Dec 17, 2025 12-17-2025 PB Meeting

[WORK SESSION]

[00:00:02]

YOU. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. IT'S A LITTLE AFTER 630. I'LL CALL THE WORK SESSION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD'S LAST MEETING OF 2025. OUR FIRST CASE IS BRANDON SANTA. IS HE HERE? MR. SANTA IS REQUESTING A SKETCH PLAN. DIRECTION FOR PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF I USE THIS MONEY TO CONSTRUCT A SIX SHOP WAREHOUSE BUILDING ALONG THE OTHER, ALONG WITH OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. TO BE LOCATED ON A 7.46 ACRE PARCEL AT ZERO LAKESHORE ROAD. AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO FILL US IN WITH MORE INFORMATION? YES. SO YOU MAY START. YES. GOOD EVENING. WHAT DO I NEED TO. AM I ON YOUR HONOR? YES. GOOD EVENING. CHAIRPERSON. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, SHAWN HOPKINS, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, BRANDON SANTA. ALSO WITH ME IS ANTHONY PANDOLFI, THE PROJECT ENGINEER FROM CARMINA WOOD DESIGN. AS YOU RECALL, WE WERE HERE A MONTH AGO IN CONNECTION WITH AN INITIAL PRESENTATION OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED ON THE INPUT WE RECEIVED, WE'VE GONE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE UPDATED PLAN. SO I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE. SO DURING THAT MEETING THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS TWO PARCELS OR ONE PARCEL. WE HAVE CONFIRMED INDEED IT IS TWO PARCELS. THE EXISTING HOME IS ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE IT CONFIGURED THAT WAY. IT'S BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. AND THEN WE WILL BE GRANTING A 30 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY SHOWN ON THE PLAN. NUMBER TWO, CONCERNS WERE RAISED ABOUT PROXIMITY TO BUILDINGS TO RUSH CREEK AS IT BISECTS THE PROJECT SITE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE. BASED ON THAT, WE'VE MODIFIED THE BUILDING LOCATIONS SO THERE'S NO LONGER ANY BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN 100FT OF THAT CREEK CORRIDOR. SO WE'VE DONE THAT AS WELL. AND THEN IN TERMS OF FIRE CODE, WE'VE BASICALLY MODIFIED THE BUILDINGS. SO THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED WILL BE 21,000FT■!S. AND WE HAVE CONFIRD IN WRITING, BASED ON THE LACK OF SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE SITE, THE BUILDINGS WILL NEED TO BE SPRINKLERED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF APPENDIX D OF THE NEW YORK STATE FIRE CODE. WE'VE ADDED SOME OUTDOOR OPEN STORAGE AREAS FOR MATERIALS WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY, THE ADDITIONAL CHANGE WE'VE MADE IS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE MR. SANTOS ALREADY OBTAINED A PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A TEN FOOT TALL FENCE ALONG THAT PORTION OF THE SITE THAT WILL BE INSTALLED. THE MATERIALS HAVE NOW BEEN PURCHASED, AND WHILE HE'LL BE COMPLETING THE WORK HIMSELF, THAT WILL PROCEED IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THAT WILL PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT SCREEN ON THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. OTHER THAN THAT, WE THINK WE'VE MADE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES BASED ON THE INPUT THAT'S RECEIVED. SO WE'RE HOPING WE CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT STEP, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD BE THE ACTUAL FILING OF A SITE PLAN APPLICATION. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO NOTE, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDINGS HAS BEEN REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 2000FT■!S. AND IF YOU LOOK AT TE ACTUAL LAYOUT ITSELF, THE BUILDINGS, AS WELL AS WHERE THEY'RE ALIGNED AND WHERE THE PARKING AREAS ARE, WE THINK IT'S A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT. SO WE DID LISTEN TO THE INPUT RECEIVED. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TREE REMOVAL AND ATTACHED TO MR. AL-FAYED'S LETTER, WHICH IS IF YOU HAVE ATTACHED IS A LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONFIRMING THAT EVERYTHING IS IN COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF WORK THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE PREVIOUSLY. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. WE WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU HAVE. OF COURSE.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WHAT I'LL WHAT I WILL ADD IS I'LL QUICKLY JUST SHOW. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WETLANDS AND IF THERE'S ANY WETLAND IMPACTS ON THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY. THE CARMITA WOOD TEAM DID SHARE. THEY DO HAVE A DELINEATION THAT'S BEEN PREPARED. LET ME JUST GO TO IT. SO JUST SO THAT EVERYONE CAN ORIENT THEMSELVES ON THE SCREEN, THE BLUE IS WHAT'S CONSIDERED THE 100 FOOT ADJACENT AREA WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR WETLANDS.

SO IT SMIDGEON OF IT IS ON THE PARCEL. IF YOU GUYS RECALL, THE PARCEL IN QUESTION OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOLLOWS THE CREEK HERE. SO YOU'LL SEE A SMALL PORTION OF THAT 100 FOOT BUFFER FROM WETLANDS THAT I BELIEVE ARE ON THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. A BIT OF THE 100 BUFFER DOES EXTEND INTO THE PROPERTY, BUT THE REST OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED A WETLAND. AND THIS HAS BEEN DELINEATED FROM. I FORGOT WHO DID IT, BUT. SO I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. JOSH, DON'T SIT DOWN YET. OKAY. AND THEN I ALSO WANTED TO JUST ADDRESS GOING BACK TO THE SITE PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CODE

[00:05:03]

IF THERE'S ANY BEEN CLEARING BEFORE. I'VE GIVEN YOU SOME DOCUMENTATION, NOT ONLY FROM THE CARMINA WOOD TEAM, BUT THERE ALSO WAS A COPY OF THAT MARCH 2024 COMPLAINT. SO THERE WERE COMPLAINTS AT A TIME ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DID DO SOME SITE INSPECTIONS. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, WHO NO LONGER IS WITH THE TOWN BUT AT THE TIME DID CLEAR OUT THAT VIOLATION AND DID SAY THAT MR. SANTA DID NOT CLEAR WITHOUT PROPER PERMITTING. SO THERE IS NO ACTIVE VIOLATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE ARE NO ACTIVE COMPLAINTS ON THIS PROPERTY. SO THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT THIS BOARD ASKED OF ME TO INVESTIGATE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND OUT. SO WITHOUT THAT, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY CONTINUE TO ASK OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE SITE ITSELF. I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THIS BOARD THAT FOR THE PARCEL THAT HAS THE FENCE ON IT THAT IS SEPARATE FROM ZERO LAKESHORE ROAD. SO NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT, BUT WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE PROJECT ON LAKESHORE ROAD, THIS PARCEL. SO THE PARCEL HERE AND JUST FOR NEIGHBORS AND FOR ANY RESIDENTS, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. ZERO LAKESHORE ROAD HAS ITS OWN SBO NUMBER. MR. SANTA OWNS 3401 LAKESHORE ROAD, WHICH HAS ITS OWN SBO NUMBER. THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES. THE WOODLAWN SEWER DISTRICT OWNS A STRIP OF LAND IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING ZERO LAKESHORE ROAD, AND THEN HE OWNS ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS FORMERLY OWNED BY R.P. OAK HILL THAT RUNS ALONG THE NEIGHBORS FOR NELSON AVENUE. SO I KNOW THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, WELL, HOW CAN HE HAVE A TEN FOOT FENCE? HE APPLIED FOR A FENCE BEFORE THAT FENCE WAS DENIED BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY IS M3, WHICH BORDERS R3 IN OUR CODE AND THE M3 DISTRICT, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PUT UP TO A TEN FOOT HEIGHT AND HEIGHT CHAIN LINK FENCE AS LONG AS IT'S A BUDDING IN OUR DISTRICT. AND BECAUSE HE OWNS THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS M3 AND IT'S ABUTTING IN OUR DISTRICT, HE IS ALLOWED TO PUT UP THAT TEN FOOT FENCE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO GO TO PLANNING. HE JUST NEEDED TO GO TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND GET A FENCE PERMIT, WHICH HE DID. I WAS THERE FOR THAT. SO THAT KIND OF CLEARS UP SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY HE GOT A FENCE. YOU KNOW, PERMIT WAS OUR VARIANCE FOR FENCE WAS DENIED BEFORE AND WHY HE'S ALLOWED TO DO A FENCE NOW.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S IN THE TOWN CODE. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT FOR THE RESIDENTS AND FOR ANYONE WHO HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. YEAH. AND THIS IS A SOMEWHAT STRANGE SITUATION. USUALLY SEWERS ARE LOCATED IN EASEMENTS. AS JOSH INDICATED, THE WOODLAWN SEWER ASSOCIATION OR SEWER THING ACTUALLY OWNS THAT NARROW STRIP. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? AT THIS TIME? THERE WERE NO ENGINEERING CONCERNS, OBVIOUSLY, THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT. WE'LL BE LOOKING AT DRAINAGE, STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WILL GO ALONG WITH THAT SHOULD THE PROJECT MOVE FORWARD. I THINK I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE WOODLAWN'S CONCERNS WERE JUST TO AS LONG AS THEY COULD STILL ACCESS THEIR SEWER LINE, AS WELL AS LIMITING CROSSING OF THE SEWER LINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THAT FENCE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW YOU KNOW HOW STRONG THAT SEWER LINE IS, AND THEY DID NOT WANT TO A LOT OF HEAVY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO CROSS IT TOO MUCH OR UNNECESSARILY SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LOOK FOR, IS THAT TO BE SURE THAT THAT IS NOT INTERRUPTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WE WILL COMPLY WITH THAT. MR. SANTA IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO THE WORK HIMSELF, SO IT'LL BE HE'LL BE UTILIZING RELATIVELY SMALL EQUIPMENT TO CONSTRUCT THAT FENCE. BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS. I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS CASE HAS HAD MORE CORRESPONDENCE IN A WORK SESSION THAN I THINK WE HAD. IN ALL SEVEN CASES, WE'VE HEARD FROM ALL THE NEIGHBORS, WE'VE HEARD FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. AND I AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DISMISSIVE, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE. AND IN THE PAST, WHEN WE'VE HAD SUCH A HEIGHTENED, HEIGHTENED AWARENESS FROM NEIGHBORS, ANGER, IN SOME CASES, FRUSTRATION, MISINFORMATION, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WE USUALLY RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS AND SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. NOW. THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. WE CAN'T MAKE

[00:10:02]

AND SO TAKE THAT WITH WHAT YOU WANT. BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND WHO HAS A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR VOICES. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO THAT. AND I WANT TO KNOW AS WE PROCEED, WE'D BE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO THAT. AS YOU KNOW, ANTHONY AND I HAVE BEEN HERE MANY TIMES. WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH RESIDENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN ON NUMEROUS PROJECTS. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO DOING THAT.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY, TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS TRUE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

WELL, OKAY, I'M NOT GOING TO GO ANY FURTHER ON THAT. BUT YES, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW. SO BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS I HAVE TWO MEMBER MCCORMICK. FIRST THING IS THEY'RE THEY'RE WORKING. WE'RE WE'RE THEY'RE COMING IN TOMORROW TO TOMORROW'S THE 17TH OR TOMORROW'S THE 18TH. THE MICROPHONES HAVE BEEN REPORTED.

THEY ARE WORKING. IT'S JUST THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT THEM UP TO YOUR MOUTH TO TALK SO THEY CAN HEAR THEM. BECAUSE I TALKED TO IT ALL WEEK. THANK YOU. MEMBER MCCORMICK. HERE. THE FIRST QUESTION IS IS THIS DEFINITELY TWO LOTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CREEK? BECAUSE IN THE TOWN GIS MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS PARCEL EXTENDS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. THERE'S A SEPARATE.

