ON NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 12TH, IT'LL BE. YEAH. ANY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER, AND WE'VE INVITED CODE ENFORCEMENT, SO IT'LL BE A COMBINED EFFORT. IT'S GOING TO BE A RIGHT. AND THERE WILL BE CE CREDITS AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO ATTEND. AND ALSO DINNER WILL BE SERVED.
YEAH. IN HERE. YEAH, IT'S IN HERE. RIGHT. WE'RE NOT DOING IT. CORRECT. IT'S IN HERE. SEVEN, EIGHT, SEVEN B I'M SORRY. THEY JUST SWITCHED ME FROM A HARD NO TO A MAYBE. IF ANYONE WE'RE NOT TELLING YOU STILL NEEDS HOURS. THERE'S ALSO ONE THE FRIDAY AFTER THAT DURING BUSINESS HOURS IN EAST AURORA. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS. CORRECT. I CAN SEND THAT INFORMATION OVER TO BOARD MEMBERS WHO CAN ATTEND. OKAY, SO WE'LL BE BACK HERE NEXT WEEK. DINING AND DANCING AND LEARNING ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT PLANNING. YEP. AND CODE. AND WITH THAT I'M LOOKING FOR. WELL WE DO HAVE IT'S IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A WHILE AGO BUT IT'S MAY 7TH MINUTES. THEY WERE IN THE EMAIL FOR MAY 7TH. ALSO AN UPDATE WITH THE MINUTES. THE TOWN HAS COME UP WITH SOME HELP.
SO THERE WILL BE A TON OF MINUTES OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS FOR THIS BOARD TO REVIEW, BUT WE ARE ALMOST CLOSE TO BEING UP TO UP TO DATE. BUT WE DO HAVE MAY 7TH FOR TODAY, AND THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE. JOSH, JOSH AND I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO REVIEW IT. DID EVERYBODY REVIEW THE MINUTES? I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW TO LOOK FOR THEM. OH, WE WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN IGNORE THEM. BUT I CAN'T VOTE ON THEM BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE. WE CAN. WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN LOOP THEM IN WITH THERE WILL BE OTHER MINUTES COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE. WE CAN JUST LOOP THEM IN WITH THAT. WOULD YOU CAN YOU DO US A FAVOR? YEAH. CAN YOU? INSTEAD OF PUTTING THEM IN THE EMAIL I'LL SEND A SEPARATE EMAIL. YEAH.
EITHER A SEPARATE EMAIL OR PUT THEM IN THE SHARE FOLDER UNDER MINUTES. YEAH. THEY SHOULD BE IN THERE AS WELL. OH OKAY. YEP. OKAY. ALRIGHT I'M LOOKING FOR A FINAL BECAUSE CAMMIE'S GOING TO LEAVE US. I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ALRIGHT. SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.