[00:00:03]
OH, I HAVE TO. SO TONIGHT. FOR OUR WORK SESSION, TWO OF OUR CASES HAVE BEEN POSTPONED AND SO THEY WILL NOT BE IN FRONT OF US. DATA DEVELOPMENT AND ELEGANT DEVELOPMENT. SO WE HAVE
[3. Planning Board to discuss various zoning code amendments as presented by the Planning Department]
THE WONDERFUL PLEASURE OF JOSH ROGERS AND HIS CHANGE IN CODES. FURTHER DISCUSSION CONTINUE.THANK YOU. SO JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, I THINK MOST OF YOU ARE AWARE, BUT FOR SOME OF OUR NEW BOARD MEMBERS, THERE'S WHAT'S CALLED THE NON CFA ZONING CODE COMMITTEE HERE IN THE TOWN THAT LOOKS AT ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE OF SOME OF THE STATE GRANTS THAT THE TOWN HAS GOTTEN. LOOKING AT THE BILLS STADIUM AREA, LOOKING AT ZONING AROUND THE MCKINLEY MALL AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THE LAND OUTSIDE OF THE WATERFRONT AREA. THIS NON CFA ZONING CODE COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF MYSELF. CINDY AS PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS ON IT.
WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS FROM THE ZONING BOARD AND THEN WE HAVE NICK WHO WILL BE ON IT FROM THE TOWN BOARD. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE CAMMY AS TOWN ENGINEER AND JEFF FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE. SO IT'S A VERY DIVERSE GROUP THAT'S LOOKING AT ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. LIKE I SAID, OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF SOME OF THE STATE GRANTS THAT THE TOWN HAS GOTTEN, ONE OF THE BIG THINGS OUT OF THOSE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOW BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD THAT I WANTED TO GO OVER TONIGHT ARE SITE PLAN REVIEW, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MAKES UP THE LEGISLATION OF WHAT THIS BOARD DOES WHEN WE TAKE IN SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS, EVERYTHING FROM, YOU KNOW, THE FEES ALL THE WAY TO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THIS BOARD WILL LOOK AT AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. IF YOU GUYS RECALL, SOMETIME OVER LAST SUMMER, I PROVIDED A VERY PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF SITE PLAN REVIEW. ALMOST A YEAR AGO. WE LOOKED AT THE FEE SCHEDULE AND THE NOTICES BECAUSE IF YOU GUYS RECALL, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW MANY DAYS IT NEEDS TO GO INTO THE PAPER. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW MANY DAYS IT TAKES TO, YOU KNOW, SEND NOTICES OUT WHEN WE'RE DOING PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO WE'VE TAKEN, YOU KNOW, A QUICK LOOK AT IT. BUT OUT OF THIS NON CFA ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT SITE PLAN REVIEW IN ITS TOTALITY. WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A DRAFT OF THE CODE THAT'S MARKED UP IN TRACK CHANGES. WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE IS THAT THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN RED AND BLUE THAT I'VE ADDED. AND THEN THIS IS ALSO A VERSION OF THE DRAFT THAT I'VE PROVIDED TO CAMI. THIS WAS ALMOST A YEAR AGO THAT CAMI TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND PROVIDED A SOME ENGINEERING VIEWPOINT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT GOES IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW CODE IN ONE MEETING. I'M GOING TO PIECEMEAL IT, KIND OF GO OVER SOME PARTS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL FROM A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS TO GO OVER IT IN TOTALITY BEFORE IT GOES TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO WILL OUR START IS FOR ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE TOWN CODE 280 307 PROVIDES THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE REVIEW UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW. ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES THAT I WANT TO START WITH IS IF YOU LOOK AT 283 07.1, IT TALKS ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF SITE PLAN REVIEW. THAT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE. IT BASICALLY JUST STATES THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS THE BOARD THAT GRANTS THE PLANNING BOARD THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW SITE PLANS, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, DISAPPROVE IT. WE DID TAKE OUT A CLAUSE THAT SAID THAT THE CHAPTER WILL BE ENFORCED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT OR ANY SUCH OTHER DUTY, DULY AUTHORIZED ENTITY. WE THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF OVERKILL. YOU KNOW, THE THE FIRST CLAUSE STATES THAT THE TOWN BOARD, YOU KNOW, GIVES THE GRANTS THE POWERS TO THE TOWN BOARD TO, YOU KNOW, GRANT SITE PLANS. AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT SECOND CLAUSE REALLY NEEDED TO BE ADDED. CODE ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T REALLY ENFORCE OUR REVIEW OF SITE PLAN REVIEW. THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE THEIR OWN PIECE OF IT WHEN IT GOES FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT CLAUSE WAS NECESSARY. YOU ALSO NOTICE UNDER 283 07.2 UNDER APPLICABILITY, WE ADDED THAT CLAUSE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THINGS ACTUALLY COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD VERSUS WHAT DON'T COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO I'LL JUST SCROLL IF I CAN FIND. SO YOU'LL SEE UNDER 283 07.2 IT TALKS ABOUT OTHERWISE UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED AND AS REGULATED IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THE SITE PLAN REGULATIONS AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES THAT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT OR A CFO UNDER THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT FOR FARMS RESIDENTIAL DECKS. I ADDED SIGNS BECAUSE I KNOW WE GOT A
[00:05:04]
QUESTION FROM JEFF ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD. WANT TO LOOK AT SIGNS? YOU KNOW, IS THAT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT LOOKS AT? AS OF RIGHT NOW, CODE ENFORCEMENT ONLY LOOKS AT SIGNS. I'VE NEVER BROUGHT A SIGN, PERMIT OR SIGNS TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO I ADDED THAT AS SOMETHING THAT'S EXEMPT FROM PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. FENCES ONE. FAMILY, TWO FAMILY FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND THEIR ACCESSORY USES BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES AND THEN ANY USES AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPERVISING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS CLAUSE SAYS IS THAT ANYTHING THAT NEEDS A BUILDING PERMIT OR A CFO IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL, EXCEPT FOR THE USES THAT I JUST MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. I'LL STOP THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ON THOSE FIRST COUPLE OF PIECES. JOSH WASN'T THERE. THERE'S LAW.THERE'S CASE LAW NOW WITH THE SIGNS THAT WE CAN'T THERE'S NOT MUCH. YEAH. WE DON'T WE'VE NEVER YOU CAN'T PUT. YEAH. WE'VE NEVER THERE'S NOT MUCH. YEAH. WE'VE NEVER REVIEWED SIGNS. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE HAS HANDLED.
SO WE JUST I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT CODIFY IT IN OUR CODE THAT THAT'S JUST ANOTHER ASPECT THAT THIS BOARD WILL NOT REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON ON THIS AT THIS TIME? NO, I THINK THAT'S A NO MEMBER. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SIGNS. SO IF A PROJECT HAS SIGNAGE INCLUDED IN THE SITE PLAN, ARE WE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT A PART OF OUR REVIEW BUT THAT OR IS IT WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN COMES TO BE ERECTED THAT IT WOULDN'T BE COMING TO US? SO AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO ERECT WOULD NOT COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. WE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BEEN EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WHERE SIGNAGE HAS BEEN A PART OF A SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE OFFERED A RECOMMENDATION ON OR PROVIDED COMMENTS ON, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE APPROVAL POWER OF SAID SIGN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND SO THAT THAT KEEPS THIS AS PART OF. SO WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO PUT A CONDITION SAY FOR EXAMPLE, ON A SITE PLAN RELATED TO SIGNAGE, THIS THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THIS LANGUAGE SAYS IS THAT SOMEBODY WHO APPLIES FOR A SIGN PERMIT, OR APPLIES FOR A VARIANCE FOR A SIGN, OR ANYTHING RELATED TO A SIGN DOES NOT NEED TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. BUT IF SIGNAGE IS A PART OF AN OVERALL SITE PLAN, THEN THE BOARD CAN STILL ADD CONDITIONS. ASK FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT TO LOOK INTO DIFFERENT THINGS, AS WE'VE DONE WITH PREVIOUS PROJECTS. SO IF BUSINESS WAS HAND WAS ADDING A SIGN TO THE BUSINESS AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS, WHICH THE GOLF COURSE OR THE GOLF CART, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. YEAH, IS AN EXAMPLE. IT'S AN EXISTING BUSINESS. IT WOULDN'T COME TO US. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S SUPER CLEAR. RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. WE DON'T WE DON'T LOSE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE OUR OPINION ON THE SIGN ON A SITE PLAN. RIGHT. OKAY, OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST PARTS OF 283 07.2 JUST TALK ABOUT THEY JUST CLARIFY WHAT DOES COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO ALL NEW COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL USES, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL OR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, CONVERSIONS OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL TO NONRESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS. WE SPECIFICALLY SAID THREE OR MORE BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY EXCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR TWO FAMILY HOMES. ANY MODIFICATION OF ANY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHICH INCREASES THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS TO THREE OR MORE, AND THEN ANY CONVERSION OF ANY NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FROM ONE TYPE OF USE TO ANOTHER. SO THAT'S A LOT OF TIMES YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE CHANGE OF USES THAT COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
THAT JUST SPECIFIES THAT THOSE KIND OF PROJECTS WILL COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. SO THE WHOLE POINT OF 208307.2 IS PUTTING IN CODE WHAT IS EXEMPT FROM COMING TO THE PLANNING BOARD VERSUS WHAT WOULD REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. I'LL STOP THERE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PIECE? NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. NEXT I WANTED TO COVER 280 308. WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ADD TO IT PREVIOUSLY. THIS CODE OR THIS SECTION OF THE CODE WAS CALLED SITE PLAN WAIVER. FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS, SITE PLAN WAIVERS USED TO COME TO THE A COMMITTEE, WHAT'S CALLED THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WAIVER COMMITTEE. IT'S MADE UP OF THE PLANNING CHAIR, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, MEMBER OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND EITHER THE HEAD OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR THE TOWN ENGINEER.