IT WAS GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, BRANDON. SANTA. THERE'S AN SBL NUMBER FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK, AND A SEPARATE SBL NUMBER FOR MY PARCEL. OKAY, BUT YOU DON'T OWN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. I DO NOT. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. THE SECOND COMMENT I HAVE IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE ON THIS PARCEL IS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON IT, AND IT'S SORT OF A GRANDFATHERED, NO FRONTAGE, ISLANDED LOT IN FIGURING OUT LONG TERM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE MR. SANTA WANTS TO DEVELOP THIS PARCEL, PUT SOMETHING IN THE. AT SOME POINT THESE TWO LOTS CAN BE TRANSFERRED AND SPLIT AND MANAGED SEPARATELY. AND MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS MANAGED WITH A PERMANENT ITEM, AND NOT JUST BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE HELD SEPARATELY. I THINK THAT THAT IS A CONCERN. AND HOW DO YOU LONG TERM MANAGE SOME OF THAT? PERMANENT ACCESS IS GOING TO BE A PRIORITY. HOW WE WOULD DO THAT IS BY RECORDING A PERMANENT EASEMENT, MEANING THERE'S NO INTENTION TO SELL THESE PROPERTIES SEPARATELY NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. BUT IF BY CHANCE THAT HAPPENED TO OCCUR, THAT EASEMENT WOULD BE IN PLACE AND WOULD ENSURE THE OWNER OF THE BACK PARCEL, THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE WOULD HAVE PERPETUAL LEGAL RIGHTS TO ACCESS. AND THAT'S NOT THAT'S RELATIVELY COMMON. AND AGAIN, THE SOLE REASON WE'RE NOT MERGING THE PARCELS IS BECAUSE MR. STANTON'S FAMILY LIVED THERE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT NON-CONFORMING STATUS.

THE THE LAST THING I'LL ECHO SOME OF WHAT THE CHAIR HAD SAID, THIS IS A BUDDING THIS IS WHILE POTENTIALLY A MUCH QUIETER THAN SOME OTHER USES COULD BE. WE'RE A BUDDING RESIDENTIAL HERE. I KNOW THERE'S A THOUGHT ABOUT PUTTING IN CHAIN LINK AND GOING QUICKLY. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WORKING TO COME UP WITH A VISUAL SCREENING. THAT IS ALSO WHAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE THERE AND ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT, IT LOOKS LIKE, AND MAYBE THERE, YOU KNOW, TEN FOOT CHAIN LINK IS A UNIQUE CHOICE. THINKING ABOUT A WOOD PRIVACY FENCE, THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES ADEQUATE SCREENING IN A WAY THAT IS ESTHETIC AND CONSIDERATE OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS INCORPORATING, BECAUSE OVER TIME IT WILL CONTINUE TO GROW SOME TYPE OF LANDSCAPING THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE FENCE, AS IT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. WORKING WITH SOMETHING SO THAT YOU ARE RECOGNIZING AND COGNIZANT AND RESPECTFUL OF OF YOUR IN THERE YOUR NEIGHBORS TO FIND A WAY TO TO BUFFER AND WORK THAT IN SO THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO BLEND IN AND BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND A AND A GOOD PART OF THE COMMUNITY AS PART OF THE OVERALL SITE DESIGN.

YEAH. AND WE'LL TAKE THOSE COMMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION. I DO WANT TO NOTE, AND I BELIEVE JOSH CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE TOWN REQUIRES FOR A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT YOU HAVE BLACK SLATS IN IT, SO IT WILL PROVIDE SCREENING. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD

[00:15:04]

YEAH. AGAIN I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT FENCE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE INSTALLED. IT'S ACTUALLY PURCHASED ORDERED AND READY TO GO. DOESN'T CHANGE THE THOUGHT OF THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. THE M-3 CODE ALSO DOES SPECIFICALLY MENTION CHAIN LINK FENCE SPECIFICALLY IN THE CODE.

OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW THE APPLICANT. AND ALSO I WANT TO JUST MAKE CLEAR ONCE AGAIN, THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN ADDRESS THAT. THAT FENCE IS ON A SEPARATE SBL NUMBER, WHICH IS NOT IN FRONT OF US. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS THREE ZERO LAKESHORE ROAD. OBVIOUSLY ON THAT PARCEL THERE CAN BE LANDSCAPING. OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS ARE ASKING ABOUT THE BUILDING LAYOUT AND ORIENTATION.

AND LIKE I SAID, THEY CAN OBVIOUSLY PUT, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER VISUAL SCREENING WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING TO GO. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR THAT THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE SBL NUMBERS. WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US FOR THIS WORK SESSION, WHICH ISN'T EVEN A FULL APPLICATION YET, IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PARCEL WHERE THESE SIX BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO GO. OKAY. THANKS, JOSH. YEAH, YEAH. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING, IN FRONT OF US ARE TWO PARCELS. THE HOUSE WHERE THE INSURED, WHERE THE INSURED, WHERE THE APPLICANT LIVES. MY STATE FARM IS COMING WITH ME TONIGHT. WHERE THE APPLICANT LIVES. AND THAT HOUSE IS CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING. CORRECT. THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS BEHIND IT IS WHERE THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DEVELOP A WAREHOUSE. FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. THERE'S A THIRD PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THIS BOARD OR PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD. IT IS NOT IN FRONT OF US. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION, IF YOU WILL, TO MAKE ANY STIPULATIONS ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. JUST SO WE I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ON THE RECORD. NOW, WE'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE BOARD MEMBER SHIMURA. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT BETWEEN THIS FENCE BEING SHOVED DOWN EVERYBODY'S THROATS, AS WELL AS THE TREE CLEARING BEING DONE ON AN UNINFORMED BASIS, IT DOES NOT SIT WELL WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THIS PROJECT IS BEING DEVELOPED, AND THAT I THINK THAT THERE IS GOING TO NEED TO BE A LOT MORE COGNIZANT DESIGN EFFORT IN THE WAY IN WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO LAY OUT THE REST OF THESE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS SOME ELOQUENCE TO THE WAY THAT THIS PROJECT GETS DEVELOPED. IT IS THAT FENCE IS REALLY NOT COOL THE WAY THAT IT WAS JUST RAILROADED. I'M IT'S REALLY UPSETTING BECAUSE THE PROJECT I KNOW WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT AS THE WHOLE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S A SEPARATE PARCEL AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT IT'S JUST ANOTHER AVENUE WHERE THIS PROJECT SEEMS TO BE SKIRTING WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED AS A WELL-INFORMED PROJECT. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST HAVING LANDSCAPING ADDED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS AND HAVING AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK FROM THE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THEN AS MEMBER MCCORMACK HAD INFORMED THAT ADD ADDITIONAL TYPE OF GROWTH OVER TIME THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO FILL IN AS WELL AS ALSO CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW EXACTLY THE ACCESS IS GOING TO HAPPEN OTHER THAN JUST AN EASEMENT FROM ROUTE FIVE? JOSH, CAN YOU ZOOM IN THERE? IF YOU WANT TO GO? SO I SEE I SEE THE END OF A VERY WIDE APPROACH AND SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS. YEAH. SO HERE'S LAKESHORE ROAD HERE. THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO 3401. THERE'S A BUILDING HERE. HOUSE OVER HERE. THE EASEMENT WILL RUN BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS 30FT WIDE. SO DIRECT ACCESS FROM LAKESHORE ROAD STRAIGHT BACK TO LAKESHORE ROAD. AND THAT WILL BE A PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT. SO IT CAN NEVER BE BUILT ON IT CAN NEVER BE TAKEN AWAY. IT'S A PERMANENT. AND SO THEN HOW ARE YOU THEN THERE'S NOTE OF PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS. HOW ARE THOSE BEING ROUTED? EVERYTHING WILL BE FROM EXISTING UTILITIES FROM LAKESHORE ROAD. AND SO THEN FROM YOUR SITE DESIGN WITH THE DRIVE LANES AND SO FORTH, YOU JUST HAVE A A VERY HARSH CORNER EDGE OF A GRAPHIC. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE INCORPORATED INTO CONNECTION? I'M NOT SURE WHAT

[00:20:02]

CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT'S ON. CORRECT. YEAH. SO JUST I'M GOING TO HELP OUT HERE. SHE'S ASKING HOW THAT'S GOING TO CONNECT TO THAT PAVEMENT IS WHAT SHE'S ASKING. STONE DRIVEWAY WILL BE PAVED. YEAH. GO AHEAD OKAY. BRENDAN WHO LIVES THERE IS GOING TO POINT.

CAN YOU GIVE HIM A MICROPHONE FOR THE MINUTES? SURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO SO FAR RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE EASEMENT COMING IN. THIS EDGE IS A STONE BORDER. AND THIS IS GOING TO SWING IN AND TIE INTO THIS. SO THIS WILL ALL BE PAVED I ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT TO PAVE THE WHOLE PARKING LOT. WE STARTED BUT IT STARTED SNOWING. AND THIS WILL ALL BE PAVED AND THEN BLEND INTO THIS. SO THIS IS THE EDGE. AND THEN THE BUILDING WILL ALSO WRAP DOWN, YOU KNOW FROM THE BUILDING HERE WILL WRAP DOWN INTO THIS. SO THIS WILL ALL BE PAVED FROM THE ROAD ALL THE WAY. AND WE ARE SHOWING THAT EASEMENT AREA WITH THE WIDTH OF 30FT SO IT CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY ACCESS VEHICLES. TWO VEHICLES WOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AT 30FT.

SO THIS IS 30FT HERE AS SOME ROADS ARE ONLY 25FT. SO WE GOT 30FT HERE. SO THAT WILL ALSO TIE INTO THIS. AND THEN THIS WILL BE A LARGER PARKING LOT FOR VEHICLES TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO THE GARAGES WITH TRAILERS AND WHATNOT. BRIAN, DO YOU WANT TO MENTION THE FENCE QUICK? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DID A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT. THAT FENCE THAT WE'RE INSTALLING, THE TEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH THE SLATS IS NOT MEANT TO BE VIEWED AS IN ANY WAY DISRESPECTFUL. BUT, BRENDA, GIVE US A QUICK OVERVIEW OF YOUR HOMEWORK YOU DID ON THAT.

THIS IS THE FENCE HERE THAT WOULD BE GOING DOWN. I DID COME TO A VARIANCE MEETING. AND ALSO I MET WITH JEFF AT THE TOWN. AND IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE EITHER AN EIGHT FOOT OR A TEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE. THERE'S IT IN THE CODE. IT SAYS 8 OR 10FT. I ADDED THE BLACK SLASH, WHICH WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO ADD THOSE SLATS, BUT IT DOES MAKE THE FENCE LOOK MORE APPEALING. AND, YOU KNOW, THEN IT KEEPS PRIVACY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. I DID INQUIRE ABOUT VINYL AND WOOD BECAUSE IT'S MUCH CHEAPER. THEY SAID ONLY BLACK CHAIN LINK IS ALLOWED, SO I WAS JUST GOING BY WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED OR THE CODE SAID WITH THE FENCE. AND JUST THE COST OF THAT FENCE ALONE IS $50,000. THAT'S NOT INSTALLATION, THAT'S JUST THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. SO I'M CHAIR HANG ON, HANG ON. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MEMBER MCCORMICK. AND BEFORE YOU GO ON, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THE AUDIENCE TO KIND OF CALM DOWN ON THE COMMENTS IN THE BACK. YOU'RE PICKED UP ON THE MICS, WE'VE GOT CAMERAS AROUND THE ROOM, AND I DON'T I WANT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, YOU CAN WRITE IT TO US. JUST LIKE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IN WRITING, THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING IF THIS PROGRAM, IF THIS APPLICANT MOVES FORWARD. BUT I DON'T WANT COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE WHILE EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO TO DISCUSS THE CASE. OKAY. THANK YOU, MEMBER MCCORMICK CHAIR. AND I'M GOING TO NEED JOSH TO CHIME IN HERE. I HAVE A A CONCERN THAT THIS FENCE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE'S DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING ON THIS OTHER PARCEL. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT THE FENCE, THE WORK ON THE DRIVEWAY THAT ARE ALL BEING DONE TO SUPPORT THIS USE OR BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USE, REGARDLESS OF THE PARCEL THEY'RE ON, ARE ALL PART OF THE SAME PROJECT. AND WE'LL NEED TO DO A SECRET ANALYSIS UNDER SEEKER. AND I AM CONCERNED THAT IF THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS AND PIECES THAT ARE COMING OUT THAT ARE IN RESPONSE TO BEING REQUIRED TO DO BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT, THAT THEY'VE BEEN SEGMENTED A LITTLE BIT OUT, AND THEN THAT CHANGES THE ABILITY FOR THIS BOARD TO RECOMMEND MITIGATIONS UNDER THE SECRET PROCESS. SO I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. THEY'RE PUTTING IN A FENCE BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED PRESUMABLY FOR THIS USE. OTHERWISE THERE'S NO FENCE THERE. IT WOULD JUST STAY THAT WAY. WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT THIS BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO HOLISTICALLY CONSIDER THE DEVELOPMENT THEY HAVE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY PARCELS IT IS. THAT IS ALL BEING DONE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME USE AND THE SAME DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING.

