captions Language: en the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Anderson >> here. >> Mr. Kosani >> here. I'm here. >> That's good. >> Mr. Veter is not there. Mr. Malta >> here. >> Mrs. Malta >> here. >> Mr. G >> here. >> Miss Dorsy >> here. >> Mr. Aruso >> here. >> Mr. Cernney >> here. >> Okay, I guess we're all set. Uh, let's see. We have four items on this agenda this evening here. So, Maurice's sign located at 1040 Bridge Road. The applicant Michael Bano put signs is requesting sign approval in associated association rather with a 69.7 SF internally illuminated wall mounted sign on a 13.9 acre parcel located in the highintensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster.
Good evening. My name is Michael and we are seeking place. It's right in the storefront. It's not doesn't exceed square footage individual channels internal LEDs. >> Where is this going to? It's the old um dress. The old dress. >> Oh. All right. Just to sign this lip. There's nothing in the back of it. Just the letters on the page. >> Anybody any questions or concerns? >> Sign as well. >> They're going to take existing panels in the sign as >> which are already existing. >> The panels already there. >> Okay. Anybody? Anything else? tenure plan were considered request by applicant Michael signs to install a 69.7 square foot sign road 13.9 acre parcel yesterday 16-11 planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under section 67 5C regulations and therefore subject to further review.
We have a motion second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I make a motion for the approval. I'll make a motion we approve Maurice sign located at 1040 Ridge Road and make that subject as presented. drawings as presented. That close enough one, Josh. >> Yeah, you got a copy. Let me do >> that motion. >> Okay, we have a motion. A second. All in favor? >> I set. Thank you. >> Good luck. Second item on the agenda tonight is Best Buy Auto Sales Edition located at 771 Ridge Road. The applicant Allani is requesting sketch plan review in association with the construction of approximately 2,00 826qt accessory structure for automobiles servicing on a 1.73 acre parcel located in a medium intensity commercial district under section 269-5 350-18 of the code of the town of Webster.
No. >> Good evening. My name is Ian Cookman. I wish McManu Associates. I'm here with the uh representative from Best Buy Auto Sales uh at 771 Bridge Road um right down the auto sales district of um Bridge Road. The applicant um uh utilize and operates an existing structure and they're proposing as part of the site plan uh an accessory structure in the rear of the existing principal structure of approximately 40 foot wide by 84 foot long five bay uh maintenance garage to service their existing client base and customer base uh for auto sales. Um the site plan that we helped uh submit before you today uh provides a little bit more structure and clarity on overall uh parking and striping plan.
Um in addition to some accessory lighting in the back and modified lighting in the front. Uh ADA accessible parking in the front uh for where customers will be. um along with sewer tie in from the proposed accessory structure that will have four drains and uh facilities for employees uh and will be plumbed in through the existing structure. Um no increase in impervious area triggering any type of swarm water requirements. Um the existing area in the back is um gravel area that's currently being used for um parking and car staging area. Um we received PRC comments from our workshop a couple weeks ago.
Um we've uh gone through those comments, provided a response to those comments. I think at this point we are in sketch, right? So um that feedback has been taken. We've made modifications to the site plans as you see here today as well. Um the the building itself uh we do have building plans from a modular builder um where the roof is going to be black. It's going to be a steel metal structure. The roof will be black. The siding will be a combination of light and dark gray. Um and It'll be a timber post frame style pull bar construction method. Um, regarding car haulers and traffic patterns on the site, the our applicant is not proposing any type of car haulers uh to be navigated through the site.
Although it was initially shown with a template with our initial submission. You guys may have seen that. Um, our revision has removed that. Um it's a used car operation. There are no car haulers that are, you know, part of their operations um and and being utilized on the site. Everything bought at auction and brought to the site for sales on a one-on-one basis. Um other than that, I didn't see anything else in the comments from the PRC. like to open it up to the board and see what types of comments you guys >> You're saying, you know, you're not proposing any truck traffic, you know, deliveries.
You're not proposing it, but somehow these things kind of happen. I don't know if it will. I'm not saying that's the case, but there was a truck parked out there a couple weeks ago unloading. So this becomes a becomes an issue and the car dealers there have all been pretty much the same and I think it's time that we need to really tighten up on these dealerships along there. That would be number one. Number two uh building I don't have a problem with the building going back there. Um we even talked at PRC taking out that turnaround thing. That was hooky >> that design. and you know you're not going to lose that many parking spaces.