WE'RE KEEPING THAT SAME MAKEUP, SO THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. WE'LL JUST CALL OURSELVES THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER COMMITTEE NOW. BUT WHAT WILL CHANGE IS UNDER SITE PLAN WAIVERS. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CLAUSES THAT REQUIRED THAT WERE REQUIRED BEFORE SOMEBODY COULD GET A SITE PLAN WAIVER. ESSENTIALLY WHAT A SITE PLAN WAIVER IS, IS THAT AN APPLICANT
[00:10:02]
CAN PROVIDE A SITE PLAN AS LONG AS AN EXISTING SITE PLAN WAS ON FILE, AND WOULD NOT NEED TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE FULL SITE PLAN REVIEW. THAT WAS CONTINGENT ON THE ADDITION OR THEIR STRUCTURE BEING 1000FTS OR LESS. IT WAS CONTINGENT ON THE STRUCTURE OR THE BUILDING NOT BEING VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD, WHICH IN RETROSPECT, I WE WANTED TO TAKE OUT BECAUSE THAT LANGUAGE WAS KIND OF AMBIGUOUS. IT REALLY WAS ESSENTIALLY UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THAT SITE PLAN, REVIEW COMMITTEE, SITE PLAN, REVIEW WAIVER COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD VERSUS WHAT WASN'T. IT SEEMED A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY. SO WE WANTED TO TAKE THAT PROVISION OUT. AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGES UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW WAIVER WERE A MINOR CHANGE THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING OR ANY USES THAT WERE DETERMINED BY THAT WAIVER COMMITTEE. WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE OF IT IS BECAUSE SITE PLAN, REVIEW, WAIVER, THE LANGUAGE OF IT AND HOW IT SOUNDED MADE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY WERE EXEMPT FROM EVEN COMING TO ENGINEERING, OR HAVING ENGINEERING CONDITIONS, OR NEEDING TO COME TO THE BUILDING OR THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AT ALL. SO BY CALLING IT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER, IT'S STILL YOU STILL HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT ENGINEERING MIGHT PLACE. YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT BUILDING WOULD PLACE ON ■IT. SO WE JUST WANTED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF HOW IT WAS CALLED. AND WE ALSO WANTED TO CHANGE SOME OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE CRITERIA OF HOW YOU GET THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER. YOU'LL SEE ON TWO 80, 380 ADDITIONS OR DETACHED STRUCTURES OF LESS THAN 2500FT■S, OR WHICH WILL REPRESENT LESS THAN 10% OF THE STRUCTURE. YOU'LL SEE. I LEFT A COMMENT THAT SAYS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE KIND OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AN ADDITION? WE THOUGHT AT THE TIME THAT 1000FT■!S WAS PRETTY SMALL. WE'E SEEN A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, 1500 2000FT■!S THAT WE THOUGHT QUALIFIED FOR A SITE PLAN WAIVER BUT DIDN'T QUALIFY AT THE TIME BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE WE WANTED TO ADD, YOU KNOW, TO THE CRITERIA OF EXPANDING THAT A LITTLE BIT.BUT IT'S STILL OBVIOUSLY IN DRAFT FORM. IF THERE ARE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS THAT FEEL OTHERWISE, WHETHER THEY WANT TO EXPAND IT, WHETHER THEY WANT TO INCREASE IT, YOU KNOW, NOW IS THE TIME TO KIND OF GIVE ME SOME OF YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT. SO I'LL KIND OF STOP THERE AND KIND OF LET YOU DIGEST THAT. HOW DO PEOPLE FEEL NOT ONLY ABOUT THE CRITERIA ITSELF, WHERE IT'S AS OF RIGHT NOW TO GET AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. YOUR ADDITION OR YOUR STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE LESS THAN 2500FT■!S, OR LESS THAN 10% OF E EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MINOR CHANGE THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING. I'LL KIND OF STOP THERE AND THINK AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS ON THAT PIECE RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST A CLARIFICATION TO THAT. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS 1000FT THAT NOW WITH IT BEING 2500FT■S OR LESS THAN 10%, WHICH ALSO NO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED, SO THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE MAKING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LARGER, YOU'RE STILL BEING HELD TO IF THERE'S A VARIANCE NEEDED YOU, YOU'RE NOT JUST GETTING THIS WAIVER BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF YOUR WHATEVER PROPOSED PLAN. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE. YEAH, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION THAT WHETHER YOU'RE BUILDING AN ADDITION OR YOU'RE EXPANDING YOUR EXISTING STRUCTURE SAYS WHERE NO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED. SO THIS IS NOT SITE PLAN WAIVERS AREN'T GIVEN FOR PEOPLE WHO THEN NEED TO ALSO THEN GO TO THE ZONING BOARD. SO THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. CAN I GO DIDN'T WE DISCUSS 280 308 AT LENGTH ABOUT THE SIGNATURES ON A SITE PLAN WAIVER ON A ON A WAIVER? YEAH, WE DID. WE TALKED ABOUT DID WE CHANGE IT TO THREE SIGNATURES. NOW HAVE TO BE ON THERE. SO WE TALKED ABOUT NEEDING A MAJORITY. SO RIGHT NOW THE SITE PLAN OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER COMMITTEE IS FOR PEOPLE. A MAJORITY OF THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THREE. BUT WHAT WE DID IS WHICH YOU'LL NOTICE IS DIFFERENT IS IF THERE'S A TIE VOTE. SO IF TWO YOU AND I THINK THAT IT'S WORTHY OF A SITE PLAN WAIVER AND JEFF AND CAMMY DON'T THAT IT WOULD THEN COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A REGULAR SITE PLAN REVIEW. THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE ADDED. OKAY. SO YEAH, SO WE ADDED THREE NEEDING THREE SIGNATURES BECAUSE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY AT LEAST A MAJORITY. IF YOU KNOW, THE FOUR OF US AREN'T ABLE TO AGREE WHAT WASN'T IN THERE WAS THERE WAS NO CLAUSE IF WE TIED IF THERE WAS BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR PEOPLE. SO THERE WAS NO CLAUSE ON, WELL, WHAT IF WE DON'T AGREE? NOW THERE'S A CLAUSE. IF WE AREN'T ABLE TO AGREE OR COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I'VE HAD I WAS PART OF A LOT OF SITE PLAN REVIEWS THAT I GOT CALLED ON, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN I HAVEN'T GOTTEN CALLED ON ANY. WE HAVEN'T HAD MANY PEOPLE OVER THE PAST YEAR REALLY COME FOR. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANYBODY COME FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW RECENTLY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. NOT THAT I NEED ANY MORE WORK, BUT I WAS JUST JUST MENTIONING THAT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE 2500. YOU CAN LEAVE IT, BUT I'M I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH 20. I THINK
[00:15:04]
IT'S TOO MUCH. DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE? INSTEAD? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE 1500. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. 1000 I CAN UNDERSTAND. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THINGS WHEN YOU'RE STARTING TO BUILD ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 2500 IS A LOT OF FEET. AND SOMEBODY MIGHT BUILD 22,499 JUST A, YOU KNOW, OR, OR SOMETHING TO AVOID ALL OF IT.AND I THINK THEY STILL IT STILL NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THE SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ADDITIONS AS LISTED IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WAIVER? I WOULD BE I WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THE 1500 SQUARE FOOT. AND YOUR NAME, MA'AM? SORRY. MEMBER.
RYAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? AUGUST I ALSO AGREE WITH THE 1500 SQUARE FEET. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. AND THEN THE LIKE I SAID, I WANT TO PIECEMEAL THIS SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW SECTION. BUT THE NEXT PIECE THAT I WANT TO GO OVER IN DETAIL IS WE'RE GOING TO SKIP A COUPLE OF SECTIONS. WE'LL COME BACK TO THE ONES THAT I SKIPPED. BUT ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT I WANTED TO GO OVER, IF I COULD FIND IT, IS SECTION TWO, 8312.
AND THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO GO OVER THIS AND YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT WE'VE ADDED TO IT IS TWO 8312 ARE THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVALS. SO IT SAYS UNDER SUBSECTION A THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL REVIEW THE SITE PLAN AND SUPPORTING DATA AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUSLY OR RIGHT NOW IN OUR CODE FOR WHAT THE BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO REVIEW UNDER THE CRITERIA ARE THERE IS ONLY FOUR CRITERIA UNDERNEATH THAT. WHAT WE'VE NOTICED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, AND ESPECIALLY MUNICIPALITIES OF THE SAME SIZE AS HAMBURG OR BIGGER, ARE THAT WE WANTED TO INCREASE THE CRITERIA OF WHICH THIS BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO REVIEW SITE PLANS UNDER. WE WANT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN JUST RECENTLY OVER DIFFERENT SITE PLANS, THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP. SO WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE IS THESE ARE CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SEVEN OF YOU AS YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, UNDERGOING SITE PLAN REVIEW. SO THINGS LIKE HAVING A HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPOSED USES AND EXISTING ADJACENT USES, THE MAXIMUM SAFETY OF VEHICULAR CIRCULATION BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE STREET NETWORK. I THINK MORE SO NOW THAN EVER, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF HOW HAMBURG HAS DEVELOPED.
WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE CIRCULATION ISSUES. YOU GUYS HAVE ASKED FOR A LOT MORE CIRCULATION PLANS, A LOT MORE TRAFFIC REPORTS THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST. SO MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S PART OF THE CRITERIA OF WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING AND BEING ABLE TO CODIFY AND SAYING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU KNOW, CAN ASK FOR.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS ARE REVIEWING, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION, THE ADEQUACY OF INTERIOR TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY WITH A PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. IT'S ONE THING TO OBVIOUSLY DESIGN SITE PLANS FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, BUT I THINK YOU DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF THIS, OF ASKING HOW DOES THE SIDEWALKS INTERCONNECT? HOW ARE PEOPLE WALKING FROM, YOU KNOW, THIS RESTAURANT BUILDING, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR CAR AND BACK? AND, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY WALKING THROUGH A SEA OF PAVEMENT OR NOT? DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH LANDSCAPING OR ENOUGH MEDIANS OR ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, SAFETY FEATURES WITHIN THE SITE? IT'S EASY TO LOOK AT IT FROM A CAR STANDPOINT, BUT FROM A PEDESTRIAN STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S CODIFIED IN THERE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. NUMBER FIVE ADEQUACY OF LANDSCAPING AND AREAS TO BE PROTECTED. SETBACKS IN REGARDS TO ACHIEVING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING.
I KNOW THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE WHERE SOMETIMES WE'VE ACTUALLY ASKED PEOPLE TO REDUCE LANDSCAPING TO KIND OF MOVE AND SHIFT THINGS, AND IT'LL OBVIOUSLY BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, CODIFYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE ADEQUACY OF LANDSCAPING AS NEED BE, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF ANY OVERLAY.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A NUMBER OF OVERLAYS IN THE TOWN. THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY, THE LAKEVIEW OVERLAY, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE INCORPORATING THAT. AND IF A PROJECT IS IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND WE'RE REVIEWING SITE PLANS UNDER THOSE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AS WELL, ESTHETICS, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. EIGHT THROUGH 12, WE ADDED. SO THESE AREN'T CURRENTLY IN SITE PLAN REVIEW. AFTER CONSULTING WITH CAMI WE TALKED ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS.
OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF THAT IS GOING TO FALL ON THE ENGINEERING SIDE WHEN IT COMES TO REVIEW, BUT ALSO JUST WANTED, YOU KNOW, TO CODIFY THAT, SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CAN CONSIDER UNDER THE CRITERIA OF WHAT THEY'RE REVIEWING. IF WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO CAMMIE'S DESK UNDER ENGINEERING REVIEW, IF WE CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS THAT MIGHT STREAMLINE THAT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT COMING TO CAMI AFTER WE'VE GIVEN THEM SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WITH ALL THESE ISSUES, I THINK WILL HELP STREAMLINE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE THOSE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, DRAINAGE, FLOODING AND GRADING IMPACTS. LIKE I SAID, THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO,
[00:20:02]
YOU KNOW WHAT, CAMI WILL REVIEW JUST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS A WHOLE. AND THEN WE WANTED TO ADD A CLAUSE SPECIFICALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACE, PLAYGROUNDS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL AMENITIES. THIS ONE IS ONE THAT WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO ADD, BECAUSE WE'VE OBVIOUSLY SEEN A NUMBER OF SUBDIVISIONS BE APPROVED OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FROM THE PLANNING BOARD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AND WANTED TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ADEQUATE OPEN SPACE, DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH PLAYGROUND AND OTHER TYPE OF AMENITIES FOR CHILDREN THAT MIGHT BE IN SAID DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AS WE SEE FIT? AND THEN WE JUST WANTED TO ADD OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND LAWS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, KIND OF JUST AN OVERALL ALL ENCOMPASSING KIND OF THING. SO I'LL STOP THERE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO ADD AND CODIFY. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU PUT THEM IN YOUR LAW, YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEM. YOU HAVE TO REVIEW THEM. YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN HERE, THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE IMPACTS AND CONSIDERING THEM, ARE THERE ANY IMPACTS THAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT REMOVED? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THINK YOU KNOW SHOULD STAY, SHOULD BE REMOVED OR ANY JUST ANY THOUGHTS AT ALL? I, I, I THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXCELLENT LIST AND I'M GOING TO I'M NOT QUITE SURE. AND ATTORNEY GOGAN MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. THERE'S TWO THINGS. ONE, DO WE WANT TO ENTERTAIN BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, OVER THE YEAR, THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, CURRENT OWNERSHIP, WHO THE PROPERTY IS, THE ACTUAL OWNER NOW, AND IF THERE IS SOMEONE THAT'S PURCHASING THE PROPERTY THAT'S COMING BEFORE US, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VERBIAGE IS, BUT AN ATTORNEY, JOSEPH ROGAN, JOSH AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANT TO ADDRESS IT HERE, BUT YOU AND I EXCUSE ME, YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH WHO'S THE APPLICANT AND WHAT'S THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP JUST FOR STANDING PURPOSES. THAT'S THE LEGAL PHRASE FOR, YOU KNOW, WHO'S ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE. I KNOW THE ZONING BOARD HAS HAS THAT INFORMATION ON THEIR APPLICATION, WHO THE WHO THE OWNER IS AND WHAT THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT. I THINK HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SATISFY THAT COMMENT, CINDY IS ADDING, SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE A SECTION. I HAVEN'T GONE OVER IT IN DETAIL YET, BUT WE WILL THE APPLICATION PHASE AND THE MATERIALS THAT ARE REQUIRED, WHETHER IT'S SKETCH PLAN OR WHETHER IT'S THE FULL SITE PLAN, I THINK BY ADDING LIKE TO MR. GOLDEN'S POINT, ADDING SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ON THE APPLICATION OR JUST AMENDING THE APPLICATION ITSELF TO REQUIRE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU KNOW, EITHER HAS, YOU KNOW, DOCUMENTATION OF SIGN OFF OR THAT THEIR ATTORNEY IS WORKING IN THEIR INTEREST, PUTTING THAT SORT OF LANGUAGE WITHIN THE CODE SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION INSTEAD OF THE CRITERIA, BECAUSE THE CRITERIA IS, ARE YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISION. ALL THESE CRITERIA ARE YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISION ON THESE IMPACTS VERSUS I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IF YOU DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY, WE DON'T YOU DON'T HAVE A CASE, YOU KNOW, AND UNLESS WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO OWN THE PROPERTY, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE INSTANCES WHERE THE PEOPLE THAT CAME IN FRONT OF US SHOULD HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN IN FRONT OF US. I THINK HOW THAT CAN BE RECTIFIED IS BY REQUIRING IT IN THE APPLICATION PHASE, WE EITHER HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEIR ATTORNEY OR WHOEVER'S REPRESENTING THE PROJECT HAS, YOU KNOW, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OR IT HAS TO BE THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER. THAT'S BEFORE YOU. ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGUEN. I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE IT. IT'S THE THE BUILDING PERMIT LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION IS HOW THE BUILDING PERMIT DEPARTMENT HANDLES IT. SO IT'S ACTUAL YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE CONTRACT ITSELF. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. BUT JUST LIKE AN ABSTRACT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS ONE IS SUFFICIENT FOR OUR PURPOSES, JUST SO WE KNOW WHO HAS. SO THERE'D BE A FORM IN OUR SHAREPOINT INDICATING THAT THEN IT WOULD BE A PART OF THE PART OF OUR PAPERWORK, IT WOULD BE PART OF APPLICATION MATERIALS THAT GETS SENT TO YOU.CORRECT. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE HISTORY OR IF THERE'S ANY VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY IN THE PAST? OH, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT. THAT'S MORE OF A CAUSE WE HAVE ASKED ABOUT THAT AND IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IN THE PAST. SO AND IT'S IF IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE CHECKLIST. I THINK THAT MAYBE IT COULD BE PART OF THE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW. ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN. THERE MAY BE LEGAL ISSUES WITH THAT. I MEAN, IF THE NEW OWNER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PRIOR VIOLATIONS, THEN SHOULD IT BE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STARTING TO GO DOWN A RABBIT HOLE OF OF OTHER CRITERIA? OKAY. SO IS THERE SOME RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRIOR OWNER AND THIS OWNER THAT ANY VIOLATION WOULD? AND NOW YOU'RE STARTING TO GET INTO A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THOSE REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT. WELL, LET ME CLARIFY. OPEN. AS LONG AS THERE'S NO OPEN ACTIVE VIOLATIONS THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. I MEAN, IN THE PAST, WHAT WE'VE ASKED FOR, WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS GOING ON ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE PAST. AND IF WE'RE
[00:25:01]
TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT OWNER, IT COULD SIMPLY BE ADDRESSED, IN MY OPINION, THAT THERE WERE VIOLATIONS AND WE HAD ONE ON ROUTE FIVE. THERE WERE VIOLATIONS ON THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THIS THIS APPLICANT WAS NOT A, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT PART OF THAT. AND THAT WOULD CLARIFY IT. BUT IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S GOT CONSISTENT VIOLATIONS AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF. YEAH, I THINK OBVIOUSLY WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE VIOLATIONS, THIS BOARD WILL BE MADE AWARE OF IT. I'M A LITTLE BIT HESITANT TO CODIFY IT UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OR THE CRITERIA OF HOW WE REVIEW SITE PLAN REVIEW, JUST BECAUSE. TO MR. GOLDEN'S POINT, THERE ARE THOSE UNIQUE CASES WHERE, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE FROM PREVIOUS OWNERS. AND I THINK CODIFYING IT. LIKE I SAID, ONCE YOU PUT IT INTO YOUR CODE, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. I'D RATHER IT BE ON THE APPLICATION. YEAH, I'D RATHER IT BE ON THE APPLICATION. I'D RATHER IT BE IN SOME OTHER FORM THAN PUTTING IT IN THE CODE, BECAUSE ONCE WE PUT IT INTO THE CODE, WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY IT. OKAY, I AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. COME, ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN, AGAIN, YOU RUN INTO A REAL ISSUE. IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL THEN IT'S THE PRIOR OWNER. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. WELL, WHAT IF THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, JUST ANECDOTAL THINGS? WHAT IF IT WAS THE PERSON'S BROTHER IN LAW OR THEIR SEE, NOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S A IT WASN'T A IT WAS A LESS THAN ARM'S LENGTH TRANSACTION. SO NOW NOW YOU START SPLITTING HAIRS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION THAT CREATED THE NEW OWNERSHIP. AND AGAIN AND I AGREE CODIFYING THAT IS NOT WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH THAT OKAY OKAY. WHAT I WILL DO IS THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY FOR SOME OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT AT ALL. FOR SOME OF YOU, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS. I'LL STOP THERE AND KIND OF LET YOU SIT WITH IT. OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL FREE TO EMAIL ME OR SHARE OTHER THOUGHTS. WHAT WE WILL DO FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS. SO THIS ISN'T THE ONLY TIME I'M TALKING ABOUT SITE PLAN REVIEW. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THE THE PART OF THE CODE THAT REALLY RELATES TO THE PLANNING BOARD WILL TAKE AN IN DEPTH AND VERY COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF IT. I'LL GO OVER THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AT THE NEXT MEETING IN MARCH, AND SOME OF THE OTHER SECTIONS WHERE WE'VE ADDED TO IT. I KNOW CAMI HAS HAD PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON IT. I'LL CIRCULATE THIS VERSION OF THE DOC TO CAMI, JUST TO TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT IT. FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, I'M SURE SHE'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON IT AND ALSO SHARE IT WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT TOO. ALSO, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THERE COGNIZANT OF IT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT BECAUSE THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY OUR ENFORCEMENT ARM. AND THEN I WILL COME BACK AT THE SAME WORK SESSION IN MARCH AND WE'LL KIND OF, LIKE I SAID, PIECEMEAL IT. I DON'T WANT TO THROW TOO MUCH INFORMATION AT YOU, BUT ALWAYS IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS, SOMETHING THAT POPS IN YOUR HEAD, FEEL FREE TO LET ME KNOW AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT. AND THIS WILL BE. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU, SO IT'LL BE THE TOWN BOARD WHO WILL HAVE FINAL SAY OVER WHAT THE FINAL CODE WILL LOOK LIKE. BUT OBVIOUSLY AS THE PLANNING BOARD, YOUR INPUT GOES A LONG WAY, SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND, OKAY. THANK YOU AS ALWAYS JOSH. THANK YOU. ANYWAY, MY GAVEL OUT OKAY. IT'S 703. SO WE'RE RUNNING A COUPLE OF MINUTES LATE. AND I WOULD NOW LIKE TO CALL THE FEBRUARY 18TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER. WOULD YOU PLEASE ALL 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. THANK YOU. MEMBER DRAKE, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES.CINDY GRONINGEN, PRESENT. CAITLIN SHIMURA, PRESENT. WILLIAM CLARK HERE. KIM. RYAN, PRESENT. RICK ZAJAK HERE. BRIAN STEWART IS ABSENT, ABSENT AND EXCUSED AND EXCUSED. OKAY.