AND I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM BRENDA'S BEEN TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE, MEANING, HEY, LET'S GET THE FENCE UP FIRST SO THAT THAT ISSUE GOES AWAY. AND AGAIN, IT WAS AFTER DOING APPROPRIATE DUE DILIGENCE. SO MY MY CONCERN THOUGH IS THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY PART OF THIS PROJECT. AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT HOLISTICALLY IF THAT'S WHY IT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION, IF I KIND OF PIGGYBACK FROM MEMBER MCCORMACK THIS, THAT,

[00:25:07]

AND FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE, AS YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THE FENCE WAS 100% BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY IT HAS RELATION TO IT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE FENCE CAME IN FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT AND PLANNING STANDPOINT. HE CAME IN AND ASKED ABOUT A FENCE. WE LOOKED AT THE CODE OF WHAT IS ALLOWED, WHAT IT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES, AND THAT'S THE PERMIT THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT THEN THEN GAVE TO HIM. MEMBER MCCORMICK I THINK THE THE TWO PIECES ARE ONE.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BUT FOR TEST THAT HE WANTED THIS VARIANCE TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF THIS WORK. BUT THEN THE SECOND PIECE AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ATTORNEY GOGAN, IS THE BEGINNING OF THAT SENTENCE. UNDER FOUR STARTS WITH UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. AND UNDER THAT MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THERE MAY BE OTHERWISE PROVIDED, MAY PROVIDE US SOME OPTIONALITY FOR SOMETHING BESIDES A WIRE OR CHAIN LINK FENCE. AND HONESTLY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE WAS. BUT TYPICALLY, UNLESS PROVIDED, WOULD SAY UNLESS PROVIDED IN SECTION BLANK REFER TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD. SO THEY'RE RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS. SO BRANDON COULDN'T JUST SIMPLY IGNORE THAT AND SAY, I'M GOING TO PUT A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE. I MEAN, HE WOULDN'T BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. I MEAN, AND AGAIN, I, I WANT TO CAUTION EVERYBODY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT THIS HOW WIDE IS THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, HOW MANY 30FT. THERE'S 30FT. PIECE OF PROPERTY. REGARDLESS, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S TIED TO THIS TO THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. I THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. I DON'T AGREE. AND AGAIN, I'M SAYING THIS RESPECTFULLY. I DON'T THINK THAT THE APPLICANT WAS BEING PROACTIVE WITH ALL OF A SUDDEN HE BRINGS THIS TO US.

THEN HE GETS A BUNCH OF COMPLAINTS, AND NOW WE'RE PUTTING UP A FENCE ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY. HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY LAST YEAR. I DON'T KNOW WHY. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, HE SHOULD HAVE PUT THE FENCE UP WHEN HE BOUGHT IT. THEN IT WOULDN'T BE TIED TO THIS. BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE BACK TO THE PROJECT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, AND IF YOU COULD PUT THE SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US, PLEASE. AND I, I'M GOING TO ASK ATTORNEY GOGAN TO RESEARCH THIS.

IS THERE SOME SORT OF. YOU GUYS? IT'S ALL GOING ON A MIC WHEN YOU'RE TALKING. SO THIS THIS EASEMENT, IS THERE ANY KIND OF ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT THIS IN TERMS OF. LEGALITIES? THE REASON WHY I SAY THIS IS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO HURT THAT BACK PIECE OF PROPERTY. I MEAN, WHAT IF THEY WHAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THE APPLICANT SELLS THAT FRONT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEN THAT BACK PIECE IS LANDLOCKED? I MEAN, THEY SAY THE EASEMENTS FOREVER AND EVER BECAUSE IT SOLD SUBJECT PLEASE, IT WOULD BE SOLD SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT.

THAT WOULD BE A, A CONDITION OF OF TRANSFERRING TITLE. IF YOU LOOK AT A TITLE EXAM, THE

[00:30:02]

OKAY. SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT IT COULD BE. IT COULD HURT WHOEVER'S GOING TO OWN THAT BACK PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY WOULD BE PROTECTED. OKAY, MY NEXT QUESTION. THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE OTHERWISE LANDLOCKED. CORRECT. THERE'S NO OTHER ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. WELL, THAT'S MY OTHER QUESTION. THERE'S AN EASEMENT ROAD OFF OF MILE STRIP CONVENIENTLY GOING BACK THERE. AND IT'S NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT LITTLE. YEAH, WE CAN COMMENT ON THAT. OKAY.

THAT ROAD COMING IN BEAM ROAD I THINK IT IS. ARE YOU LOOKING TO THE ONE TO THE LEFT, TOP ON TOP WHERE IT SAYS MILE STRIP. AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT TO THE LEFT OF THE WORD MILE STRIP THAT BIG SWATCH. YES, I YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT IS A SEPARATELY PRIVATE OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY. I DID LOOK INTO THAT AND THAT IS PRIVATELY OWNED BY I THINK IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHOEVER OWNS THE LITTLE TRIANGLE PIECE THAT HAS NO HOUSE ON IT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE IT'S THE SAME OWNERSHIP. ALSO THE ROAD COMING IN. I TRIED TO LOOK INTO THAT, BUT NO MATTER WHAT I DO THERE, I HAVE TO CROSS WOODLAWN SEWER DISTRICT TO ACCESS FROM ANYWHERE OVER THERE. ALSO, I WOULDN'T WANT TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET INTO THIS PROPERTY. I, I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD. THAT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO COME OFF ROUTE FIVE THAN THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD INTO THE PROPERTY. I DID INQUIRE ABOUT EACH ONE OF THOSE ACCESS POINTS, AND IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE. OKAY. IT'S GOOD TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. CAN I COME BACK WHEN I GET A CHANCE TO THE FENCE ISSUE? BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE A BIG POINT OF, WELL, WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US, IF YOU DON'T MIND. AS FAR AS THE BUILDINGS, I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY SEE LESS FEWER BUILDINGS. AND I'LL TELL YOU THE REASON WHY THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME BUFFERING ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE SEWER PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WAY THIS IS SET UP, THAT THERE CAN BE ANY KIND OF TREES OR GREENERY OR BUFFERING. AND I THINK THAT IF THERE ARE FEWER BUILDINGS, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE. WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF WETLANDS ON THAT. ON THE OTHER SIDE, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU MOVED IT AWAY FROM RUSH CREEK AND HONORED THE BUFFER. I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE MOVE. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT LIKE WE'RE BEATING UP THE APPLICANT TONIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE GOAL IS. BUT. THIS CASE IS UNIQUE IN THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO IT. AND I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT ALL ANGLES, AND I FEEL THAT THERE'S TOO MUCH ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE, FOR THE KIND OF PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE, AND FOR THE STACK OF CORRESPONDENCE, ALL NEGATIVE, THAT WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN FROM THREE QUARTERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I'D LIKE TO SEE LESS BUILDINGS. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LANDSCAPE PLAN TO ECHO MEMBER MCCORMICK. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT 30FT PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH THE FENCE THIS BOARD DOESN'T HAVE. IT'S NOT IN OUR LANE. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

HOWEVER, WE CAN DO SOMETHING ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. AND I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME BUFFERING PLANNED, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE A LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH IT AND FEWER BUILDINGS. YEAH, WE WOULD. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WHEN WE DO A LANDSCAPE PLAN, SO THAT WOULD BE THERE. I DID ALSO PLAN TO USE THE 30 30 FOOT STRIP OF PROPERTY. WE WERE GOING TO INCLUDE LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE, DOWN THAT 30 FOOT STRIP OF PROPERTY. THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR LAST MEETING WITH CARMINA WOODS, SO THAT WE WERE GOING TO USE THAT AS THE LANDS. YEAH, THAT'S GOING TO BE A BUFFER IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO PUT LANDSCAPING ALONG THE CREEK. IF YOU CAN SEE THE BERMS ALONG THE CREEK THERE, THAT WILL ALL BE TREES. WE LOST A LOT OF PROPERTY WITH THE BUFFER OFF THE CREEK. AND TO DEVELOP A PIECE OF PROPERTY THIS SIZE WOULD NOT BE, I MEAN, THE COST TO DEVELOP A PIECE OF PROPERTY COMPARED TO THE BUILDINGS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO RENT OUT ENOUGH SPACE TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE. IF I DON'T BUILD THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES OF LAND WITH THAT MUCH BLACKTOP, ETC. UTILITIES HAVE TO BE RAN FROM ROUTE FIVE BACK. THIS ISN'T A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY CLOSE TO THE ROADWAY. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS NEEDED AND VERY COSTLY. WELL,

[00:35:05]

THAT'S A BIG CONCERN. AND YOU START PUTTING THAT MUCH BLACKTOP AND THAT MANY BUILDINGS. I'M WONDERING HOW THAT'S GOING TO GET ADDRESSED. SO THAT'LL BE ADDRESSED, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN AN ACRE WILL HAVE TO IMPLEMENT A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE STRINGENT STORMWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY STANDARDS. AND ANTHONY WILL HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TOWN'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THAT THAT SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT. SO WHILE IT SOUNDS STRANGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RUSH CREEK WOULD ACTUALLY BE AN IMPROVEMENT COMPARED TO THE HISTORICAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE THERE IS NO DRAINAGE SYSTEM TODAY. ALSO, JUST TO MENTION, THE FLOODING RIGHT NOW WOULD BE THE WETTEST TIME OF THE YEAR. IT'S GOING TO BE 50 DEGREES TOMORROW. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME OUT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY FLOODING ON THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD BE THE WETTEST TIME TO TAKE A LOOK, AND I. I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME FLOODING DUE TO ICE DAMMING AT ONE TIME. BUT IF YOU COME OUT TOMORROW, YOU'LL. THIS WOULD BE THE WETTEST TIME TO LOOK AT IT.

AND THERE'S. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY FLOODING THERE WHATSOEVER. BOARD MEMBERS.