If anything, there was getting in and getting out with a vehicle, but you're saying they're brought in independently, car, right? >> Correct. >> That's for sure. >> That's >> And if not, then what? >> We have other locations available. So if in fact hauler had to be used to transport, we to location. >> Okay. The other thing is your your lot lines on there. I have no idea where they I've been back in there a couple times now and I'm totally lost. I don't even know where I'm going back. the cars are on the property are they next door property or I think somehow we need to and I don't think be done now with the snow is but that needs to be clarified to definite line of where they are and there should be a buffer in between there grass a few trees something because we've got to start changing the way we're doing these places >> are you talking about the west side of the property >> I'm talking about both sides of the property >> the lateral sides the back.
>> No, no, the two sides. The back is woods that there that there you have a buffer. >> I don't know if your cars are parked in that buffer or not. I mean, I don't really know what the line is there. >> Yeah, we're showing our plans an establishment of a edge of pavement that's that's going to be new modified. Um that buffer can be reestablished with vegetation and we can add on our plan. So, >> you're talking the rear of the We're talking about the uh the west side. >> Eastern east and west side. >> Yeah, the west side is a little bit gray right now. We I think our applicant would be willing to commit to establishing a grass area to separate our parking from our neighbors parking.
To the east, there's a pretty substantial existing pond there that provides natural buffer there. >> And that pond straddles the is right on the property line. So, >> I still think somewhere you're going to have to survey the property in my opinion. Anyway, >> survey. Yeah, we can stake it out for >> put some stakes in there. Know where these lot lines are on on the one side that needs to have a strip of grass and a few trees something. We've got to start fixing these places up, >> you know, one runs right into the other. you don't know who owns what other than the direction of cars are facing, >> you know.
So, I'd like to that's how I feel on the rest of the board, but I think that's something we should be looking at. Um, I don't know how you would do it. I mean, I can't do anything with it right now obviously, but what are you planning to put this building up? >> In strength. >> So, okay. So suppose we put something in a resolution board goes along with it that along with the approval that you get a before you can get a CO for the building if that strip is modified with a landscaped area. >> That would be springtime. >> Okay. I mean I don't can't do it now obviously. >> We'll go to Thomas right next door.
>> I'm sorry. Yeah. There. There you go. Have him come come over. He can plant some trees and fix it up. something that fixes it up and distinguishes your property from the property to the west, >> you know, and I think that's something we need to be starting to do with these properties as they come in, too. Everybody's wanting to get more into it. Um, what's the height of that building? The height the height of that building isn't any higher than the >> the height isn't any higher than your existing building, is it? >> Uh, no. It's going to be single single story. >> So, it's like the level of front building.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Um, yeah, I think that should be marked off and then and then designate the buffer in the rear. You're set back because right now I don't know where the cars are parked if they're in or out of the buffer personally. Okay. Anyways, >> yeah, I have a couple. So, so you mentioned nonpus is increasing, but you know, you're removing a tree on the west side and you're also going into the vegetation area on the east side. The plants are not indicating a clear distinction of existing gravelous area with what is proposed as mobile. So because you could show your existing survey plot map with you know where your limits of existing gravel is um in comparison even on your site plan you know where is that gravel stop with where you're proposing new asphalt to be added on.
You're only getting 5T on the west side. It's not going to give you much room for any vegetation. I'm also concerned that you know you are putting all of these parking spaces in a 20 foot side setback on the west side. Is there are needed for >> I think I think he's allowed the five foot I think is okay because you got I think what's the total total has to be 15 foot Josh >> I believe that's a total of 20 >> 20 foot okay so if you got five there what do you got on the other side of the setback there >> yeah so right now you're proposing new asphalt the designated parking spaces in a site setback on west side and on your east side, you're actually going into the existing 25 20 foot wide easement.
So that seems to be a utility, sewer, and water easement. You know, you have an approval to be putting designated parking cars within that easement area is one of my concerns. Um our understanding is that the goal is to not place a structure in the eastment that would totally encumber it from um the use of lot two from accessing that utility ement. I think by proposing asphalt that could be easily excavated, removed as part of any type of utility maintenance, future utility maintenance that would provide the intended use of that. Take away from that. That's our >> Well, no. They're still saying they're going to put the asphalt in that 20 foot.