[1. Richard Saunders – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval on a proposal for a 2-lot subdivision at 5225 Scranton Road ]
THANK YOU. MEMBER DRAKE, OUR FIRST CASE IS RICHARD SANDERS OR SAUNDERS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR ON A PROPOSED ON A PROPOSAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AT 5225 SCRANTON ROAD. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WE TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK, RIGHT? NO.YOU'RE GOOD. YES. MR. SANDERS IS NOT HERE, OR SAUNDERS IS NOT HERE. HE'S OUT OF TOWN. BUT WE DID NOT REQUIRE HIM TO BE HERE FOR THIS ASPECT. THERE IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF EVERYONE. THERE SHOULD BE A HARD COPY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT. IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE. I THINK EVERYBODY WAS HERE DURING THE LAST PRESENTATION, SO IF YOU I DON'T ARE THERE ANY? FIRST OF ALL ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR BOARD MEMBERS IN IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S TAKING PLACE ON THIS CASE OR WHAT'S HAPPENING? MEMBERS WILL RECUSE HERSELF BECAUSE I WAS NOT HERE. OKAY. THE ONE UPDATE THAT I'LL ADD JUST ON MR. SAUNDERS BEHALF IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ASKED FOR, HE DID COMPLETE IS WE ASKED FOR HIM TO PUT A NOTE ON
[00:30:04]
THE SURVEY OF WHERE THE ONE FAMILY DWELLING WAS GOING TO BE, AND WHERE THE TWO FAMILY WAS GOING TO BE, DEPENDING ON HOW THE LOT WAS GOING TO BE SPLIT. SO HE DID ADD THAT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. I JUST WANTED TO BE ON THE RECORD. AND HE MOVED THE SHED IN THE BACK. HE MOVED THE SHED TO THE BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. JOSH. SO DO YOU WANT TO PUT THE RESOLUTION UP IN FRONT OF. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE RESOLUTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US? MEMBER.CLERK. USUALLY WITH A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE SIDEWALKS AND THERE'S NOT SIDEWALKS THERE, BUT IT IS AN AREA WITH NOT SAFE PEDESTRIAN. ANYTHING. A FEW YEARS AGO, IT WASN'T TOO FAR FROM THERE WHERE THERE WAS AN INCIDENT, AND SOMETIMES WE REQUIRE SIDEWALKS, EVEN IN AREAS WHERE THERE'S NOT ANY, BECAUSE IF WE NEVER REQUIRE THEM, THEN THEY'RE NEVER GOING IN. SO I JUST WONDERING IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE. THERE'S NO SAFE WAY TO WALK AROUND THERE, WHETHER SIDEWALKS ON THE ROAD AT ALL. NO, NO. AND THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY HOUSE THAT WOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS. BUT IF WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM, NONE OF THEM ARE EVER GOING TO GET THEM. WELL, THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? ORCHESTRATE? THE ONLY PROBLEM IS CURRENTLY WITH THAT PICTURE THERE'S WALKING AREA ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT COME WINTER TIME WITH THE SNOW REMOVAL AND THE PLOWING, PRETTY MUCH THE SNOW RIGHT NOW ON BOTH SIDES. EVEN THOUGH WARM WEATHER IS COMING, IS OVER THE WHITE LINES ON EACH SIDE. I DROVE DOWN THERE THIS MORNING, AND THERE'S STILL PROBABLY A FOOT AND A HALF OVERLAPPING THE WHITE LINES OF SNOW THAT'S BEEN REMOVED. SO EVEN WITH SIDEWALKS IN THERE, IT'S NOT THE BEST PLACE TO WALK IN THE WINTER MONTHS. SPRING, SUMMER. IT'S FINE. YOU GOT ACCESS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT COME DECEMBER THROUGH, PROBABLY THE END OF MARCH, MAYBE APRIL, TRYING TO PUT SIDEWALKS IN AND WALKING IT EVEN WITH IT'S NOT PRACTICAL.
IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. BUT AGAIN, IT'S MORE COMMON SENSE OF WALKING DOWN STRAND ROAD IN THE WINTERTIME. EVEN IN THE SUMMER. IT'S NOT THAT WIDE. NO, IT ISN'T, BUT IT'S STILL I MEAN, I'VE GONE BIKE RIDING ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT ROAD, AND THAT LITTLE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE WHITE LINE WAS ALWAYS SUFFICIENT. FOR I JUST RODE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE TRAFFIC AND MADE SURE I HAD A BRIGHT SHIRT ON OR JACKET ON, WHETHER IT WAS DAYTIME OR NIGHTTIME. ANYONE ELSE? MEMBER SHIMURA I UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT OF, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BUILD IN ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT LOOKING AT THE AREA, I DON'T KNOW IF WE SEE AS MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE THAT WOULD BE COMING ACROSS THAT WOULD THEN SPARK ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS. I MEAN, IT'S PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH WE JUST WENT THROUGH, IS NOT GOING TO COME THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH WAS THEN WHERE WE WOULD TRIGGER ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS. AND I'M USUALLY VERY PRO SIDEWALKS. I CONCUR WITH MEMBER SHIMURA, AND THIS IS KIND OF A RURAL AREA. IT'S AN ESTABLISHED AREA. IF THIS WAS TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT MEMBER SHIMURA SAID, IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE A SUBDIVISION COMING IN DOWN THE ROAD, THEN I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE TIME FOR THIS BOARD TO ENTERTAIN AND START ADDING SIDEWALKS. BUT FOR A CHANGE ON AN EXISTING PROPERTY WHEN THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT AREA. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE SAFETY, BUT IT'S PRETTY RURAL, SO I, I CAN'T SEEM TO. I, I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT TO ADDING SIDEWALKS JUST FOR ONE HOUSE OR TWO HOUSES. ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOERGEN, THERE IS A CODE
[00:35:02]
SECTION THAT REFERS TO THIS. ACTUALLY IT'S A LET ME JUST PULL IT UP HERE. TWO 3022 STREETS, REFERRING TO PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION. IT SHALL BE THE REQUIREMENT THAT SIDEWALKS BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL OF THE NEW ROADWAY, NEW ROADWAYS, UNLESS WAIVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SUBDIVISIONS INVOLVING NO NEW ROADS OR FOR THE AREA OF SUBDIVISION, WITH NEW ROADS THAT ABUT AN EXISTING ROAD SIDEWALK, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED ALONG THE EXISTING ROAD UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DETERMINED TO BE REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, AND IN PARENTHESES TO CONNECT INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK SYSTEMS. YEAH, SO IT WOULDN'T EVEN IT DOESN'T FIT THAT. AND I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT CODE NUMBER AGAIN. YEAH, IT'S TWO 3022 230. AND THEN SO TWO 3022 IS TITLED STREETS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S PERTINENT TO THE STREETS. AND THEN IT'S SUBSECTION L OKAY. SO I THINK THE STATEMENT THAT'S ON THERE, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AND THE SUPPORT FROM THE ATTORNEY, FROM THE BOARD ATTORNEY, I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH LEAVING THAT ON THERE. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. SO I KNOW ALL OF YOU. IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND NOBODY WANTS TO READ, BUT I KNOW THAT I'VE GOT PEOPLE JUMPING AT ME BECAUSE THEY WERE CATCHING ME. OH, MEMBER RYAN, YOU'RE UP. GO RIGHT AHEAD, GIRL. HEY, I HAVE TO HAVE ENTERTAINMENT. YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN I TELL YOU? MEMBER RYAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RICHARD SAUNDERS. TWO LOT SUBDIVISION NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL.RESOLUTION 218 2026. SPEAKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY RICHARD SAUNDERS TO BE LOCATED AT 5225 SCRANTON ROAD SPL NUMBER 17.1744. BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS AND THE INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE EAF, WHICH WILL ACT AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY A MEMBER. RYAN, IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER SHIMURA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED. I'M SORRY. DID SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING MYSELF? YOU RECUSED YOURSELF AND THEN YOU VOTED. YEAH, I KNOW, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO LET'S RECALL. WELL, LET'S REDO THAT VOTE BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. MEMBER SHIMURA HAS RECUSED HERSELF. SO FOR THE REMAINING BOARD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I, I IS THERE A IS THERE A SECOND OF THE MOTION MEMBER TRACY, WE'RE HAVING FUN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION THAT WE JUST ALL APPROVED? I SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. I'M GOING BACK TO TRAINING SCHOOL TOMORROW MORNING. OKAY, OKAY. SO THE SEEKER PORTION HAS PASSED. HAVE I VIOLATED ANYTHING HERE? ARE WE GOOD? OKAY, SO LET'S DO THE SECOND PART. YEP. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR RICHARD SAUNDERS TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS ONE. THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED, AS NO OTHER SIDEWALKS EXIST ALONG THIS STRETCH OF SCRANTON ROAD. FINALLY, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT, AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT.
OKAY, IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? AUGUST 2ND IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I. SO THE MOTION PASSES AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO. OKAY. I'LL SEE IF I CAN, YOU KNOW, BOTCH UP THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. IT'S MY FAULT. I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. YOU'RE
[2. Ten Lives Club Inc. – Requesting a use variance for the expansion of rescue services to be located at 3747 Lakeshore Road]
FORGIVEN. IT'S TEAMWORK. SO OUR NEXT CASE IS TEN LIVES CLUB, REQUESTING A USE VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF RESCUE SERVICES TO BE LOCATED AT 3747 LAKESHORE ROAD. AND WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE WHO'S GOING TO GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE. AND WE'RE SORRY ABOUT[00:40:05]
YOUR HARDSHIP THERE LAST WEEK. YOU'VE KIND OF HAD A ROUGH GO WITH THE BREAK IN AND OH YES, ALL THOSE ITEMS STOLEN. I SAW IT ON THE NEWS. I WAS LIKE, OH MY GOSH. SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE SOMETHING EXCITING. GO AHEAD, I HOPE SO. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ON. I'M NOT. IT'S ON. SO I CAN DO IS SPEAK INTO IT PLEASE. OKAY. KATHLEEN MORIARTY, ATTORNEY FOR TEN LIVES CLUB.THEY ARE THE TEN LIVES CLUB DOES NOT ACTUALLY OWN THE THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT. THEY ARE HOPEFULLY PURCHASING IT FROM 24 KARAT SOLID GOLD. IF YOU CAN SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT.
SURE. THANK YOU. WE'RE SO TEN LIVES CLUB DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT. THEY ARE HOPEFULLY PURCHASING IT FROM 24 KARAT SOLID GOLD AND THEN USING THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE HOPEFULLY PURCHASING IN ORDER TO EXPAND THEIR FELINE RESCUE MISSION. SO THE CURRENT FACILITY IS MOSTLY SHELTER. SOME VETERINARY SERVICES. JUST MY UNDERSTANDING IS UPFRONT, YOU KNOW, SPAYING OR NEUTERING, VACCINES, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THEN THE IN PURCHASING THE SECOND PROPERTY, THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD BE USED FOR SENIOR CAT SHELTERS. AND THE FIRST FLOOR, THEY HAD A MEETING LAST NIGHT AND I DID NOT HEAR BACK. THEY WERE DECIDING WHETHER THE FIRST FLOOR WOULD POTENTIALLY BE USED AS SOME SORT OF A RETAIL FACILITY TO RAISE MONEY FOR THEIR, THEIR FACILITY OR A CAT CAFE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S EVER BEEN TO A CAT CAFE, BUT IT'S SORT OF LIKE A IF YOU'RE, YOU CAN GO IN AND HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE OR A CUP OF TEA AND THERE'S CATS FLOATING AROUND SO YOU CAN SNUGGLE WITH THE CATS. AND IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF HAVING YOUR CUP OF COFFEE IN THE AFTERNOON. THEY'RE KIND OF CUTE.