ANYBODY ELSE CHAIR THE THE OTHER THING I'D, I'D FLAG IS MEMBER MCCORMACK. THIS LANDSCAPING PLAN. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT US PUTTING BERMS IN ALONG THE CREEK. AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I WOULD HAVE IS THE GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE THE BANKS OF THE CREEK. AND SO WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS SOME SORT OF VEGETATION THAT IS MAINTAINED, NOT JUST GRASS, TO STABILIZE THAT, BECAUSE THE GOAL IS TO PREVENT WHEN THERE'S A MAJOR STORM EVENT, THINGS ARE MOVING THROUGH THERE TO GET SHEAR AND CUT OFF OF THE BANKS OR THE SUBSIDING. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN BERMS THAT ARE GOING TO FURTHER CHANGE THE GRADE AND FLOW. AND WE'VE SEEN SOME CASES WHERE BERMS HAVE BEEN OKAY, AND SOME WHERE THAT GRADING HAS PROVIDED PROBLEMS WITH VEGETATION SURVIVAL. SO MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE ADEQUATELY MANAGED AND DESIGNED. BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF A PLAN THAT'S NOT I DID MY YARD, IT'S THAT WE'RE MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE THE BANK AND OF THE CREEK THAT'S THERE PROVIDING FILTERING, PROVIDING WATER ABSORPTION. AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S THERE'S STORAGE YARDS COMING INTO THAT 100 FOOT NO, NO BUILD AREA. HOW DO WE BETTER MANAGE THIS. AND YOU KNOW THERE'S A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA. HOW DO WE MAKE THIS IN A WAY THAT IS GOING TO PROTECT THE THE BANK INTEGRITY ALONG RUSH CREEK THERE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SEGMENT OF THE CREEK AS IT CROSSES, IT'S PROBABLY ATYPICAL. IT'S A VERY STEEP PROBABLY HAS AN ELEVATION OF 15 OR 20FT. SO WE'RE SHOWING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ACTUALLY WILL NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE CREEK CORRIDOR. AND THE OTHER THING I WANT TO NOTE, THE ONLY WAY, BUT THE LACK OF VEGETATION AT THE TOP OF THE BANK WILL GRADUALLY CAUSE EROSION AND THINGS TO SWIPE DOWN. SO THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED. EVEN IF IT'S 15FT UP, THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF VEGETATION THAT'S ALLOWED TO NATURALLY GROW THERE SO THAT THINGS DON'T GENERALLY, OVER TIME, GRASS ISN'T TYPICALLY ENOUGH TO PROVIDE THAT FULL ROOT MASS TO STABILIZE THE THE AREA THERE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE ASK IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HIGH IT IS, BUT OVER TIME THAT'S GOING TO WEATHER, YOU KNOW, 200 MILLION YEARS. MAYBE IT'S THE GRAND CANYON, I DON'T KNOW. BUT LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROTECTING THAT AREA SO THAT IT'S MAINTAINED. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE THE REASON FOR THE BERMS. WE SPECIFICALLY PLACED THOSE BETWEEN THE CREEK AND THE MATERIAL STORAGE AREA SO THAT RUNOFF FROM THOSE MATERIALS STORAGE AREAS DOES NOT GO DIRECTLY TO THE CREEK. THE BERM WILL TRAP THAT STORMWATER AND WE WILL REDIRECT IT TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE BERMS. OTHERWISE THAT RUNOFF GOES RIGHT TO THE CREEK FROM THOSE MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS. ALSO, IF YOU AGAIN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME OUT TO THE PROPERTY, THOSE BANKS, I'D SAY 80% OF THOSE BANKS. THERE'S LARGE AMOUNTS OF TREES ON MY PROPERTY RUNNING DOWN ALL THE WAY FROM END TO END, EXCEPT FOR A SMALL PORTION. LIKE I SAID, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO VISIT THE PROPERTY AND TAKE A LOOK. BUT THERE'S IT'S COVERED IN TREES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BANK. AND OF COURSE, THOSE TREES WILL STAY. ANYTHING ELSE? IF WE'RE IF YOU'RE NOTING A 25 FOOT CONSERVATION AREA, WHY ARE WE PUTTING OPEN MATERIAL STORAGE YARD WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AREA? SO THERE'S TWO ASPECTS TO THIS. THE CODE ITSELF SAYS NO BUILDINGS CAN BE WITHIN 100FT. BUT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF PROTECTION NOT REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE, WE WOULD ALSO BE WILLING TO PUT A 25 FOOT

[00:40:04]

OKAY, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT CASE IS BRIA DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING. DO I HAVE THIS RIGHT? YES. BRIA DEVELOPER REQUESTING A PLANNING BOARD. BOARD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REZONING OF A 4.14 ACRE PARCEL FROM C1 TO C2 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALL SCALE TRAVELER CENTER ANCHORED BY 8700 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO INCLUDE SEVERAL QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANTS, ESTABLISHMENTS, SEPARATE FUEL PUMP STATIONS, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? IT'S ON. SORRY.

IT'S OKAY. WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND EXPAND WHILE YOU'RE HERE? SURE. MY NAME IS JAMES TALARICO. I'M THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BRIAD GROUP OF RETAIL. AND I'M SORRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRAID GROUP.

BRIDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC IS THE ENTITY THAT IS OUR DEVELOPMENT ARM. WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT FOR PARCEL 160 .1819.1. IT'S CURRENTLY A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND THE CORNER OF BIG TREE ROAD. WE HAVE. HAD A COUPLE MEETINGS WITH YOUR PROFESSIONALS IN REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY. WE'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP IT FOR A WHAT WE CONSIDER A MINI TRAVEL CENTER, WHICH IS A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS, ALONG WITH FOUR OTHER TENANTS THAT ARE QUICK SERVE RESTAURANTS. CURRENTLY, WE ARE PROPOSING A CIRCLE K CONVENIENCE STORE WITH CIRCLE K GAS, ALONG WITH A DUNKIN, JIMMY JOHN'S AND BUFFALO WILD WINGS GO ALONG WITH A FOURTH QSR THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET APPROVAL ON, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T DISCLOSE AT THIS TIME. BOTH OF TWO OF THE QSRS WILL HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH COMPONENT YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, PLAN NORTH, THERE'S TWO DRIVE THRUS THAT ARE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THE DRIVE THRU MENU BOARDS ARE, ALONG WITH THE SEVEN PUMP DISPENSER THAT'S AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT FACES SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. WE ARE CURRENTLY IN CONTACT WITH DOT IN REGARDS TO ACCESS OFF OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. WE'VE PROVIDED THEM TRAFFIC COUNTS ALONG WITH IT. TRIP GENERATION BASED UPON OUR DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PROPERTY, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO OVERDEVELOP THE PROPERTY. YOU'RE PERMITTED TO DO UP TO 75% OF COVERAGE. WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 40%, ACTUALLY 37.5% AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND BASED UPON OUR CONVERSATION WITH YOUR BOARD PROFESSIONALS AS WELL AS SOME OF BOARD MEMBERS, IT WAS SUGGESTED WE HAD EITHER TWO OPTIONS ONE TO GO WITH THE USE VARIANCE OR PROPOSE A ZONE CHANGE. WE WENT WITH THE ZONE CHANGE OPTION, WHICH WENT TO THE TOWN BOARD LAST WEEK. I THINK IT WAS, WHICH WAS PASSED OVER TO YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW. WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD APPROXIMATELY 40 OF THESE ALL OVER NEW YORK STATE. YOU WOULD BE OUR THIRD LOCATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME IF IT WERE TO COME TO FRUITION. I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU ALSO OUR RENDERINGS

[00:45:04]

I'VE ALSO MENTIONED, OBVIOUSLY THERE SHOULD BE SOME COMPONENT IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING. THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH IS BURKE PARKWAY. AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME CONSIDERATION OF WHAT THOSE BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE FOR THAT. AND THEN WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT ANYTIME YOU HEAR THE WORD GAS STATION, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A GAS STATION ACROSS THE STREET WITH THAT TOPS. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE ISN'T A GAS STATION IN THE AREA.

BUT ANYTIME YOU HEAR GAS STATION, OBVIOUSLY RESIDENTS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE LIKE. AND THEN ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT I THINK THIS BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER, BUT ALSO THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER IS THE PROJECT SYNERGY WITH THE BILL STADIUM. THIS ISN'T TOO FAR FROM WHERE THE BILL STADIUM IS GOING TO BE. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE A STADIUM THERE'S IMPACT AREA DISTRICT. GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT USES THAT COME WITH THAT STADIUM. SO ONE OF THE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WITH THE REZONING ARE WHAT ARE THE KIND OF USES THAT WE WANT, NOT ONLY IN THIS COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OF SOUTHWESTERN AND BIG TREE, BUT HOW IS THIS PROJECT? IF IT WERE TO GO FORWARD, HOW WOULD IT HAVE SYNERGY WITH THE BILL STADIUM? WILL IT HAVE SYNERGY WITH THE BILL STADIUM? SO THOSE ARE ALL THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED AT CODE REVIEW THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHEN REVIEWING THE PROJECT. LIKE I SAID, REMEMBER WE'RE A RECOMMENDATION. SO THE TOWN BOARD WILL HAVE FINAL APPROVAL. BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND YOUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR CONDITIONS GO A LONG WAY WHEN THEY CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY GO FORWARD. IN TERMS OF SEEKER. AS YOU KNOW, THE TOWN BOARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS PROJECT. WE DID SUBMIT A COORDINATED REVIEW ON DECEMBER 10TH THAT HAS GONE OUT. THE 30 DAYS ARE NOT UP YET. TO DATE, WE HAVE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM ERIE COUNTY, ERIE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, AND THE APPLICANT IS

[00:50:03]

PLANNING BOARD BOARD MEMBERS I HAVE A QUESTION. THAT MEMBER CLARK. WHY EXACTLY THIS LOCATION? WE HAVE SOME VACANT AREA AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGING OF THE THRUWAY OFF RAMPS THAT WOULDN'T NEED TO BE REZONED, AND I WOULD THINK WOULD DO A LOT MORE BUSINESS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS, AS WHY THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION FOR THIS PROJECT, WHEN IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME BETTER ONES AROUND? WELL, THAT'S A VALID QUESTION. REAL ESTATE IS COMPLICATED FROM A STANDPOINT OF TRYING TO GET JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE, A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND ON OUR COMPANY, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, EVERY BRAND THAT'S GOING TO EXIST WILL BE OPERATED BY OUR COMPANY. SO WE DEVELOP, BUILD AND OPERATE. SO IT'S CRITICAL WHEN WE GO OUT TO LOOK FOR SITES THAT WE CAN BUILD AND GET APPROVED THOSE BRANDS. SO WE SO WE'RE A FRANCHISEE. SO WE'RE FRANCHISEE OF DUNKIN. WE'RE FRANCHISEE OF OF JIMMY JOHN'S. WE'RE A FRANCHISEE OF BUFFALO WILD WINGS. GO. WE'RE A FRANCHISEE OF CIRCLE K. WE'RE A FRANCHISEE OF WENDY'S. IN ORDER TO GET REAL ESTATE APPROVAL, WE HAVE TO FIND A SITE THAT FITS ALL THOSE PUZZLE PIECES TO GET PUT TOGETHER. SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IN REGARDS TO WHY COULDN'T WE PICK ANOTHER REAL ESTATE LOCATION THAT MAY BE WITHIN THE ZONE, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. WE TRY TO DO THAT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, WITH OTHER COMPETITION, OTHER FRANCHISEES, IT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND CERTAIN SITES. SO AGAIN, WE WERE UNDER WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE GETTING OURSELVES INTO WHEN WE TOOK THIS SITE UNDER CONTRACT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE PURSUING IT IN THIS IN THIS LENS, VERSUS JUST COMING IN WITH A USE VARIANCE AND DESIGNING AN ENTIRE SITE. YOU KNOW, WE DO THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR THIS COUNTRY, FOR THIS FOR THIS COMPANY FOR OVER 20 YEARS. SO I DON'T LOOK AT A PROPERTY LIGHTLY AND JUST SAY, OH, WELL, WE'RE JUST WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET IT APPROVED. WE'RE HERE, WE WANT IT. WE WANT TO BE IN HAMBURG, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO BE WHERE THE TOWN WANTS US TO. SO BUT AT THE SAME TIME, LOOKING AT THAT CORRIDOR, THERE'S A LOT OF C-2 THAT'S ALL OVER. IT'S CHECKERBOARDED ALL OVER THAT, THAT, THAT AREA. SO IN REALITY, IT'S IT'S IT'S SIX OF ONE HALF DOZEN IN THE OTHER FROM FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IN MY OPINION, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM MY MANY YEARS OF DOING THIS. AND I THINK IT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS IN LINE WITH A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE RIGHT ON THAT CORRIDOR. ANYONE ELSE? REMEMBER MCCORMICK? THE ONLY FLAG I WOULD HAVE IS I HAVE A ESPECIALLY IN DAYS WHEN THERE'S STADIUM TRAFFIC. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE THRUS AND THIS DOUBLE STACKING AND ADEQUATE SPACE. IT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY DURING PEAK TRAFFIC, THERE'S THIS IS A CONFUSING LAYOUT FOR PEOPLE TO WORK THROUGH AND MERGE AND HAVE SAFE PEOPLE SAFELY WORKING THROUGH. AND THAT I, I DON'T THINK AT THOSE PRETTY. YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAPPEN THAT THERE'S ENOUGH STACKING SPACES. AND THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE CHICK FIL A, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE PEOPLE OUT IN THE LANES THERE. THEY THEY STAFF TO ACTIVELY MANAGE THAT. THAT IS THE EXCEPTION IN THE DRIVE THROUGH WORLD. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS HAS ENOUGH STACKING SPACE AND POTENTIALLY PARKING FOR PEOPLE WHO TRY TO AVOID THAT, TO MANAGE WHAT IS SEVERAL, YOU KNOW, A DOZEN AT A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, EVENTS AT THE STADIUM. AND I THINK MORE TO COME WITH