>> I see where they showing it in there, but it's it's I don't know what the width of that is. What is the width of that? Is that 20 feet? >> It's 20 foot. These ones are square. >> Okay. 20 feet. >> So, what's the setback between the property? >> Yeah, that's that's >> the setback is 20 foot also. >> Looks like the ash's into it. So, it looks like I'm going to guess there's 15 ft of buffer there and five on the other side encompasses the 20. That's correct. Am I reading that right? Yes. It just doesn't have a 15. >> I'm sorry. >> It just doesn't show 15. >> Yeah. Right. Right. Right. >> So maybe maybe a good idea to do would be to designate that on your drawing showing that that protrudes into that buffer into the 20 foot by 5 foot, but you still have 15 plus the five on the west side gives you your 20 foot total buffer.
Okay. So we should show that. >> Um, one of the questions I had was proposed building in relation to the existing building. Is there an employee egress area in the back of the existing building? >> Uh, egress in the proposed building. Is that >> what is the little bump out there? Um, Josh, just south of your cursor there a little further. What's that? Oh, that's a window. >> So, that was egress for that for the basement previous right now. It's just a window. >> So, it's not an emergency currently. >> Um, currently, no. Historically, yes. Just want to make sure there's enough space there in case it is an emergency rest.
Somebody can exit and that that area is being maintained from snow accumulation because emergency rest um dumpster closure area. You're showing asphalt stopping around the dumpster enclosure. Is there a reason that it's not also underneath the dumpster? Is there concrete there or what is being proposed underneath the dumpster enclosure? Yeah, I think we were assuming that that was going to be a concrete pad and uh we could we can modify that. >> You should include a dumpster included detail didn't have one. So they should be again CMU blocks dumpster enclosure with concrete Per C blocks function.
Ultimately when it's complete I think the other thing has to be done that has to be uh striped the parking we got 9 foot spaces probably >> yeah by >> that should be all striped out so you know exactly how many cars are going to be on that site Do you have a total on there now? Uh, I see 45 on one side, 17 on another. you got in front there. 10 and 20 looks like 24. So you got 10 like some parking spaces, right? >> I I count 98. >> I'm sorry. >> I count 98. make that a little bit more clear. >> All right. So, some of those are going to be customer >> what's that? >> Some of them customers customers will be up front and back.
>> All right. So parking lot should be ultimately uh you blacktapping everything all over again or just adding on black what's currently >> be ashalt >> yes part is already black up to >> all right so all bottom line they should be marked out as parking spaces so we don't end up with 300 cars jammed in there and say, "Well, they fit, you know." >> Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. >> And my last one's just do you have any electrical going to the proposed building and water? I'm not seeing any on the drawings, but I'm assuming the buildings will be sprinkler. the water and uh electricity being done. >> What's that?
>> It's being done. >> Yeah. I think that came up at PRC. Somebody brought that up, didn't they? Erica, do you recall that about the water bathroom in there or something? Yeah, I did confirm that they're going to have bathroom and a shop. >> They are exactly originally there wasn't. >> Yeah, that was a little >> All right. Just one quick question on C 100 shows the approximate storm surated, wasn't it? that so that uh easement was shown on a an old site plan. Yeah. That was approved but was never substantially completed. >> Um so that storm sewer was never routed through that easement. >> So it's an easement that was proposed.
I don't know if it was ever filed trying to get to the bottom of that. I don't know if Eric provide more clarity on that. We didn't see anything in our research. The way that storm runs now is it runs under the driveway in the front of the site closer to the rightway into our pond to the east. So it was an ement that was conceptualized but was never actually >> if it is a real does the building go? >> Yes. That would go through an abandonment process before we And I spoke with the sewer department and reviewed a map for Bridge Road which did not show any ement. >> So there's assumption is it's not there.
Can that be taken off the map? How do you do that? >> Storm water. Where does that drain to? >> That drains behind uh Thomas landscaping to the east. Heads east. included. across >> but as far as Thomas once it gets off the site from Thomas actually goes into Well, why don't we leave it to you have to address whether that thing is active or inactive? >> Yeah, our physical field inspection shows that it's not active. It's just a question of file and what process you need to go through that >> exist. We're just going to take it off >> your storm sewer inlet site. Where does that actually site? >> It just shows inlets.