SO AT ANY RATE, I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK ON THAT AT THAT POINT. AND OBVIOUSLY, IF THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE ZBA HAD ANY INPUT INTO THAT, WHETHER ONE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE OVER THE OTHER, I THINK THEY WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING THAT. OKAY. PLANNING BOARD OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT? SO I OBVIOUSLY SPOKE WITH KATHLEEN ABOUT THIS. THE REASON THIS IS GOING FOR A USER VARIANCE IS 37, 47 AND TEN LIVES CLUB ARE BOTH ZONED M3, WHICH IS OUR HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL USE. OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DETERMINED THAT, YOU KNOW RESCUE SERVICES SHELTER. YOU KNOW HOWEVER YOU WANT TO CALL. THE USE IS NOT AN APPROVED USE IN M3, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE APPLYING FOR THE USE VARIANCE. WE TALKED WITH KATHLEEN ABOUT REQUIRING, YOU KNOW, THE SHORT FORM. WE'LL HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD BE THE LEAD AGENCY. THE REASON BEING IS THAT TWO 8317 OF OUR TOWN CODE SAYS THAT IF IN A PROJECT HAS TWO DIFFERENT APPROVALS BY TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS, IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD, BUT THEY ALSO WILL COME BACK TO US FOR A CHANGE OF USE. AS I JUST MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE THE AGENCY IN THAT SITUATION. SO ONE OF THE DECISIONS THAT THIS BOARD WILL HAVE TO MAKE IS IF YOU WANT TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW, WHICH WILL OBVIOUSLY MAKE A SECRET DECISION FOR BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE ZONING BOARD. OR YOU CAN DO AN UNCOORDINATED REVIEW WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A SECRET DECISION, BUT THAT WILL REQUIRE THE ZONING BOARD TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION BEFORE THEY ACT ON THE USE VARIANCE. SO THAT'S KIND OF JUST SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE TALKED ABOUT. AND THEN THEY WILL PROCEED ON TO THE ZONING BOARD. I BELIEVE IN MARCH IS THE ZONING MARCH 4TH OR MARCH 2ND, I THINK, WHICH IS A TUESDAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS MARCH 4TH, A WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2ND, THIRD, FOURTH ONE OF THE DAYS.
YEAH, FIRST WEEK IN MARCH, FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, WHATEVER THAT TUESDAY IS. OKAY. MARCH 3RD. SO. ENGINEERING, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER AT THIS POINT. I WANT TO GET THIS CLEAR. OKAY. SO THEY'RE IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT TO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA FOR THE USE VARIANCE. OR THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR US TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A COORDINATED OR UNCOORDINATED REVIEW OR FOR BOTH. FOR BOTH.
OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT? IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? YES. OKAY. I'VE GOT SHAKING HANDS FOR EVERYBODY. SO OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. LET'S TAKE THE COORDINATED REVIEW FIRST. LET'S GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY. MEMBER CLERK YEAH, SO TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE EXPANSION OTHER THAN COSMETIC CHANGES? NOT STRUCTURAL, NOT NOT NOTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING WOULD BE COSMETIC ON THE OUTSIDE. AND THEN ON THE INSIDE IT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PLANS
[00:45:02]
ARE, BUT NO. AND AND BEING A NONPROFIT, IS THERE A TIME FRAME WITH THE FUNDING ON THIS THAT WOULD IMPACT COULD BE NEGATIVE IMPACT IF THIS GOES DRAGS ON FOR A FEW MONTHS OR IS THAT NOT THE CASE HERE? NO. THEY HAVE SOMEWHAT PRIVATE FUNDING. OKAY. THROUGH ONE OF THEIR DONORS. OKAY. FROM THE PLANNING BOARD PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD GUYS WOULD CONSIDER THIS A TYPE TWO ACTION, THAT IT'S REUSING THE EXISTING BUILDING. THERE'S NO ADDITIONS BEING MADE. IT'S USING THE SAME KIND OF FOOTPRINT AS BEFORE, WHICH WOULD HOPEFULLY HELP FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PLANNING BOARD STANDPOINT. OKAY.ANYONE ELSE? I PERSONALLY THINK THAT ON THE THAT WE SHOULD JUST DO THE WHOLE THING ON THE SEEKER AND NOT BE SENDING IT BACK AND FORTH. IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? I CONCUR BECAUSE THERE'S NO SENSE IN DELAYING IT ANY FURTHER. AND AND OKAY, SO I THINK YEAH I IS EVERYBODY ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT. SO IN A COORDINATED REVIEW AS OPPOSED TO SPLITTING IT, SENDING IT BACK TO THE ZBA. SO WE GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF. OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING UNTIL THEY GET THEIR USE VARIANCE. I'LL SAVE THAT BECAUSE THEY'LL BE BACK HERE. AND THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZBA.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER TO THE CPA? NO, I SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA.
OKAY. MEMBER RYAN, I ALSO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA AUGUST. I SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE DBA. OKAY. SO I MEAN, I, I THINK WE'VE GOT A MAJORITY. I, I SUPPORT IT AS THE CHAIR AS WELL AND LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR RETURN. SOUNDS GOOD. SO GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU.
SO OFF YOU'LL BE IN TOUCH WITH JOSH AND THEN. YEAH, WE'LL BE IN TOUCH. AND I THINK YOU'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH JEFF FROM THE BUILDING STANDPOINT. SO WE'LL BE IN TOUCH AND COORDINATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK. OKAY. OUR
[3. Brandon Santa – Requesting Site Plan Approval for a proposal to construct eight (8) shop warehouse buildings along with other associated site improvements to be located on a 7.46-acre parcel at 0 Lakeshore Road (SBL #: 150.00-1-6.2)]
FINAL CASE TONIGHT IS BRANDON SANTA REQUESTING SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION FOR A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A SIX SHOP WAREHOUSE. ALTHOUGH ON OUR SITE PLAN, IT SAYS EIGHT, SO THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. AND ALONG WITH THE OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT ON A 7.46 ACRE PARCEL ON LAKESHORE ROAD. SO I'M GOING TO LET THE APPLICANT. BRING US UP TO DATE. I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES HERE TONIGHT THAT WILL WE WILL BE ADDRESSING, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ALL THE AGENCIES IN. SO WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR FURTHER COMMENTS. BUT PLEASE PROCEED. ANTHONY PANDOLFO WITH CARMINA WOOD DESIGN I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE EIGHT BUILDINGS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. YEAH. JOSH, WE NEED TO CORRECT THAT. OKAY. JUST TO UPDATE FROM WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST IN JANUARY, ONE OF THE THINGS WAS ASKED FOR THE OUTDOOR MATERIAL AREAS TO KIND OF BETTER DEFINE THOSE RATHER THAN JUST HAVE THEM, YOU KNOW, OBLONG SHAPED. WE SQUARED THOSE AREAS OFF. SO THEY'RE MORE WELL DEFINED ON THE SITE PLAN. AND THE OTHER THING WE DID, AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD, WE DID FILL OUT AND SUBMIT A LONG FORM EAF RATHER THAN THE SHORT FORM. SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE TONIGHT IS TO HOPEFULLY SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO AS MR. PANDOLFI MENTIONED, I DID RECEIVE THAT FULL EAF THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE COORDINATED REVIEW PACKAGE THAT WENT OUT TO ALL THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES. THE 30 DAY PERIOD WILL END ON FEBRUARY 25TH, SO WE STILL DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL WEEK BEFORE WE SHOULD HAVE COMMENTS FROM HOPEFULLY DOT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE OTHER STATE AGENCIES THAT WE DENOTE, WE DID RECEIVE WORD FROM ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. THEY NOTED THAT THIS COMMENT THAT THIS PROJECT WAS OF LOCAL CONCERN AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REFERRAL ASPECT. THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY COMMENTS YET, SO THEY STILL MAY PRESENT ANY SECRET COMMENTS. AND THEN OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER UPDATES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? SORRY. IT'S STILL EARLY FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. OBVIOUSLY WE DO A FULL REVIEW WHEN THE TIME COMES.I THINK JUST RECENTLY IN LOOKING AT THOSE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, ENSURING THAT THERE IS A CLEAR LIKE PATHWAY ON HOW MATERIALS WILL BE BROUGHT IN AND OUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE USED, AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE LOOK AT SNOW REMOVAL, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT
[00:50:03]
IS A BUSY AND FULL SITE AND WE'RE ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP OR MOVE SNOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WAS THE APPLICANT GIVEN THAT LETTER. YES. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT LETTER? I BELIEVE THE LETTER WAS REFERRING TO HYDRANTS. AS WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, THE SITE WILL HAVE ON SITE PRIVATE HYDRANTS FOR FIRE PROTECTION. SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT COMMENT. YOU'RE SAYING PRIVATE HYDRANTS PRIVATE HYDRANTS ON SITE. YES. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT TO WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD TO SAY? WHAT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE WAS INCLUDED IN THAT LETTER. JUST I THINK THE LETTER WAS JUST COMMENTING ABOUT HYDRANT COVERAGE. WELL, I THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT I HAVE IT HERE. AND REVIEWING THE PLAN. IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY ACCESS TO THIS BUILDING IS THE CURRENT ACCESS OFF ROUTE FIVE. THIS IS FROM THE WOODLAWN FIRE CHIEF, AND IT'S DATED JANUARY 30TH. IN REVIEWING THE PLAN, IT APPEARS THE ONLY ACCESS TO THIS TO THE BUILDINGS IS THE CURRENT ACCESS OFF ROUTE FIVE THAT RUNS BETWEEN THE CURRENT SHOP AND HOUSE. IS THAT CORRECT? IF THAT IS ACCURATE. ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS ACCESS TO WATER SUPPLY. AS YOU CAN SEE THE ATTACHED SCREENSHOT, THERE ARE NO HYDRANTS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE AND DEPENDING ON THE CONTENTS OF THE BUILDING, IN COMBINATION WITH THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS, MULTIPLE WATER SOURCES MAY BE REQUIRED. IT ALSO APPEARS THE DISTANCE TO REACH THE REAR. MOST OF THE BUILDING IS NEAR 1000FT FROM THE ROAD. ADDITIONALLY, WOULD ANYTHING BE STORED OR KEPT OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT COULD HINDER THE MOVEMENT OF THE FIRE APPARATUS? OKAY, SO JUST TO TOUCH ON THAT LAST PART, NO. SURE. OUTDOOR MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS ARE BEHIND THE BUILDINGS AS FAR AS ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY. AS WE'VE SHOWN, WE WILL BE HAVING A 30 FOOT WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT. MR. SANTA OWNS THE PROPERTY UP FRONT, SO HE WILL BE GIVING HIMSELF THAT EASEMENT. AND THROUGH THAT EASEMENT, WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THE EXISTING WATER MAIN ALONG ROUTE FIVE. BRING BRING A PRIVATE LINE BACK TO THE SITE. THAT'S THE LINE THAT THE THAT THE HYDRANTS WILL BE TAPPED OFF OF. OKAY. OUR NEXT REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED AND I NEED TO HAVE ATTORNEY GOGAN MAKE A COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THE EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CAB, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. I'M ALL RIGHT.CONSERVATION EASEMENT. YEAH. BRIEFLY, THE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD RECEIVED A A MEMO FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. MY REVIEW OF THE MEMO APPEARED TO BE JUST WHAT WOULD BE NORMALLY UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. THE PART TWO OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM.
AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WITH WITH JOSH ROGERS, THERE NEEDS TO BE FROM THAT THAT PERSPECTIVE. IF THEY'RE DOING A REPORT, THERE SHOULD BE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT. AND THERE IS A FORM THAT WAS PROVIDED THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO. THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. WITH RESPECT TO COMMENTS ON THE ISSUES THAT ARE WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW. AGAIN, THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD IS STRICTLY AN ADVISORY BOARD.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE ACTION DETERMINATION WOULD BE UP TO THE PLANNING BOARD ITSELF, BUT AS IT STANDS, I BELIEVE. AND THE BOARD CAN ASK, OF COURSE, FOR THAT. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THAT MEMO IS LACKING FOR WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED OR WHAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED, WHICH IS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT CAN MITIGATE THEIR CONCERNS. AND JOSH AND I TALKED ABOUT IT, AND I KNOW JOSH TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT, THAT AT THIS POINT WE ARE NOT ACCEPTING THIS REPORT. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THAT'S AGAIN UP TO THE BOARD. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION AS THE ATTORNEY. BUT ULTIMATELY THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS FROM ADVISORY, YOU KNOW, ADVISORY BOARDS OR, OR THE LIKE, COUNCILS, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE CALLED, WHETHER IT'S ENGINEERING OR TRAFFIC OR FIRE, THAT KIND OF THING. IT'S THE BOARD THAT'S ASKING FOR THE ADVISORY OPINIONS. OKAY. SO I'LL I'LL RESERVE MY RIGHT TO THE END. WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE
[00:55:03]
BOARD MEMBER. RYAN, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT? YES, I DO, THANK YOU. I'VE BEEN REALLY CONFLICTED OVER THIS PROJECT, TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY. I UNDERSTAND THE CAB IS AN ADVISORY BOARD, AND IN RECEIVING THEIR EMAIL, I DID NOT SEE A SUGGESTION FOR MITIGATION. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT KIND OF BUFFERING THEY RECOMMEND TO PROTECT RUSH CREEK. THE EMAIL MENTIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE WETLANDS AND THE SURFACE WATERS, BUT YET I DIDN'T SEE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON ANY MITIGATION FOR THAT. YOU THEY ALSO MENTIONED OR MR. SANTOS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED THE TREES WITHOUT TOWN PERMITS.HOWEVER, THIS BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT AND THE CODE REVIEW AND THE DOCUMENTATION IS IN OUR SHAREPOINT. SO AFTER LOOKING AT ALL THIS, I DON'T FEEL THIS IS AS FAR A FAIR ASSESSMENT BY THE CAB. I'M LOOKING FOR THE CAB TO GIVE THE BOARD FEEDBACK ON MITIGATION FOR MOVING FORWARD FOR THIS PROJECT. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MEMBERS? AJAK, I WAS WONDERING, HAVE YOU GUYS REACHED OUT TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT ALL? YES, WE HAD A WETLAND WALKOVER DONE ON THE SITE. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO BOTH DC AND THE ARMY CORPS. AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, DC DID DELINEATE WETLANDS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. THE 100 FOOT BUFFER DOES EXTEND ONTO OUR PROPERTY, JUST BARELY ONTO OUR PROPERTY OVER THE CREEK, A PORTION THAT WE ARE NOT DISTURBING. ARMY CORPS HAD NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ON THE SITE. WHEN I LOOKED IT UP ON THERE, THE NATIONAL WETLANDS REGISTRY, THERE'S A WETLANDS THAT SHOWS UP. YEAH. SO THE THE INFORMATION ONLINE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THAT IS TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THERE MAY BE WETLANDS ON YOUR SITE. THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERS US TO GO GET THE WETLAND WALKOVER DONE. THEY, THEY, YOU KNOW, STUFF ON THE WEBSITE IS DONE BASED OFF AERIAL IMAGERY, NOT REAL DATA. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S JUST TO GIVE LANDOWNERS KIND OF THE HEADS UP THERE, MAYBE WETLANDS ON YOUR SITE. SO THAT'S THE STEPS THAT WE THEN TOOK TO VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE WETLANDS. SO IS THERE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE ARMY CORPS? I DID WE I CAN'T I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF WE SUBMITTED THAT I KNOW WE HAVE THE DC CORRESPONDENCE. DID WE HAVE.
YEAH. SO I SPOKE WITH MR. ZAJAC ABOUT THIS. WE DO HAVE THE DC LETTER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR NOTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE FROM THE ARMY CORPS SPECIFICALLY. I WILL CHECK ON THAT AND FORWARD ALONG WHATEVER WE HAVE. SOUNDS GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AT THIS TIME? MEMBER SHIMURA I DO ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM MEMBER RYAN WITH RESPECT TO THE CAB LETTER AND ITS FORM, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE VALUE THAT THE CAB CAN PROVIDE, BUT HAVING SOME SORT OF FORM SO THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION THAT BEING PROVIDED. AND ALSO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL MOVING FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN UTILIZE THAT GROUP AS A AS A RESOURCE. IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING US GUIDANCE ON. AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN. I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR JOSH HERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE DID A TRAINING WITH THE THE CAB LAST YEAR AND DID HELP PREPARE A FORM. I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO THE CHAIR. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS DONE BETWEEN JOSH AND THE CAB, BUT IT WOULDN'T HURT TO MAYBE EVEN HAVE PLANNING BOARD INPUT ON WHAT ELSE THEY MIGHT LIKE TO SEE FROM THE CAB FOR THAT. THAT COOPERATION TO ASSIST IN THAT ADVISORY CAPACITY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? MEMBER. TAMARA. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE FORM. IT'S TWO PAGES. IT'S CALLED THE CAB REPORT OUTLINE. IT SAYS PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, APPLICATION RECEIVED, APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED. AND THEN IT'S TO BE SIGNED BY. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE JOSH HAD SENT THIS TO ME AS WELL, AND I JUST DIDN'T BRING IT WITH ME TONIGHT, THAT IT'S TO BE SIGNED BY ALL SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE CAB. THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT IS JUST FROM THE CAB ADVISORY BOARD, SO I'LL LET THEM TALK WITH JOSH ON THAT. I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT TIME TO ADDRESS THEM ALL NOW.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF NEGATIVITY BEFORE YOU EVEN GOT TO IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK I ADDRESSED IT THE FIRST NIGHT I
[01:00:03]
WAS HERE. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS BOARD'S JOB IS NOT TO TO TAKE PART IN OR USE THE NEGATIVITY TO MAKE A DECISION. AND I'M SAYING THAT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS REASON, WE TALKED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE TALKED TO CAB, WE TALKED TO THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, WE TALKED TO THE COUNTY. WE TALKED THE BOARD MEMBERS DO ALL THEIR WORK.THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION GATHERED ON EACH AND EVERY PROJECT. SO ALONG WITH THAT, OUR LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I PERSONALLY TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY WHEN I GET THOSE LETTERS NOW, I DON'T I DON'T DO RUMORS. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY HAS A HAS A BONE TO PICK WITH SOMEBODY. I DON'T LOOK AT THAT WHEN I READ IT. I TELL EVERYBODY I'M SWITZERLAND AND I TRY VERY HARD TO BE SWITZERLAND. SO BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, I HAVE THE THE RUST TO DO. NUMBER ONE, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED OFF OF ROUTE FIVE. AND THEN GOING OUT THERE I WANT TO KNOW AND I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO REPORT HOW THERE IS NO TRAFFIC, THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN OFF OF ROUTE FIVE INTO THIS PROJECT. AND I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT AND OUR TRAFFIC COMMITTEE, THEY'RE WORKING ON A REPORT TO TO ADDRESS THAT. NUMBER TWO, WE DID REFERENCE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EMAIL. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SPECIFICALLY THE PLANS OF WHAT THE WHAT WHAT THE HYDRANTS AND THE LINES ON THE SITE. PLAN NUMBER THREE, LACK OF MITIGATION SUGGESTIONS FROM THE CAB REGARDING PROTECTING WETLANDS. RUSH CREEK NEED THE CAB TO GO BACK AND COMPLETE THE FORMAL FORM THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THEM IN TRAINING LAST FEBRUARY, AND HAVE IT SIGNED BY ALL MEMBERS. THAT'S NOT THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THIS PROJECT IS TOO BIG FOR THIS PROPERTY. BASED ON THE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE HEARING, NOT THE RUMORS. ELABORATE ON THAT BECAUSE LET ME OKAY. NOT BASED ON RUMORS FROM NEIGHBORS OR NEGATIVE COMMENTS. THIS PROPERTY THAT BUILDING IN NUMBER EIGHT, I MADE A SUGGESTION THAT NUMBER EIGHT SHOULD BE SHRUNK. NOW I THINK THAT NUMBER EIGHT SHOULD BE REMOVED. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE RUSH CREEK AND WETLANDS RIGHT IN THERE, AND YOU'RE RIGHT ON TOP OF THE CREEK. AND THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY THERE'S NOT ANY.
I'M GOING TO GET UP HERE FOR A MINUTE. THERE'S NOT ANY LANDSCAPING. HERE'S THE BUILDING. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THIS IS THE BUILDING. THAT'S PAVEMENT. HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.