[00:55:06]

GOOD LUCK WITH D.O.T. YEAH, NO NUMBER. STUART, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MIMIC WHAT OUR OTHER FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS SAID ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY ON BILL SUNDAY. I'VE SEEN TRAFFIC THAT GRIDLOCKED FROM SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SOUTH PARK. IT'S MORE OF A DOT ISSUE THAT I WOULD HAVE THE CONCERN WITH, BUT IF WE CAN GET THAT FIGURED OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MY MAJOR CONCERN. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THE LAST THREE COMMENTS WERE TRAFFIC RELATED, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL. SO I MEAN, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY AGAIN. WE'RE I TRY TO GET A MEETING WITH DOT PRIOR TO COMING HERE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I COULDN'T SECURE THAT. WE GOT A RESPONSE FROM THEM ON TUESDAY THANKING US FOR THE IT TRIP GENERATION THAT WE CAME UP WITH. BASED UPON THOSE COUNTS. SO AS SOON AS THEY HAVE THAT INFORMATION BACK TO US, I'LL HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. AS I'VE EXPLAINED TO TO JOSH AND OTHER OTHER PROFESSIONALS, THAT IF IF WE'RE UNABLE TO GET ACCESS OFF A SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, WE WOULDN'T DO THIS PROJECT ANYWAY. AND WE DO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN WITH THE BILL STADIUM. I MEAN, WHEN YOU HAVE 70, 80,000 PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING OUT OF A GAME, OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE GRIDLOCK NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT KIND OF DESIGN YOU DO. WE'RE NOT HERE JUST BECAUSE OF BUFFALO BILL STADIUM. WE'RE THERE BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC COUNTS ARE THERE. DO, IT'S THERE ARE AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAVE BEEN TARGETED BY THOSE BRANDS AND BY US AS AS THE FRANCHISEE. SO I DON'T WANT EVERYBODY TO THINK THAT THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE'RE COMING HERE IS BECAUSE BUFFALO BILL STADIUM IS JUST A MILE DOWN THE ROAD, BECAUSE AGAIN, AS YOU GUYS SAID, IT'S THAT'S ONLY, WHAT, 20 TIMES MAX, MAYBE MAYBE 30 IF THERE'S OTHER VENUES THAT ARE GOING ON, BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE WHOLE REST OF THE YEAR THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE MONEY IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE A PROFIT CENTER FOR IT TO TO BE ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. YOU KNOW, I DO RESPECT IT. AND I CAN TELL YOU WE DID PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS. BOTH OF THESE DRIVE THRUS HAVE OVER TEN CARS FOR A QUEUE, WHICH YOU DON'T SEE THAT OFTEN. NORMALLY IT'S ONLY FIVE SIX MAYBE. WE PROBABLY COULD EXTEND IT A LITTLE BIT IF WE PLAYED AROUND WITH SOME OF IT, BUT YOU PROBABLY ONLY GET 1 OR 2 MORE CARS. BUT I COULD TELL YOU THAT'S PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE ON A ON A QUICK SERVE RESTAURANT TURNAROUND, IT'S ABOUT THREE MINUTES TO GET THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE SO YOU CAN TURN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 10 TO 15 CARS EVERY EVERY HALF HOUR, 40 MINUTES. SO IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT THAT BAD. IT SOUNDS BAD IN THEORY OBVIOUSLY, BUT IF WE HAVE THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE IF WE HAVE WHAT'S GOING ON, WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, WE HAVE A SUPER SUCCESSFUL SITUATION AND WE WOULDN'T BE WE WOULD BE DOING SOMETHING LIKE CHICK FIL A. WE'VE HAD OTHER WENDY'S WHERE WE'VE HAD DRIVE THROUGH ISSUES. I'M NOT GOING TO LIE TO YOU THAT THAT'S THAT DOES HAPPEN. IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE AN AMAZING LOCATION.

WE TEND TO HIRE EXTRA AND THEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY OUT THERE LITERALLY TAKING ORDERS. I KNOW IT'S A LOT HARDER WHEN IT'S UP NORTH IN THE WINTERTIME. IT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC, BUT WE WOULD

[01:00:05]

SURE. PULLING THAT OUT OF OUT OF THE EQUATION OF THAT ALREADY BUSY INTERSECTION. AND I ALSO WANTED TO ECHO THE SENTIMENT THAT I DON'T THINK TRAFFIC FROM A BILLS GAME SHOULD BE A REASON IN WHICH DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T HAPPEN. I DON'T I DON'T SHARE THAT SENTIMENT. I THINK THAT IT JUST NEEDS TO BE PLANNED OUT PROPERLY. ABSOLUTELY. AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT BILLS GAMES HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, ONLY A FRACTION OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME. BUT BUT YOU KNOW, CREATIVE WAYS IN WHICH TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS AND AND EASE WHEN IT DOES GET HEAVILY CONGESTED WOULD BE GREAT. SURE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. I GO THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION QUITE A BIT, AND I ALSO WAS AT CODE REVIEW AND HEARD THE COMMENTS. THE TRAFFIC ISSUE THERE, ALTHOUGH IT'S RUNNING SMOOTHLY NOW, THERE ARE SOME MOMENTS WHEN THERE'S A BACKUP AND I AGREE WITH MEMBERS THAT I WOULD LOOK DIFFERENTLY, ESPECIALLY WELL IF YOU DON'T GET THE ENTRANCE ON TO 20. IT'S A DONE DEAL. YES, BUT I WOULD INTERNALLY. JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT'S WHY I'M JUST BEING I'LL BE VERY CANDID. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU HAVE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON SO YEAH I CAN I CAN SEE THAT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SEE THEM DOING THAT BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE TO THAT INTERSECTION WHERE TOPS IS COMING OUT, BIG TREES COMING IN, PEOPLE ARE COMING OFF OF MCKINLEY. I MEAN, IT'S SUCH A TIGHT SPACE IN THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, BY THE SLIP OF SOMEBODY ON THE GAS PEDAL INSTEAD OF THE BREAK, IT COULD BE A 17 CAR ACCIDENT. AND I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S THAT BUSY. BUT IF THIS MOVED BACK MORE AND THEN YOU HAD THE BUFFERING, ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO? MOVING IT BACK MORE ON BIG TREE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BECAUSE THAT ENTRANCE ON BIG TREE THAT IS, THAT'S TOO CLOSE TO THAT INTERSECTION BECAUSE THAT THAT TRAFFIC IN THEIR BACKS UP ALL THE TIME. OKAY. SO AND I WOULD RECOMMEND GOING THERE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN TOWN TOMORROW. I'VE BEEN THERE QUITE A BIT. I WOULD GO LIKE AROUND 5:00. I DID SO AND THEN 10:00 ON A SATURDAY MORNING, FORGET ABOUT THE BILLS STADIUM. YEAH. SO IT'S JUST THE EVERYDAY USE OF THAT PARTICULAR INTERSECTION. AND THAT WOULD BE MY I THINK THAT THE PROJECT IDEA IS A GREAT IDEA. IT'S A SHAME THAT AND I LIKE WENDY'S. IT'S A SHAME THAT WENDY'S IS ON CAMP BECAUSE I THINK TO MEMBER CLARK'S STATEMENT THAT THE CAMP ROAD INTERCHANGE, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE FOR THIS PROJECT.

SO IT'S JUST IT'S A SHAME. WHY HERE AND NOT ANYWHERE ELSE? THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY THING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GREAT A GREAT SETUP AND A GREAT BUSINESS VENTURE. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, JOSH, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? I WILL TAKE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TONIGHT. AND AS YOU GUYS KNOW, I PUT TOGETHER A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION REPORT, OKAY, THAT YOU'RE FREE TO MARK UP, ADD COMMENTS TO. WE CAN TABLE THEM TO, I BELIEVE THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, I ALREADY HAVE THEM EARMARKED. THINKING AHEAD OF THE JANUARY 7TH IS THE NEXT MEETING. HAVE A RECOMMENDATION REPORT PREPARED AS A DRAFT FOR YOU GUYS TO MARK UP. WE WON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL LATE JANUARY AND THE TOWN BOARD

[01:05:02]

I'M THREE FOR THREE RIGHT NOW. I'M NOT SAYING THIS WILL BE FOUR, BUT I MEAN, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, IS YOU'RE STYMYING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE INVESTING $9 MILLION AND HAVE NO ACCESS OFF OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY ATTORNEY, JOSEPH GOERGEN, WE JUST HAD THE ONE BEFORE THE BOARD GO ON TO STATE ROAD, WHICH IS A LESS BUSY STATE ROAD THAN THIS, AND THE STATE REJECTED IT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SIDE STREET THAT HAD ACCESS, AND WE'VE HAD AT LEAST A DOZEN PROJECTS ON SOUTHWESTERN WHERE THE STATE HAS DENIED IT. BUT MAYBE THIS ONE'S DIFFERENT, I DON'T KNOW. AND I THINK THAT IT THE ISSUE FOR DOT IS, IS SAFETY. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH INVESTMENT IT IS, IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE MODEL FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, THAT HAS BEEN WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS, IS SAFETY ALSO, TO YOUR POINT, MEMBER CLARK, IN TERMS OF POSTPONING THE THE PROJECT FOR A RECOMMENDATION, WE DID SEND IT TO DOT FOR THEIR SECRET COMMENTS. AND A LOT OF TIMES IN THEIR SECRET COMMENTS, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS, YOU KNOW, DOT, YOU KNOW, THEY TALK ABOUT THE HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT AND THEN THEY SAY, AS WE SAW WITH GOWANDA STATE ROAD, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT A DRIVEWAY OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW. SO TYPICALLY IN THEIR SECRET COMMENTS, THEY'RE PRETTY THOROUGH. LIKE I SAID, WE SENT IT OUT DECEMBER 10TH, AS YOU KNOW. SO THAT MAY BE COMING IN.