Next. Next. >> That's actually >> Yeah, >> questions. >> Just the lighting plan. I don't think there's enough wall packs on on the proposed building. We don't have any foot candles indicated by dumpster enclosure um or really in the in the rear of the part of parking lot. So, you know, thinking of snow plowing in the middle of the night, somebody's out there doing some work or garbage being picked up. Just you have enough lighting um in the rear for safety. along with along with what we were discussing earlier. West landscaping that area in there. >> Yeah. >> Take your front and you you do have some grass in the front there.
Not mistaken. All right. >> That front. Yeah. There's there's a good 8 to 10 foot section distinguishes the front. >> Just enhance that. You know, here's here's why I'm bringing this up. The new town zoning laws are going to ask for different things, you know, different zonings, this and that, so on. And at a meeting just last night, there's a lot of this came up about streetscape and somewhere we need to get these things back in here again. >> So, I'm going to suggest that there be some landscaping done in the front of that. We did that with the bank that's going on the corner of Hatch Road. They cooperated.
They're putting in a landscape burn something. So, if you just enhance it and fix it up, just show us a drawing of what you can do with it. Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Something improve the appearance along the drug. We got to start with this. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> Anybody? Anything else? All right. I guess you're just here for sketch plans. So, we're I'm going to suggest again the landscaping on the west side ashalt not to be in the buffer area but that piece that you got there's has to be 15 ft. You'll be all right with that address the easement whoever does that the town or you guys I don't know that and you were talking about the lighting walls on the proposed building.
>> Okay. Some lighting. You guys hearing me back there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. You want look at lighting on that? >> Yep. >> And the landscape. Those would be the key things you're looking for. All right. >> Lighting and landscape. >> All right. Okay. I guess we're all set with that. Okay. Third item on tonight's agenda. Aberdine State Stage 2 located at Hazel Head Lane, the applicant Forest Creek Equity Corporation. He is requesting final site plan and subdivision approval in association with the development of 20 single family residential lots of 17.10 10 acre parcel located in a single family residential district under section 269-10 296-18 and 350-12 of the code the town >> good evening Jared with Fox on behalf of the applicant here tonight with Walter Baker engineers there was a letter that was issued by the town January, 2026, which set forth some comments by PRC committee.
We did submit response today from addressing the comments that were set forth in that letter January. I assume everyone on the board has received a copy of that. If not, if you have a copy, other than that, I am really here to be ba hand candy. Most of the issues that are addressed here are comments and concerns that Walt can address by way of engineering. So Walt go ahead do your show. Good evening. I'm Walt B with DVD Engineers. As the board may recall, we were first here back in August of 2021 with preliminary overall approval and final for phase one. So overall approval was 79 lots per 100 foot by 120 minimum size depth of lots and 22,000 square ft in phase one which we received approval at that time was 23 lots which uh been up south road you can see that it's substantially under construction.
We have approximately we have exactly 11 homes under construction are completely built. So that leaves us 12 more lots and uh the developer and the builder are moving along fairly well considering the first house was built. The model was built last June and uh started the sales at that time. So things are moving well which brings us to the point where we wanted to come in get final approval for phase two and also phase three. So phase two consists of 20 lots. Phase three will be the remaining 36 lots. The thinking of the developer is that uh sales are going so well that he would like to get final approval for both section two and section three.
The board may recall we submitted an application in December for the January meeting and we withdrew that based on comments from the town of PRC. We were intending to come in with a total of 56 lots called it phase two with two construction phases. Uh again the developer thinking is that he wants to try to get pricing from site contractors. So hopefully with the number of lots we can get more of scales on pricing and comments that the December application was they wanted us to separate it back to phase two and phase three and we come in for phase two and phase three at the same time but basically some confusion on the county staff part.
So we separated it out and submitted two complete sets of plans. Phase two complete the 20 lots and phase three complete 36 lots and uh resubmitted after seeing me final approval. Again we're trying to developers intent is to hopefully get get better pricing with both sections being good at the same time with the contractor. And if that's the case, he will obviously move forward. is going to have one year to get all the approvals and sign offs and get it to the county for filing for phase two as well as phase three. So, uh complied with the change from following two construction phases to complete phase two and phase three plans.