HERE'S THE BUILDING. STANDING UP NEXT TO THIS IS. YOU CAN'T READ IT. IT'S ALL BLURRED. SO HERE'S THE CREEK HERE WE HAVE A LITTLE STREAM. WE HAVE A LITTLE BUFFER. WE HAVE A LITTLE BUFFER HERE, I THINK. AND BOARD MEMBERS, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BUFFERING FROM THE WHOLE THING. AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE THIS CREEK RUNS AT AN ODD SHAPE. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE WHAT'S HERE, THE CREEK, WHAT'S HERE? THE CREEK. HERE'S THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. HERE'S THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. THERE'S GOING TO BE RUNOFF. THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD SEE, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF USING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY UP HERE WITH THE FENCE THAT YOU BOUGHT, THINKING THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE SCREENING OF THIS PROJECT. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THIS PROJECT SMALLER, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANDSCAPING ALL BEHIND. WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE RESIDENTS AND THAT'S MY NUMBER ONE. MY TWO CONCERNS IS THIS CREEK AND THOSE PEOPLE OKAY, OUTSIDE OF THE TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S INVOLVED. AND WHEN YOU GUYS FIRST CAME IN FRONT OF US AND I SAID, I SUGGESTED THAT YOU COME WITH A SMALLER, SMALLER FOOTPRINT. AND THEN IT SHOWED UP IN OUR THING ABOUT SIX BUILDINGS. I THOUGHT I WAS ALL EXCITED BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU TOOK MY ADVICE, BUT CLEARLY YOU DID NOT. SO THE OTHER THING IS, I I'M WAITING TO HEAR FROM. WE ARE GOING TO CONTACT THE WATER WOODLANDS, WOODLAWN SEWER DISTRICT WHEN WE GO TO DO SEEKER, BUT I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME SERIOUS HOMEWORK DONE ON THIS PROJECT. AND BECAUSE OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WROTE, WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SAID, WHAT WE GOT IN WETLANDS, WHAT WE GOT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHAT WE GOT IN TRAFFIC. ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. AND SO AND I DON'T SEE ANY RESPONSES EXCEPT, OH YEAH, WE WALKED IT OR OH YEAH, THIS. BUT
[01:05:03]
I THINK SERIOUS CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THIS, TO THIS CASE. YEAH. CAN I ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. CERTAINLY. FIRST OFF, THERE WILL BE NO RUNOFF FROM THE OUTDOOR MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS TO THE CREEK. EVERYTHING WILL BE DIRECTED TO THE DETENTION POND WHICH WILL HAVE STORMWATER TREATMENT. THIS IS OF COURSE REVIEWED AND CONFIRMED BY CAMI.THERE WILL BE NO DIRECT RUNOFF FROM ANY IMPERVIOUS AREAS TO THE CREEK. IT WILL ALL GO TO THE DETENTION AREA. WE'VE ESTABLISHED WE WERE CONFORMING WITH THE 100 FOOT BUFFER FROM RUSH CREEK. THAT'S IN THE CODE WE'RE MEETING, THAT WE'VE SCALED THAT BACK FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD. SO EVERYTHING FROM THE BUILDINGS, OUTDOOR ART, OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA, WHICH OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IS ALLOWED IN THIS ZONING, OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA, BUILDINGS, ROADS. THAT ALL GOES TO THE DETENTION POND, WHICH HAS WATER, WATER QUALITY TREATMENT BEFORE GOING TO THE CREEK AND THEN LANDSCAPE. CAN I STOP YOU THERE FOR ONE SECOND? WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, THERE'S NO RUNOFF THAT GOES TO THE CREEK. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CREEK FLOODS? IF THE CREEK? I MEAN, WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DO OUR STORMWATER CALCULATIONS, OUR RUNOFF FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT HAS TO BE LESS THAN WHAT COMES FROM THIS SITE. NOW. IT HAS TO BE LESS. IT HAS TO MEET DC REQUIREMENTS IN THAT IN THAT REGARD. SO THE CREEK FLOODS. THAT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH US. OKAY. SO IF THE CREEK FLOODS, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM? THE FLOODING COULD NOT GO TO THE OUTDOOR STORAGE? I'M NOT SAYING IT COULDN'T, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE BERMS TO PROTECT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE OUTDOOR STORAGE BECAUSE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE. NOBODY KNOWS THAT ANSWER FOR SURE. I MEAN, YOU CAN WE CAN HAVE OUR NUMBERS, BUT THIS PROPERTY AND WE ALL KNOW THIS BASED ON, AGAIN, WHAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AND WHAT THE RESIDENTS PROVIDED IN PICTURES THAT THERE'S FLOODING ON THIS PROPERTY. AND EVEN I THINK I READ IT ON A MAP SOMEWHERE IN A, IN A REPORT THAT IT FLOODS DURING THE. I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING THAT MEMBER SAID THAT IT DRIES UP LATER IN THE SUMMER, BUT THAT IT FLOODS IN THE SPRING, BUT IT DOESN'T FLOOD FROM THE CREEK. FLOODING ON THE CREEK IS NOT OVERFLOWING UNDER THE PROPERTY. IT'S FLOODING BECAUSE IT'S NOT PROPERLY GRADED. THERE'S LOW SPOTS. WHERE ARE THE LOW SPOTS ON THE SITE? IT'S NOT. THE CREEK IS NOT OVERFLOWING ONTO THE PROPERTY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO AND I'M SAYING THIS RESPECTFULLY, YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT CREEK WILL NEVER FLOOD. HE LIVES THERE. HE COULD GIVE A THERE YOU GO. THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S NEVER GOING TO FLOOD. WE COULD SAY THAT ABOUT EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES BEFORE WE COULD, BUT THAT'S WHY.
BUT THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE THAT CLOSE TO THE CREEK.
THAT'S FINE. OKAY. THE CREEK IS 20FT BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THAT PROPERTY, 20FT. OKAY. AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW OF THE ISSUES AS WELL. AND AND I'D JUST ONE MORE. IT'S ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. WE ARE PROPOSING LANDSCAPING ALONG THE NORTH. IT'S NOT DIRECTLY BEHIND THE BUILDINGS. IT IS ON THAT STRIP OF PROPERTY YOU TALKED ABOUT. IT'S NOT JUST THE FENCE, IT'S A FENCE AND LANDSCAPING. SO JUST POINT THAT OUT AS WELL. AND CAN I ASK WHY IT'S NOT ON THE PROJECT PROPERTY? BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE THE THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE FENCE. SO OUR THOUGHT WAS IF WE PUT THE LANDSCAPING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, THAT GIVES THE RESIDENTS LANDSCAPE MORE LANDSCAPING TO LOOK AT THAN JUST A FENCE. THAT IS OUR THINKING THERE. OKAY. AND MR. MR. SANTA, YOU HAD SOMETHING ELSE TO OFFER? YES. BRANDON.
SANTA, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. I KNOW YOU DID MENTION THAT WE DID NOT SHRINK THE PROJECT.
ORIGINALLY. YOU WANTED US TO SEPARATE THE BUILDINGS. THEY WERE TOO LONG. WE SEPARATED THE BUILDINGS, WHICH THEN MADE MORE BUILDINGS BUT LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO WE DID SHRINK THE PROJECT IN SIZE. I. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT DID SHRINK IN SIZE. IT WAS DUE TO THE FIRE CODE THAT WE HAD TO SEPARATE THE BUILDINGS. WE HAD A 300 FOOT LONG BUILDING. WE SEPARATED INTO EIGHT BUILDINGS INSTEAD OF SIX, WHICH THEN SHRUNK THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT FROM ORIGINALLY PLANNED. OKAY, AS FAR AS THE FENCE GOES, THE LANDSCAPING, THERE'S AN EASEMENT FOR THE POWER LINES THAT GOES DOWN THE BACK OF EACH NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY FOR NATIONAL GRID THAT CAN'T BE TOUCHED, THEY NEED A FOR ACCESS. I CAN'T I CANNOT PUT LANDSCAPING IN THEIR EASEMENT. SO THAT'S WHY WE DESIGNED IT THE WAY WE DID. AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN GOES. WE HAVE BERMS ALONG THE CREEK WHICH WILL, YOU KNOW, LIKE LIKE HE
[01:10:04]
SAID, IT'LL, YOU KNOW, CONTAIN ALL THE WATER AND TAKE IT TO THE STORE, YOU KNOW, THE STORM.RETENTION POND. IF WE WANTED TO ADD MORE, I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO THAT. WE CAN ADD BERMS ALONG THE ENTIRE CLIFF OF THE CREEK. THAT SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM AT ALL. BUT, WELL, THAT WOULD BE AN INCREASED IN BUFFERING AND THAT WOULD BE FAVORABLE. THAT'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL. AS FAR AS THIS FLOODING, I KNOW YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING OFF RUMORS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE PICTURES OF THIS FLOODING? I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO FLOODING AT ALL. I DO HAVE PICTURES. I DON'T HAVE THEM WITH ME TONIGHT. BUT SOMEBODY DID SEND ME PICTURES OF FLOODING. THAT'S HOW I KNEW ABOUT IT. OKAY, SO I WILL. JOSH, YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE TONIGHT, DO YOU? WE WILL. WE WILL GET THOSE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PICTURES FROM SOME OF THE EARLY COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS? YEAH, I CAN PULL IT UP. YEAH WE CAN. OH.
HANG ON. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHO SENT IT RIGHT NOW. IT'S A HUGE SNOWMELT. THERE'S NO NO. I WANT TO SAY IT WAS. YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE THOSE, DON'T YOU? YEAH. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHO SENT ME. I DON'T KNOW, RACHEL OR ANGELA OR ANGELA. DO EITHER ONE. BOTH OF YOU. RACHEL I REMEMBER RACHEL. SO LET'S SEE. DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO. I KNOW THAT'S NOT IT. IS THAT PICTURES OF THE BAHAMAS THAT WHERE YOU WISH YOU WERE OR. NO. THAT'S. I THINK THAT'S A PHOTO OF HER FRONT YARD. OKAY. THERE'S SOMEWHERE. MAYBE THERE. HERE. NOPE. I'D HAVE TO FIND THEM. I KNOW WE WE HAVE. WE ONLY HAVE THEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING. YEAH. AS FAR AS THE FLOODING GOES, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ANY DIRT ON THIS PROPERTY. SO IF, IF, IF IT WAS FLOODING, IF IT'S FLOODING NOW, WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANY OF THE ELEVATIONS ON THE PROPERTY. SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN FLOODING BEFORE ANYTHING HAS OCCURRED. WE'VE ONLY BRUSH HOGGED THIS PROPERTY. WE DID NOT DISTURB ANY SOIL ON THIS PROPERTY. SO IF IT'S IF THERE'S ANY FLOODING, IT'S THE SAME WAY IT WAS WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. OKAY. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IS THE WETTEST TIME OF THE YEAR. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME OUT AND VIEW THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO I MEAN, THERE'S SMALL PUDDLES, BUT THIS IS NOT FLOODING AT ALL BY ANY MEANS. WE'LL HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY? OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? MEMBER. RYAN. MEMBER. RYAN, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING BY THE FENCE. NOW, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU'RE GOING, LIKE IT'LL BE THE FENCE AND THEN THE LANDSCAPING AND THEN YOUR PROJECT? YOU'RE NOT PUTTING THE LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF THE FENCE. IT'S KIND OF BEHIND THE FENCE, AM I? I CANNOT PUT IT BEHIND THE FENCE BECAUSE THAT IS A NATIONAL GRID EASEMENT, AND THEY NEED TO ACCESS THEIR UTILITY POLES. SO THAT IS CORRECT. IT WOULD BE THE FENCE, THE LANDSCAPING AND THEN OUR PROJECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. MEMBER SHIMURA BUT CAN YOU FLIP FLOP AND JUST HAVE YOUR FENCE ON NOT YEAH. FENCE FOR YOU. HAVE YOU STARTED TO BEGIN INSTALLING THAT AT ALL? NO. CAN WE MOVE IT? I MEAN, IF YOU SHIFT YOUR FENCE DOWN TEN FEET AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR LANDSCAPING SO THAT YOU'RE ACHIEVING THE GOAL, THAT IS A HIGH ISSUE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
IF I SHIFT THE FENCE OVER, WE CANNOT INSTALL THE FENCE BECAUSE THEN IT'LL BE DIRECTLY IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 30FT WIDE, SO IF I PUT THE FENCE IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ACCESS TO INSTALL THE FENCE OR MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPING. SO IT IT IT HAS TO BE WHERE IT IS TO MAKE IT ALL WORK. I DON'T CARE IF THE ZONING. THAT WOULD BE IF IT'S 30FT WIDE, YOU THEN HAVE 15FT CLEAR TO THEN YOUR EASEMENT. HOW IS THAT IMPEDING YOUR ACCESS? 15FT WITH THE LANDSCAPING THEN. SO THEN WE WOULD HAVE I MEAN THE LANDSCAPING BUMPS OUT FROM THE FENCE SIGNIFICANTLY. SO IF I HAD TO GO DOWN THERE, I WOULD BE TRESPASSING ON WOODLAWN SEWER DISTRICT'S PROPERTY IF WE MOVED IT OUT CLOSER TO THEIR PROPERTY. I'M JUST REALLY FAILING TO SEE HOW THAT ARGUMENT HOLDS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT'S LISTED, HOW IT'S SHOWN ON YOUR ON YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN. I UNDERSTAND THE ACCESS FOR, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE AND SO FORTH, BUT.
IF YOU CAN MAINTAIN ON ONE SIDE, WE CAN WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE, TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT.