SO WE WE COULD POSTPONE IT TO THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY WOULD BE JANUARY 21ST AND THE TOWN BOARD MEETING FOLLOWING THAT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE THE 26TH. SO IT STILL WORKS OUT IF YOU WANTED TO POSTPONE IT A LITTLE BIT LATER TO GIVE THE DOT TIME, BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE COMMENTS BY THAT MEETING ON THE 21ST. I'M FINE WITH THAT ANYWAY, BECAUSE I'M ON VACATION THE WEEK THAT YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE HAD THE MEETING, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE IT ANYWAY, I. I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT, BUT MEMBER CLARK BROUGHT UP, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT TO DELAY UNTIL THE 22ND AND THE 22ND, 21ST SO WE CAN HAVE AS MUCH DOCUMENTATION OR AS MANY ANSWERS AS WE CAN GET, AND THEN WE'RE NOT WASTING ANYBODY'S TIME, BECAUSE IF IT COMES IN AND IT SAYS DEFINITE NO, THEN YEAH, YOU CAN TAKE ANOTHER VACATION. OKAY. SO LET'S DO THAT THEN. SO ARE YOU GOING TO BE TABLED UNTIL THE 21ST. AND WE'LL WAIT TO HEAR THE CORRESPONDENCE OKAY I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY. YOU TOO. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CALL THE REGULAR MEETING FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO ORDER. SO 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 MEMBERS. TOMORROW, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? WILLIAM CLARK HERE. CAITLIN SHIMURA HERE. AUGIE, ABSENT AND EXCUSED. PRESENT. CAITLIN MCCORMICK. HERE. KIM. RYAN HERE. BRIAN STEWART HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AUGIE HAD A LITTLE SPILL THIS THIS MORNING, AND WE HOPE THAT

[01:10:03]

[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., John Brokx – Requesting a Change of Use and Site Plan Approval for a proposal to turn a facility from industrial to recreational space at 6302 Monckton Drive]

BROCKTON? I'M RIGHT ON MONCTON DRIVE. IS THERE ANYONE IN THIS AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? THIRD AND FINAL TIME FOR MONCTON DRIVE AND JOHN BROCK'S SEEING THAT THERE'S NO COMMENTS. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. OKAY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HELLO AGAIN. HELLO. YOU DID AUTHORIZE ME TO PRODUCE A DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR

[01:15:01]

THE. TYPICALLY WE SEE THE THE STRIPING FOR THE, THE PAINT FOR THE NUMBER OF SPACES. THAT'S STILL NOT QUITE CLEAR TO ME BASED ON THIS VERSION OF THE THE SITE PLAN. RIGHT. AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ASKED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING THAT THEY BE SPELLED OUT ON THE PLAN. THAT WAS THE WHOLE THE LANDSCAPING AND THE PARKING PLACES ON THE PLAN TO BE. HOW MANY PARKING PLACES ARE ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE, OR ARE YOU STILL DON'T KNOW YET? THE PARKING WAS PAVED IN NOVEMBER. THERE'S 24 SLOTS, RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT SHOWING ON THERE. YOUR PARKING PLACES IN FRONT OF THAT BUILDING. CORRECT. SO ARE THERE 2424 PARKING PLACES JUST FOR THAT BUILDING OR FOR THE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE? IT IT'S JUST IT'S ALL MINE. IT'S THERE'S 24 SLOTS IN TOTAL. ARE THOSE SPOTS PAINTED IN AND MARKED ON THE PAVEMENT. IS THERE STRIPING. THEY PAVED IT IN NOVEMBER. SO AS FAR AS YELLOW PAINT THERE ISN'T BECAUSE IT OBVIOUSLY WAS TOO COLD. BUT DO YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW THAT WILL BE STRIPED? SURE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKING IT. IT ACTUALLY WAS ON THAT. THE THE I DON'T KNOW IF JOSH HAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER MATTER THAT SHOWS HOW PARKING SPOTS ARE, BUT THAT'S IT. IT THAT DOESN'T SHOW. NO. DOES THIS PARKING STRIPING, STRIPING IN THE FLOW ON THE SITE MAYBE. YEAH. THERE THERE WAS ONE MORE MAP SUBMITTED WITH THAT BECAUSE IT HAD TO HAVE THE PARKING SLOTS. IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON GOOGLE MAPS BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PAINTED YET. OH, OKAY. A LOT OF TIMES A DAY. MEMBER. STUART, MY THOUGHT WAS SOMETIMES YOU LOOK AT OLD GOOGLE MAPS, DON'T UPDATE THEIR PICTURES. YOU KNOW, FOR MAYBE FIVE YEARS AGO IT MAY HAVE HAD THE PARKING STRIPES ON THERE. I ALSO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

YES. SO MEMBER STUART, HOW MANY OCCUPANTS WOULD OCCUPY THIS BUILDING SO WE KNOW THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH PARKING FOR FOR THE THE IS IT PRIVATE FACILITY. IT IT'S A PRIVATE FACILITY. IT IS.

SO HOW MANY MEMBERS WOULD BE IS IT 20 AT ONE TIME. TEN AT ONE TIME. ABSOLUTELY NOT. OKAY.

WAIT. HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE AT YOUR FACILITY? ARE YOU HOLDING CLASSES? IT IT WAS ORIGINALLY TO BE LEASED OUT TO SOMEONE WHO WANTED THIS BACK IN MARCH. THEY'VE OPENED IN ORCHARD PARK. FOUR MONTHS AGO. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WAIT ANYMORE. SO SO SO AT. OKAY.

RIGHT. THE NUMBER OF SPOTS, WHICH IS OUR ROLE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS. SO IF THERE'S 24, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT THERE. WOULD NOT ALSO YOUR SITE PLAN. THERE WOULD ONLY BE SIX SIX PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING. SIX PEOPLE. YES.

YEAH. AND RIGHT NOW I DO NOT HAVE A TENANT FOR THIS. OBVIOUSLY. I THINK IF WE JUST GET THIS STRIPES ON THE ON THE SITE PLAN. ARE YOU OKAY? I'M NOT COMFORTABLE APPROVING THIS TONIGHT. I THINK IT'S TOO GRAY. WE ASKED FOR THE THE STRIPING OF THE PARKING LOT. WE DIDN'T GET IT. WE ASKED FOR THE LANDSCAPING. WE DIDN'T GET IT. HE DOESN'T HAVE A TENANT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS IS REALLY GOING TO BE IN THERE. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION ON THIS, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THINK. WE HAVE SPECIFIC RULES THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW, AND I DON'T FEEL THAT I CAN FOLLOW MY RULES OR MY

[01:20:02]

THANK YOU. YOU STATED THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE SIX PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING AT ONE TIME, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A TENANT, SO YOU DON'T KNOW THAT? OR IS THAT WHAT'S IN THE BUILDING PRESENTLY? IS THERE SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT BUILDING RIGHT NOW? THE BUILDING IS EMPTY. IT'S BEEN EMPTY SINCE MARCH. OKAY. AS FAR AS WHAT THE ORIGINAL TENANT WAS GOING TO HAVE, THAT'S WHERE THE NUMBER SIX CAME FROM. OKAY. SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE IN THERE DEPENDING ON THE TENANT. YOU CORRECT? THANK YOU. I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A HIGH USE TENANT. I'M LOOKING TO RENT THE WAREHOUSE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

CHAIR. MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE DID SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR THAT PARKING, STRIPING AND INFORMATION AT THE LAST MEETING, AND AND WE WE DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WE ASKED FOR SPECIFICS AND DIDN'T GET IT. I MEAN, WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN, BUT IT DOESN'T SPELL OUT THE PARKING. AND IF YOU'LL EXCUSE MY FRUSTRATION, BUT I DON'T I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A TENANT AND THEN IT'S GOING TO COME BACK ON US SAYING THAT WE APPROVED SOMETHING AND WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE IN THERE. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON RECORD TO ONCE THIS GETS RENTED OUT, WE CAN'T STOP WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE.

WHICH WOULD ONLY CAUSE ANOTHER DELAY FOR THE APPLICANT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME YOU WANT A SITE PLAN THAT HAS THE PARKING SPELLED OUT, WHICH WAS ASKED LAST TIME. I DON'T REMEMBER LANDSCAPING BEING MCCORMICK BROUGHT IT UP. WE DID ASK IF HE WAS GOING TO DO ANY SITE ENHANCEMENT SCREENING DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S HOW WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE WERE ALL CONFUSED ON WHICH BUILDING IT WAS. WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. JOHN, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH BUILDING, SPECIFICALLY THE FITNESS FACILITY. IT IS MARKED RIGHT THERE. RIGHT. IT'S MARKED ON THIS SITE PLAN. THAT'S THAT'S RESOLVES THAT ISSUE. YEAH.

THERE WAS A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT WAS PROBABLY ON ON ANOTHER PAGE WHEN THAT PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER FOR THE TOWN, I, I THINK THE, THE CONCERN HERE AND MAYBE I'M GETTING TO WHAT CHAIR IS, IS DRIVING IT AS WELL, IS THAT YOU'RE JUST RESUBMITTING AN OLD SITE PLAN AND IT'S CAUSING CONFUSION. AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS AN UPDATED SITE PLAN THAT CLEARLY SPELLS OUT WHAT IS NEW. NOW, THE REQUESTED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, WHAT STRIPING WILL BE IN THE PARKING LOT, AN INDICATION OF TRAFFIC FLOWS CLEARLY DEMARCATING WHICH BUILDING HAS THE CHANGE OF USE ON IT, AND THEN WHAT OTHER SITE ENHANCEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING IS GOING TO BE DONE AS PART OF THIS, THIS BUILDOUT? I THINK THOSE ARE THE ASKS, IS THAT CORRECT, CHAIR? I THINK IT'S JUST THE STRIPING OF THE OF PARKING LOT THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL IT AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THERE, YOU KNOW IT. YOU KNOW, THE OTHER DOES SHOW THE SPECIFIC TREES. I DO BELIEVE RIGHT. YOU KNOW THE RED OAKS THAT WERE PLANTED THERE, THE PIN OAKS, BETULA NIGRA AND THOSE ITEMS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE STRIPING I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY DID THE SITE PLAN IS NO LONGER IN THE BUSINESS. YOU KNOW, HE RETIRED. SO WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO FROM HERE? MR. YEAH, I

[01:25:07]

OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANKS. OKAY. THE NEXT CASE THAT WE HAVE IS A PUBLIC

[2. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Benderson Development – Requesting Site Plan Approval for a proposal to construct an 8,020 sq-ft multi-tenant outparcel building with a drivethru lane to be located at 5400 Southwestern Boulevard]

[01:30:01]

[01:35:03]

[3. The Oaks at South Park – Requesting amended Site Plan Approval for the removal of a portion of a fence from a previously approved site plan]

OBVIOUSLY, IT'LL BE CONTINGENT ON THIS BOARD'S COMFORTABILITY WITH THE PLAN, BUT ALSO IF THERE IS ANY ADDED CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO SPECIFY WITHIN THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION RELATED TO WHERE FENCES ARE, WHERE EVERGREEN TREES ARE. IF YOU WANT TO JUST HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT'S IN WORD FORM, WE CAN GO OVER IT AND MARK IT UP. IF THIS BOARD IS COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD. I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD TO CLARIFY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. I THINK MEMBER CLARK ASKED ABOUT PUTTING FENCES IN FRONT OF BUILDING A AND B WAS THE DISCUSSION. AND I'M SORRY,

[01:40:01]