So, uh that's the change from our January submitt to the February submitt. And we did receive the other comments uh which made As Jared mentioned, we've uh written responses to that and uh their technical nature will comply with that you know construction they move forward 30 minute all that make the changes to any questions >> anybody any questions >> yeah have a couple so you mentioned that PRC comments were addressing sent back I didn't get respon they were submitted back today. I think it's realistic for us to have time to review them to incorporate them in the decision. Um, one of the PRC comments was from the engineering department that they would like phase two and three combined not separated and there should not be approval granted as separate phases which seems kind of contradict.
>> Yeah, that was the first part of the comment. Y >> as you see the second part of the comment was referred to the phase two and phase three and submitted both at the same time which we do. >> Okay. So you mean as a independent application right now? >> Yes. Separate application submitted. >> One of the comments I had is it would be really good to see earthwork cut and fill tables provided. um both phase two and phase three so that we know if you're equaling out uh or if you're exporting out or importing in dur as part of your projects. I know some of the comments that engineering had was with regards to basement exposure and whatnot.
So we could see earthwork tables uh to show the proposed as part of the project. like all the all the foundations of every house is on virgin ground below the top level. So there's nothing that is not fil material and so it's pretty apparent when you look at the plants closely where the original ground is proposed elevations you want to call 9 foot 8ft clear basement. So 9 ft with the first floor structure. So the footers are actually 9 and 12 ft underground. So everything complies with being on ground. >> I think it would be helpful if you could identify finish elevations. >> Yes. >> And then again like I said provide an earthwork fac.
>> Yes, it's in the legend. FF meaning first floor. We also have what's called a garage floor which is kind of key for us to pitch the driveway between the road and the driveway to the house. So we call out first floor garage will be basically from the first floor down to the basement floor level 9 ft plus standard flaw some of the lots um had less than 100 foot minimum lot width. I'm sorry. I I saw some of the lots less than the minimum. >> That's standard procedure. That's in place on a curve. The front is going to be 100 foot wide. It tapers down, but the mean width of the lot does meet the requirements of 100 ft.
>> Correct. Front set back. So, it was a minimum because of the pie shaped lots and minimum 55 ft at the rightway. But set back it should be it is >> yeah the plans themselves that you subitted aren't compliment changes >> yeah those they were approved for preliminary approvals based on what you show that's all legitimate >> we don't want to reinvent the wheel of this thing but >> well detail doesn't matter so um some of the things on the road control plan I would like to see construction is proposed in concrete wash out areas. >> Yes. >> Um which weren't in there. Um I want to see the limits of disturbance area identified.
It's very hard. Again, you have a very, you know, a drawing set with with a scale. So, it's pretty hard to determine some of the line types that are used and it's hard to determine where your clearing limits are as part of your project. So, I would likely thicken it up, make it really stand out where your propo where your proposed disturbance limit is part of your project. Um, I didn't see maybe it's just because the size of scale, but just want to make sure that you have enough sampling locations for the water man. >> Doesn't the engineering take care of all that stuff? >> Monro, we've got town engineers.
>> That's actually pointing it out on what I saw. Make sure Yeah, we comply with actually the plans will be submitted to Monroe County Water Authority which has the jurisdiction over the water system and we get comments from them. We obviously worked with them for a number of years and we comply with their their requirements. >> Um are you proposing additional clearing as part of project or has been the clearing already completed with phase one? >> Um we show the clearing limit lines throughout the project. We have labeled various spots around the project. Uh and uh obviously we need to clear so that the house can go in if there's a tree tree line.
So the tree lines primarily on the east side of the project and uh we show a clearing limit line which is there for the construction of the homes as well as having adequate backyard space. pool or whatever they want. I think that the home builder actually wanted us to have like 120 ft from the front set back. So you technically build a house that's about 40 ft deep. >> Mhm. >> So they get like an 80 foot backyard, but we did have on there. So we will add dimensions from the rear property line. Okay. >> So, in other words, well, in other words, you don't clear out the trees until the potential homeowner tells you to.
>> No, we're going to actually clear the limit line up front. So, first step in the erosion control. Obviously, we have control notes on the detail sheet that shows the sequence of the clearing and grading site. We've cleared that limit. will have a a trees specialist come in and clear all the trees that are within the clearing limit line. So we established that already. So that will all be done at one time because it's again it's economic scale to be done as a separate operation. Get your ro control up first clear line. This way you don't have to keep coming back and get a increased price on each lot.