[01:15:08]
AND JUST TO CIRCLE BACK, I DID FIND THE THE PICTURES. SO OKAY, I'LL JUST CIRCLE THROUGH THEM.AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK ANGELA I THINK THIS IS BEHIND YOUR PROPERTY, MY PROPERTY AND ON HIS PROPERTY. THOSE ARE ALL THE TREES THAT WERE CUT DOWN IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER. ANGELA, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. SO I JUST WANT TO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND GRAB A MIC OR IF WE'RE GOING TO. JUST A REMINDER, THOUGH, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING YET. IT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE'RE JUST DOING THIS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE PHOTOS THAT THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR US TO SHOW. SURE. SO MY NAME IS ANGELA ANDOLINA. I'M A PROPERTY OWNER DIRECTLY BEHIND.
WELL, TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE. SO THE ONLY BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY SO WE'RE NOT IN VIOLATION. YEP. IS THAT IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE FLOODING PICTURES AND HAVE YOU CLARIFY THAT THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN WHERE THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN FROM MY BACKYARD, FROM MY BACK WINDOW. SO THAT'S MY BACKYARD. AND THEN BEHIND THAT SHED IS HIS PROPERTY THAT IS ALSO FLOODED. AND THEN RIGHT WHERE THOSE TREES ARE ARE THE CREEK THAT FLOODS. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS? THIS ADDRESS? I'VE LIVED HERE FOR TEN YEARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE LIVED 30.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANGELA, COULD YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? SURE.
AND I'M SORRY. A N D O L I N A. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. SO, JOSH, IS THAT ANOTHER FLOODING PICTURE? DID YOU SEE THAT? COME DOWN OVER ONE? NO. UP. ONE UP. RIGHT. OH, THAT'S THAT ONE.
OKAY, OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WE'RE ON THE SAME WAY. THANKS. OKAY. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, ARE WE ABLE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET THE, ALL THE, THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING AND I. I'M SORRY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO ASK? ARE WE GOOD? MEMBERS? AJAK I JUST HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. THE CREEK.
SO THAT CREEK CHANGES. AND I KNOW PERSONALLY IT CHANGES DOWN CLOSER TO THE LAKE. AROUND 2000, THAT CREEK WENT FROM DISCHARGING INTO THE LAKE OVER HERE. AND THE OTHER CREEK CAME OVER HERE. NOW, THOSE TWO CREEKS MERGE AND COME OUT AS ONE. AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE I HAVE SATELLITE IMAGERY OF THAT CREEK CHANGING DIRECTION. IT IS FURTHER DOWN AND CONDITIONS ARE DIFFERENT. BUT LOOKING AT THAT CREEK, HOW IT IS LIKE, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT CREEK ISN'T MOVING. WHEN YOU GET OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE. SO ME LOOKING AT THOSE THAT CREEK IN THE PAST DOWN BY WOODLAWN, I DID RESEARCH ON WHY CREEKS MOVE WHEN YOU START GETTING WHAT THEY CALL THEM LIKE HAIRPINS OR WHATEVER. SO ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WHEN A CREEK GOES LIKE THAT, EVENTUALLY IT CUTS THAT OFF. JUST BECAUSE WATER TAKES THE EASIEST PATH. NOT THAT THAT'S HAPPENING, BUT YOU SAID THE CREEK IS 20FT BELOW WHERE THAT IS. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SIDES OF THE CREEK IF THERE'S EROSION THERE. AND IF THERE IS, I MEAN, BERMS AREN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING. THAT'S I GUESS THAT'S MY OPINION, BUT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MITIGATE THAT. IF IF ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE THE CREEK CHANGING DIRECTION OR STARTING TO CHANGE DIRECTION, YOU HAVE EROSION, THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE SIDES. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE PERSONALLY HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO BE ABLE TO TOUCH THE CREEK. THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY'RE SO PROTECTED. CREEK. YEAH. IF THAT CREEK MOVES, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? WHAT IF THAT CREEK MOVES AND TAKES OUT PART OF A BERM AND AND IT'S A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THAT CREEK HAS MOVED. I KNOW FOR A FACT THE CREEK HAS MOVED. I MEAN, WHAT THAT'S I
[01:20:09]
THINK I THINK THE CHAIR'S CONCERNS ABOUT IT, ALL THE BERMS AND THE EVERYTHING BEING SO CLOSE TO THE CREEK LIKE THAT, NOTICED ANY THING. YEAH. I MEAN, I CAN LOOK INTO I HONESTLY THAT'S KIND OF A. YOU KNOW, A WHAT IF SCENARIO THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH. AS IT HAPPENS, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO TO MITIGATE THAT. MR. SANTA HAS BEEN ON THE PROPERTY FOR FIVE YEARS NOW. NOT A NOT A REAL LONG TIME. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EROSION OF A CREEK, THAT USUALLY TAKES DECADES TO HAPPEN. BUT HE HASN'T NOTICED ANY SIGNIFICANT, YOU KNOW, BANKS FALLING OFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TODAY TO MITIGATE THAT. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT STARTS TO GET BAD, THAT'S WHEN WHOEVER HAS JURISDICTION OF THE CREEK, I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT'S WHEN THEY HAVE TO GET INVOLVED AND DO SOMETHING TO TO STOP THAT. I GUESS MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE IS HAVING THOSE BERMS SO CLOSE? YOU KNOW, IF THE BERMS COULD BE BACKED UP. YEAH, YEAH, WE COULD, WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT. YEAH.YEAH. LIKE LIKE LIKE MR. SANTA MENTIONED EARLIER, WE COULD LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, EXTENDING THEM ALONG THE WHOLE BANK AND THEN MAYBE, MAYBE PULL THEM BACK A LITTLE BIT TO, TO GIVE THEM MORE, YOU KNOW, LAST ABILITY. I MEAN BECAUSE THE ONE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, IF THAT CREEK DECIDES TO MOVE THAT BERM IS GONE. SURE. YEAH. YEAH. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH.
IF IT'S FURTHER BACK, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY SAVE SOME TROUBLE CURRENTLY ALONG WHERE THAT BERM IS THERE, THERE'S TREES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT SIZE ALONG THE CREEK BANK. AND YOU TOOK ALL THE ASH OUT LIKE ALL THE DEAD ASH. WE TOOK. YEAH. ANY, ANY DEAD TREES WERE TAKEN DOWN? YES.
SO THE TREES THAT ARE ON THAT ARE LIVE TREES. YEAH. ALL LIVE TREES HOLDING THE BANK. LIVE TREES ARE ALONG THAT BANK RIGHT WHERE THAT BERM IS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THE TREES ARE 50 TO 100 YEARS OLD. DID YOU NOTICE ANY TREES THAT HAVE FALLEN INTO THE CREEK OR ANYTHING OR THAT HAVE GIVEN UP ON THE BANK? THERE'S SOME DEBRIS IN THE CREEK. NOTHING THAT'S FELL OFF OF MY PROPERTY THAT I'VE NOTICED. I MEAN, IF THAT SECTION WAS GOING TO ERODE, I ASSUME IT WOULD HAVE ERODED IN THE PAST 50 TO 100 YEARS. I MEAN, THERE ARE LARGE TREES ALONG THAT BANK. ANTHONY, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A VERSION OF THIS SITE PLAN KIND OF OVERLAID, MAYBE OVER AN AERIAL IMAGERY? YEAH. YES. I WE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. I KNOW WE DID SUBMIT IT OVER AN AERIAL, BUT WE CAN WE CAN DO IT WITH THIS VERSION AND YEAH, KIND OF GIVE YOU GUYS A BETTER IDEA OF HOW IT LINES UP. SURE.
THANK YOU. HERE'S ANOTHER SUGGESTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ASK FOR THIS, BUT CAN WE ASK IT FOR A DRONE VIEW? DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO DRONE? NO. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY, OKAY. BUT I HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE I IF YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME OUT AND SEE THE SITE, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO. WELL, THE WEATHER HAS PREVENTED US FROM DOING THAT. I'M QUITE FRANKLY, I CAN'T DRIVE BACK THERE. I'M NOT TAKING MY CAR BACK THERE WITH RESPECTFULLY BECAUSE OF THE SNOW. I MEAN, IT'S BEEN PRETTY WET. AND NOW WE'VE GOT A MELT GOING ON, AND I HAVE BEEN BY IT SEVERAL TIMES. I'M JUST LEERY ABOUT GOING IN THE BACK RIGHT NOW. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE GATHERED. THEY NEED TO LOOK AT THE BERMS AND THE BUILDINGS. WE NEED THE TRAFFIC REPORT FROM OUR TRAFFIC SAFETY. AND THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'RE IN THE THE CABS CONTRIBUTION. SO CAN WE PUT THEM ON TO THE NEXT MEETING? YEAH. SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER PROJECTS, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT. WHAT WE'VE DONE PREVIOUSLY IS WE'VE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD TABLE THIS TO MARCH 4TH, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. OBVIOUSLY, AS WE GET MORE INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, AND WE CAN EITHER DECIDE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FOURTH, OR WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE IS WE CAN KEEP IT OPEN, BUT I THINK AT LEAST GIVING THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM OR HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE FOURTH, I THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD IDEA AT THIS POINT. AND THEN THAT WOULD RUN INTO THE COORDINATOR REVIEW. SO THE COORDINATOR REVIEW ENDS FEBRUARY 25TH. SO BY THAT MARCH 4TH MEETING, WE SHOULD HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS FROM ANY AGENCIES. OKAY. AND THEN THAT
[01:25:03]
WILL KEEP US WITHIN TIME SPANS. CORRECT OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT WE CAN START THE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 4TH. YEP. AND THEN WE'LL WAIT FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE BERMS AND THAT SORT OF THING. YEP. AND MAYBE REPLAY THIS MEETING AND THINK ABOUT THAT BUILDING EIGHT AND GIVE IT STRONG CONSIDERATION. AND THEN ALSO COME UP WITH AN IDEA OR A SOLUTION OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE TRAFFIC WHEN YOU CAN'T MAKE A LEFT TURN ON ROUTE FIVE. AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW. UNLESS THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. NO I'M GOOD CHAIR.OKAY. I WILL ALSO JUST ADD WHEN WE DO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE OBVIOUSLY NOTICE FROM THE PROPERTY 500FT. SO I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS IF THE WOODLAWN FIRE DISTRICT SEWER DISTRICT, WHO I KNOW HAD AN INTEREST IN WANTING TO COMMENT, THEY WILL RECEIVE A NOTICE. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO COME TO THE MEETING OR SUBMIT A LETTER IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENT AT THAT TIME. AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO CONTINUE TO COMMENT TO THE BOARD, I BECAUSE SENDING THE LETTERS, OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN TELL MAKES AN IMPACT. AND SO THE MORE INFORMATION THAT WE GET, THE BETTER OFF WE ARE.
OKAY. SO WE WILL SEE YOU GUYS BACK HERE ON THE FOURTH. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER EXCEPT DO WE COME UP WITH A TRAINING DATE? YES. I BELIEVE MARCH 25TH WILL BE THE DATE THAT WE SETTLED ON. OKAY. AND I WILL SEND A AGENDA, INVITE MESSAGE, SO ON AND SO FORTH. OKAY, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I SECOND THE MOTION. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.