THAT'S WHY I CAME UP WITH BRINGING IN 34 ADDITIONAL TREES TO ROSE STAGGERED. THAT WILL FILL IN THE GAPS IN BETWEEN THE EXISTING 32 TREES THAT ARE THERE AT SIX FOOT SIX FEET HIGH EVERGREENS. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. BOARD MEMBERS. OUCH. MEMBERS I DID ACTUALLY DRIVE OUT THERE BEFORE THIS MEETING, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTENDING THE FENCE IN FRONT OF BUILDING B AND A, AND SO I DON'T ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE NEED FOR THE FENCE THERE. I, HAVING DRIVEN THERE AND SEEN THE DENSITY OF THE EXISTING VEGETATION, THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF SCREENING. I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE. HAVING PULLED IN THERE AND SEEING THE BACKYARD OF THOSE RESIDENTS. I ALSO DO THINK THAT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EVERGREENS IS A MUCH MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AND ESTHETICALLY FRIENDLY SOLUTION TO PROVIDING THE SCREENING. MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE TO ADD JUST A VERY SMALL SWATH OF THESE ADDITIONAL TREES, GOING FROM THE EDGE TO THE EDGE OF BUILDING E, NOTING THAT THERE'S A GRADE CHANGE AT THE CORNER OF THE PAVEMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING, BUT A SLIGHT TO CONNECT THOSE TO THAT CORNER OF. AND I CAN SHOW YOU, BUT JUST A SMALL ADDITION TO CLOSE THE GAP. SO WHERE SHE. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. YOU GUYS, DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND? I THINK THEY GET IT. SO WE ALL CAN SEE. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO GO UP AND PLAY VANNA. DON'T TRIP. TAKE YOUR MIC. SHE'S GONNA GO UP THERE AND I'LL SHOW ON HERE OKAY. SO CONNECTING THIS SLIGHT GAP BECAUSE THERE IS A GRADE CHANGE FROM HERE THAT THEN ALLOWS THAT YOU END UP HAVING ADDITIONAL SCREENING ALREADY. SO AND THEN ALSO SNOW MANAGEMENT CAN CONTINUE THIS WAY. SO JUST GO UP. YES OKAY. GREAT. DO YOU WANT US TO DRAW THEM IN AND RESUBMIT IT. I IT IT DOES NEED TO BE PART OF THE PLAN. BUT I THINK I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THIS UP. SO YOU CAN MARK UP THE EXISTING PLAN WHILE WE'RE HERE TONIGHT AND SIGN IT AND PUT THAT THROUGH. OR WE CAN AS A CONDITION, I THINK IT'S TYPICALLY EASIER THIS MEMBER MCCORMICK, FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT. IF IT'S ON THE THE SITE, IT'S GOTTA BE ON THE SITE PLAN. I DON'T I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE OUT THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY CAN PLANT RIGHT NOW OUT THERE. ANYWAYS, FOR THESE TREES, IT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TILL MOST LIKELY GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT TILL SPRINGTIME. I DON'T I DON'T WANT THE I NEED THE ROOTS TO SET IN AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. SO WITH IT BEING TOO COLD AND NURSERIES REALLY AREN'T SELLING ANY OF THESE TREES ANYWAYS. OKAY. OH GOOD POINT. YEAH. SO. SO SO I THINK WE IF YOU WANT TO WAIT TO DO IT TILL YOU HAVE IT UPDATED, WE'RE NOT HOLDING ANYTHING UP. NO, NO. EXCEPT THAT THEY GOTTA COME BACK HERE AGAIN. COULD WE COULD YOU GUYS DRAW THEM UP AND THEN DO YOUR SIGNATURE. AND THEN I CAN HAVE JOHN REDO THE PLAN WITH THE TREES ON THERE, AND I CAN SUBMIT IT OVER TO CAMMY AND JOSH FOR, FOR THEIR APPROVAL AS WELL. IF THEY GIVE US WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, THEY DON'T NEED TO BE HERE FOR US TO VOTE. YEAH, YOU DON'T NEED TO COME BACK. WE CAN. BUT CAN WE APPROVE IT TONIGHT WITH THAT CONDITION ON THERE? I THINK WE WANT THE MAP BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO APPROVE. WELL, I KNOW, BUT TAMMY'S GOT THE FINAL SAY, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT, RIGHT? YEAH, I WOULDN'T, BUT TAMMY GERALD, TOWN ENGINEER, WE WOULD STILL SIGN THIS PLAN MYSELF AS WELL AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD. SO IF WE DIDN'T

[01:45:04]

SO, OKAY. YES, BUT BUT IT DOES NEED TO BE PART OF THE RECORD TO BE RIGHT. BUT IT ALSO HAS TO BE ON THE SITE PLAN. SO AND WE WON'T HER AND I SIGN IT WHEN IT'S DONE. AND IF IT'S NOT ON THERE, WE'RE NOT SIGNING IT. SO WE COULD MOVE FORWARD AND THEN HAVE IT JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE. WE'LL HAVE THE CONDITION. OKAY. START WORKING, YOU WORDSMITH. START WORKING ON THE VERBIAGE AND AND THEN THAT WAY WE CAN AND YOU GUYS CAN GO TREE SHOPPING AFTER CHRISTMAS. SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FURTHER TO DISCUSS? ANY QUESTIONS? ANYTHING? OKAY. ANY FURTHER? I DIDN'T SEE ANY IN THE FOLDER. I'M JUST CONFIRMING THERE WERE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT CAME IN. NOTHING. NO, NOTHING. THERE WAS NOTHING FURTHER. ALTHOUGH I WAS, I HAVE TO ADMIT, I WAS PRETTY BUSY READING ALL THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE FIRST CASE. CAMI IS THERE AN ENGINEERING? SO CAN I GET RID OF THAT? AND THEN, JOHN, DO YOU KNOW THE DATE OF YOUR REVISED SITE PLAN? IT'S NOT 11 FIVE ANYMORE. REVISED 12 EIGHT. 12 8025. WELL, WOULD IT BE TODAY? BECAUSE WE'RE REVISING IT AGAIN. REVISING AGAIN. SO? SO IT WOULD BE TODAY, WOULDN'T IT? UPDATED AND REVISED. DATED. SO. RIGHT. YOUR PLAN HAS A DATE ON IT. NO. IT'S GONNA BE WHEN IT COMES WHEN IT COMES IN. IT WOULD. IT'S BASED ON THE PLAN WE HAVE TODAY AS DATED. AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO A REVISED ONE. WE CAN'T USE A DATE ON A PLAN WE DON'T HAVE. RIGHT. YOU'RE JUST DESCRIBING WHAT WE WANT THEM TO ADD. SO IF DATA 12 EIGHT OKAY. SO WE ARE PUTTING A DATE OF 12 812 EIGHT OKAY. I, I WOULD SAY WE'VE, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS LIKE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN WITH REVISIONS DISCUSSED ON DECEMBER 17TH. AND THEN THE CONDITION NEW SITE PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH ADDITIONAL TREES NEAR BUILDING E, AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE REVISED SITE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE. YEP, THAT SOUNDS GREAT. YEAH, I CHANGED IT SOME WHILE I WAS TALKING, SO LET ME READ IT AGAIN. DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANY GOOD CHRISTMAS SONGS WHILE WE'RE WAITING OR. SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? I DON'T HAVE A SINGING VOICE. SORRY. OH. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I DIDN'T ASK IF ANYBODY WAS A SINGER. A NEW SITE PLAN BE SUBMITTED. WITH ADDITIONAL TREES. NEAR BUILDING E. YES, WE DO A PERIOD AND THEN SAY THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR. IS AUTHORIZED. TO SIGN THE REVISED SITE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE. I IF I COULD JUST ADD ATTORNEY JOE GROGAN, JUST REVISE THAT TO THE TREES. ADDITIONAL TREES BETWEEN BUILDING E AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY. OKAY. OR ADDITIONAL SCREEN OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO. HOWEVER THE BOARD WANTS IT. ADDITIONAL TREES ARE OKAY. YEAH. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT SHE KNOWS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SIGN IT. IF IT'S WRONG. OKAY, WHO WANTS TO BE THE WEEKLY READER TONIGHT?

[01:50:01]

YEAH. FOR THE RECORD, THAT WAS MEMBER RYAN WHO WAS HAVING AN IDENTITY CRISIS DURING THE LAST

[4. Boston State Holdings, LLC – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval for a 2-lot subdivision for an additional single-family lot to be split from the Village at Cedar Valley at 3385 Cedar Valley Way]

GOOD EVENING GENTLEMEN. YOU ARE BACK. SO DON'T BE SHY. COME ON UP TO THE MIC AND TELL US WHAT YOU'RE DOING. THE SMALL PARCEL OF LAND. BEFORE YOU START, PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR NAME SO THAT, FOR THE RECORD, JEFF RUSSO FROM BOSTON STATE HOLDING COMPANY. OKAY. AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE PLEASANT CREEK SUBDIVISION, THERE'S A PARCEL OF LAND THAT'S CURRENTLY CONNECTED TO THE 14 ACRE PARCEL THAT MAKES UP CEDAR VALLEY APARTMENTS, LLC, AND WE ARE NOT USING IT FOR THE MULTIFAMILY. SO WE WANTED TO ADD IT TO THE SUBDIVISION AS A SINGLE FAMILY.

PICK UP THAT MIC A LITTLE BIT, AND I THINK I'LL PICK YOU UP A LITTLE BETTER BECAUSE WE CAN HARDLY HEAR. NEVER BEEN TOO TALL BEFORE. THERE YOU GO. SO THERE YOU GO. THE SMALL PARCEL AT THE BEFORE THE SUBLETS BEGIN. WE WANTED TO TURN THAT INTO A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. OKAY, BUT IT SAYS TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE A LOT FROM THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE'RE TREATING IT AS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING OFF THE ONE LOT THAT THEY'RE NOT USING FROM THE OVERALL CEDAR VALLEY WAY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS APPROVED AS ITS OWN PROJECT. SO THERE'S A LOT. SO IT'S A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING A LOT FROM THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE TREATING IT AS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.

IT'S FROM THE. IT THEY'RE MAKING. YEAH ONE NEW LOT. BUT IT'S COMING FROM THE FROM THE OVERALL. SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FROM THAT. PLUS THE THE PROPERTY FROM THE SUBDIVISION. SO THEY WANT TO DO THEY WANT TO HAVE A FAMILY OR A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. NEVER MIND I GOT IT. IT'S TWO LOT. YEAH. IT'S A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OKAY. IT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT'S IT WAS THAT'S WHAT STARTED IT AND. YEAH OKAY. AND THEN JUST TO KIND OF WRAP UP THEY DID WHEN

[01:55:01]

HEAD SHAKING IS NOT ALLOWED SINCE YOU CAN'T READ IT UP ON THE OKAY, ANYONE ELSE? NO COMMENT. NO. OKAY. WOW. QUIET GROUP TONIGHT. SO WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE US TO GO FROM HERE RIGHT NOW? ON THE JANUARY 7TH MEETING, WE HAVE 5661 CAMP ROAD, WHICH IS LIKE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS. BENDERSON JOHN BROCK, TOM GORSUCH AT PLEASANT AVENUE. I'VE ALREADY BUILT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO POSTPONE MATT CAVANAUGH, WHO'S COMING UP LATER. WE HAVE TWO QUESTION MARKS OF PROJECTS WHO PEOPLE SAID THEY WANT TO MAKE JANUARY 7TH BUT HAVEN'T SUBMITTED YET. SO IF YOU ALLOW THEM, THEY WOULD BE THE EIGHTH PROJECT. OR YOU CAN TABLE THEM TO JANUARY 21ST. WE CAN TABLE THEM TO THE 21ST AND THEN PUT THIS ONE FOR THE SEVENTH PLEASE.

SO PUT THIS ONE FOR THE SEVENTH OR FOR THE 21ST. PUT THIS ONE FOR THE SEVENTH. MATT CAVANAUGH IS THE 21ST. AND THE TWO QUESTION MARKS TO THE 21ST. PERFECT. DO WE HAVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS TO BE DRAFTED? I THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. YOU HAVE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FIRST THE SEVENTH. BUT YOU CAN ALSO AUTHORIZE DRAFT APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS FOR THE SAME MEETING IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE LIKE. LET'S NOT DO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS. LET'S JUST DO THE PUBLIC HEARING, OKAY? AND WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE. SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE ON THE SEVENTH, OKAY. AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN WE'LL SEE YOU THEN. OKAY.

THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY. I WISH WE'D GET NEW DOORS. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S TO MY RIGHT. RIGHT. YEAH. CAN WE TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT THOSE DOORS? I CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN. OKAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE TO ASK SANTA. I CAN JUST. THOSE DOORS DON'T STAY CLOSED.

[5. Matt Kavanaugh – Requesting Re-Approval for an as-built site plan for a retail development at 5110 Camp Road]

[02:00:10]

SO THAT'S WHAT THE MISLEADING PART OF IT IS. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. I'M NOT LOSING MY MIND.

OKAY. SO THE DRIVEWAY TO GET INTO MOE'S IS WHERE THAT WHITE CAR IS. THAT IS CORRECT. AND THE SIGN IS IN THE WRONG PLACE. THAT'S MY STATEMENT. SO MY MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS, ARE YOU PLANNING ON MOVING THAT SIGN SO IT PROPERLY IDENTIFIES THE RIGHT STREET? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. NO. WHAT I PLAN ON DOING IS WHERE THAT CAR IS RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO PUT AN ENTER AND EXIT SIGN ON THAT DRIVEWAY TO IDENTIFY THAT BEING THE DRIVEWAY. AND WE WERE GOING TO PUT THE STARBUCKS LOGO ON IT SO THAT A VAST MAJORITY OF THE CARS THAT ENTER THE LOT DO GO TO STARBUCKS, RIGHT? CAN THAT EXISTING SIGN BE COVERED UP? THANK YOU. I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE SURE. AND THEN YOU WOULD THEN JUST HAVE YOUR ENTER AND EXIT ON THE EXISTING AT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF COVERING THE SIGN UP? BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF A DRIVEWAY WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING IN THAT LEADS NOT TO A ROAD, BUT TO A PRIVATE PARKING. IT'S NOT LOCATED AT WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR ACTUAL INTERSECTION FOR TRAFFIC PATTERNS, CONTRARY TO WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR OTHER SIGN, WHERE IT'S LIKE RIGHT AT YOUR DRIVEWAY. SO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SIGN DRIVEWAY TURN IN THAT IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS WHERE THE CONCERN CAME FROM. CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO THE CONCERN OF CODE ENFORCEMENT IS JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO ME ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE. SO TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, CODE ENFORCEMENT ALERTED THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUES WITH PEOPLE PULLING INTO THE WRONG DRIVEWAY THAN HAVING TO BACK OUT, COME BACK ON, OR EITHER CONTINUE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN COME BACK OUT, OR TRYING TO BACK UP AND THEN HIT THE RIGHT DRIVEWAY. THEY DID ASK FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW. I KNOW YOU SUBMITTED THE SITE PLAN, WHERE YOU HAD THE TWO DOTS OF WHERE YOU ENTER AND EXIT SIGN WOULD BE AND ASK FOR PLANNING BOARD. AND SO SIGNAGE IS APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT.

BUT THEY ASKED FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO GIVE THEIR COMMENT ON WHAT SIGNAGE SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHERE IT SHOULD BE ORIENTED ON THE SITE, SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE TO PULL IN. BECAUSE THE CURRENT SIGNAGE FROM CODE, THEY'VE GOTTEN SOME CALLS AND SOME CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE KEEP DRIVING INTO THE WRONG DRIVEWAY. SO THE PLANNING BOARD IS MORE OF LIKE A RECOMMENDING OF SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, HERE ARE THEIR THOUGHTS. BUT CODE ENFORCEMENT HANDLES SIGNAGE AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THE THE PERMITTING FOR SIGNAGE. I SUPPOSE WE COULD JUST TAKE THE SLOTS OUT AND LEAVE THEM BLANK FOR RIGHT NOW, SO THAT IT'S NOT IDENTIFIED AS ANYTHING. RIGHT. THAT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST SOLUTION. AND THEN WE'LL TURN THE LED PORTION OF IT OFF. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GOOD OKAY OKAY. THAT'S AN EASY SOLUTION. SURE.

YEAH. AND THEN WOULD YOU STILL LIKE ME TO PUT THE ENTER AND EXIT SIGNS IN WITH THE STARBUCKS LOGO ON IT? DEFINITELY. YES PLEASE. YES. OKAY. SURE. IDENTIFYING THAT AS AN ENTRANCE OKAY. SO RIGHT. BECAUSE NOW PEOPLE ARE GOING PAST THE ENTRANCE AND THEY SEE THE SIGN. SO LIKE LOGICALLY YOU WOULD THINK THAT YOUR ENTRANCE WAS AT FOUR. THAT'S OKAY I UNDERSTAND. SURE. YEAH. BUT BY YOUR SUGGESTION OF REMOVING THE SLOTS AND TURNING THE LIGHTS OFF, I THINK WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE A LOT OF THE CONFUSION. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A. YEAH, THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST. SURE. SIGNAGE INSTALLED AT THE ENTRANCE WOULD BE OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. SURE. YEAH. SO WE HAVE THE UPDATED SITE PLAN. WE ADDRESSED THE SIGNAGE AND. WE NEED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING. YEP. AND HE SET FOR THE 730. I INCLUDED HIM ON THE SEVENTH. YEP. OKAY. THEN I THINK AT THAT TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND THEY'RE SO TALKATIVE TONIGHT, I'M SURPRISED YOU'RE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON. YEAH, I LOST THAT BECAUSE IT'S WE'RE TECHNICALLY DOING AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND ALL SITE PLANS IN OUR TOWN CODE REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THESE TWO SIGNS. OKAY. ESSENTIALLY. I MEAN, IT'S ALSO BECAUSE THEY'RE HE'S APPROVING HIS AS BUILT SITE PLAN. SO IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2019. SO BECAUSE OF THAT IT'S ALSO A MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN. SO THAT'S ALSO WHY IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING OKAY OKAY. THE PAUSING OF DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT CONFUSED ME. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT AT ALL OKAY OKAY. ARE WE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE NOW? WE'RE ALL TOGETHER

[02:05:07]

[6. Updates to the David Manko Parker Road Subdivision project]

IT WILL BE BRIEF. I WROTE DOWN 838 AND I'M GOING TO WRITE DOWN WHEN YOU'RE DONE. YOU SHOULD UPDATE THAT BECAUSE YOU'VE NOW GOT A MINUTE. EVERY TIME THERE'S ONE PERSON WHO APPEARS IN THE MINUTES OFTEN, WHO'S ALWAYS SPOKE LONGER THAN I DID. SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THAT WOULD BE. OKAY. GO AHEAD. SO ON THE DAVE MANCO SUBDIVISION, DAVE MANCOS HERE AS WELL, BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW WETLAND REGULATIONS THAT WENT INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, WE HAD TO GO BACK AND REVISIT WETLANDS. BASICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE IS THE DEC WILL TAKE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE AREAS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN GRAY. WE'VE MADE AN EFFORT TO AVOID THE ACTUAL NEW DEC WETLAND, AND AS A RESULT, WE'RE STILL SHOWING 4/100 OF AN ACRE OF IMPACT TO THE FEDERAL WETLANDS, WHICH IS WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED. AND NOW WE'RE SHOWING 1.98 ACRES OF IMPACTS TO THE REGULATED ADJACENT AREA. WE WERE HOPING WE WOULD HAVE AN UPDATED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FROM THE DEC FROM NOW, BUT THEY'VE BEEN VERY SLOW. BUT BOTH THE ARMY CORPS AND THE DEC HAVE ADVISED OUR WETLAND CONSULTANT, ERIC KRULL, THAT THEY FIND THIS PLAN TO BE ACCEPTABLE. AND AS SUCH, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD BASED ON THIS PLAN WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATE ON WHEN OR MAYBE A TIMELINE OF WHEN TO EXPECT THAT PHASE FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW AND THEN TURN INTO ITS OWN OPINION? I WOULD HOPE TO HAVE IT READY FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY. OKAY. AND AGAIN, WE WERE HOPING THAT WE COULD INCLUDE THE UPDATED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION. RIGHT NOW THE DEC IS SO BACKLOGGED I CAN'T EVEN GET SPECIFIC ANSWERS ON ANY OF THESE INQUIRIES. WELL, DON'T WE NEED THAT? DO WE NEED THAT IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PHASE? YEAH, I MEAN, WE WOULD BE HE WOULD BE SUBMITTING THAT DETERMINATION ALONG WITH THE WHOLE PHASE, WHICH THE BOARD WILL THEN PUT INTO ITS OPINION. RIGHT. BUT IF HE DOESN'T HAVE IT ON THE 22ND, 21ST, 21ST. YEP.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG NIGHT. WE COULD STILL SUBMIT THE DRAFT DOCUMENT AND BEGIN THAT DISCUSSION AGAIN. ULTIMATELY, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU REVIEW AND APPROVE, WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT DOCUMENTATION TO BACK IT UP. AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS WE LITERALLY HAVE BEEN WAITING THE ENTIRE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2025 FOR THIS. SO I THINK IF THEY DO SUBMIT THE PHASE BEFORE THAT JANUARY 21ST MEETING, EVEN WITHOUT HEARING BACK FROM FROM DEC, I THINK WE CAN BRING IT BACK. AS YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE WE HAVE A NEWER BOARD. SOME BOARD MEMBERS HAVEN'T BEEN AS UP TO SPEED AS OTHERS. SO I THINK IT ALSO CAN BE USED, AS I CAN ALSO WALK THROUGH THE SECRET PROCESS OF HOW WE DID SCOPING THIS PHASE, WHAT THAT MEANS FINDING SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO I THINK WE CAN BRING IT AT LEAST AS AN INTRODUCTORY, AND THEN CONTINUE TO TABLE IT AS NEED BE FOR INFORMATION AS WE NEED IT. CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THESE ON THE 22ND THEN CAP THE CAP THE THE 21ST, THEN CAP THE AGENDA. OKAY, QUIT PICKING AT ME. REMEMBER, STUART THE AGENDA. OKAY. DON'T DON'T MAKE IT A SEVEN CASE NIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF MATERIAL. RIGHT. THAT'S ALSO CONTINGENT ON THEM SUBMITTING IT. RIGHT. BUT BUT I'M JUST SAYING AHEAD OF TIME SO WE CAN YOU KNOW WE SO WE CAN MANAGE THIS A LITTLE BIT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. YEP. OKAY. CHAIR MEMBER MCCORMICK. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS AS THIS BOARD, WHICH MY TERM IS SHORTLY UP, I WOULD JUST REMIND THIS BOARD THAT THE FEES, EVEN THOUGH THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PREPARED AND TAKEN THE FIRST

[02:10:03]

IT'S NOT LIKE A DRAFT DOCUMENT TO A FINAL DOCUMENT. IT ONLY GOES INTO THE CHANGES FROM THE FIRST AND THE RESPONSES TO IT. SO YOU NEVER CAN JUST REVIEW THE EIS WITHOUT THE DRAFT. SO I KNOW EVERYONE WAS LOOKING FOR SOME LIGHT READING, BUT HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING THE DRAFT EIS, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE EIS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT EIS. AS YOU GO THROUGH THAT. SOMEDAY. IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT, I WOULD LIKE MERGE THEM ALL INTO ONE FINAL DOCUMENT. BUT THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE LAW IS WRITTEN IN THE STATE. SO JUST TO KEEP THOSE TWO THINGS IN MIND AS YOU LOOK AT, THERE NEVER IS ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. AND THAT'S CORRECT.

THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS ULTIMATELY THIS BOARD'S DOCUMENT. CORRECT. JOSH, MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO REFRESH THE SHAREPOINT ON THAT FOR THE NEW MEMBERS. YEP.

NEW BOARD MEMBERS. YOU MAY WANT TO START PEEKING INTO IT, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE BUSY DURING CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY WANT TO JUST BRUSH UP AND AN EXISTING BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WHAT DO YOU HAVE ON WETZEL?

[7. Updates to Glenn Wetzl Rezoning and multifamily development project]

SO BEFORE I CALL FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. NOPE. NOT YET. I SAID BEFORE I CALL, SLOW YOUR ROLL. YOU GOTTA LISTEN. GOSH, I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND WISH EVERYBODY A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR AND THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR HARD WORK ALL THIS YEAR. AND ALSO TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. WHAT WAS I GOING TO TELL HIM? WE HAVE THE NEW SCHEDULE OUT FOR 2026. NONE OF THE DATES ARE CHANGING. THEY'RE NOT. SO IT'S ALL IT'S ALL BEEN LOOKED AT. IT'S NOT IT DOESN'T RUN INTO ANY HOLIDAYS. AND MEMBER MCCORMICK I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO IF YOU'LL BE HERE IN JANUARY OR NOT, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LONG TERM SERVICE. AND IF YOU ARE, THEN I'LL WELCOME YOU BACK. HOW'S THAT? OKAY, SO SINCE THAT'S NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE, BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO GO UNNOTICED. SO AGAIN THANK EVERYBODY. THANK YOU JOSH. THANK YOU ATTORNEY GOGAN AND OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND MOST OF ALL OUR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. THEY DO A GREAT JOB AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYBODY AND TO OUR WONDERFUL AUDIENCE. OKAY. NOW CAN I CALL FOR A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I SECOND IT, OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.