Do you know roughly how many acres you're clearing? >> I can't say >> if you wouldn't mind adding to the plans the acres being cleared. >> Okay. >> Um I know you're showing a clearing limit, >> but uh it would be good to see a hatch indicating >> uh where the current tree line is and where you're clearing up to. So visually we can see that you are clearing to the point you're supposed to be clearing. All right. >> Shows all the existing contours, proposed contours, existing tree line. It's all on there. >> I didn't know just cuz you mentioned uh the contours, the reading seems like existing contours are missing in a lot of areas.
So, if you could maybe just check that you have your proposed contours typed back your existing I looked it all over. It looked like they're all there, but uh I'll try >> it clear, right? >> Um I personally would like to see more landscaping introduced. I mean, I know you have like a tree per lot, but um town says one tree per lot in the backyard. Obviously, homeowners doing their own landscaping is going to be >> same as you see on every subdivision. Homeowners do their own, especially at this price range. They're going to be Yeah, generally we don't we don't require resial lots to be >> landscaped down.
Obviously, >> we did get the comment about the southern BM and we did show the BM adjacent property owners of the south. So he has a complete hedro right now on his property line, but they're primarily deciduous trees and so our vites will give them a year round buff. I guess my last comment here is just with regards to preserving on the southeast side where the sperm is and so if you keep going to the east and towards the wetland that it's not going to disturb. Is there a reason that that area couldn't be excluded or protected and just leave the vegetation? You know, you're not clearing all the way, but is there any way to protect that area and limit the amount of clearing that's needed along that area?
We'll take a look at protecting lines as well. >> All right. Where do we go with this? Now I don't love Barbie's comments. Josh I think given the number and context of them I would not um advocate for the board to approve them. The town has had an opportunity to actually review the plans that are reflecting the comments that we got this evening. And we just received these comments last Thursday, >> right? And we just received their responses at 5:00 this evening. So, no one has had a chance to actually look at a plan that illustrates. >> So, do we need should we what's when they're missing here?
If if when did we send these things out? Thursday. You said >> they went out last week. Yes. >> So, Thursday, that's Friday, >> Monday, and Tuesday. So, how do you prepare? >> It gives you two days to prepare. We got something missing in here. >> Well, there's a lot going on and we do the best we can. I mean, the comments, at least in my opinion, they're not changing plants themselves. So, it's pretty routine that a town or planning board would issue approval, especially when we're talking about adding in property information. I mean, that's the requests that are coming through nothing of substance.
They're all technical in nature. >> I would respectfully disagree with some of that characterization. Um, we did experience some issues with the first phase that we're trying to avoid replicating in subsequent phases. So, we would really like an opportunity to evaluate the plans once they're provided. really don't see a harm being one month. Are you clearing right now or can wait a month? >> I mean, we're trying to to gear up with some I'll call it miscommunication that's already put this back now six weeks. >> So, we're just trying to get ahead of it. And again, looking at comments, I'm not sure what comments are otherwise sensitive, but I could just give an example for the planning board members that may not have been around in 2021.
This property was reszoned from R2 to R3 to allow it to move forward in this configuration. Now, they agreed to keep the 100 foot lot sizes and make deeper lots to preserve what small number of trees are on the site. So, one of our comments was the town believes there should be a conservation easement protecting the trees along the east side. That was what was used to convince the town board to reszone the property. Um, the comment we received back to that to our comment was there are no conservation requirements and that's not an adequate response from the town's perspective. Gosh, I know you well.
Perhaps not from a perspective, but it is from a legal perspective. If you have preliminary approval and you you can't begin imposing certain conditions and restrictions uh and final that otherwise weren't included in preliminary putting in requiring the developer to put in conservation ement that otherwise wasn't required to preliminary approval is not proper. So I mean I'm certainly willing to to communicate work with the town but things like that can't be imposed in final is as you know our plans that we have submitted are in compliance with the preliminary scope and so when I'm looking at what has been provided to us these are technical adoptions I mean asking us to again you know clarify certain things to put in the owner's name and and addresses of the neighboring lots, the switch signature block will be removed.
I mean, those are things that can be done in relatively quick fashion and they're not going to check and they're not going to affect the overall plan of the development of the subs. Well, I believe that uh some indications that conservation of the trees was going to be a part of the development. We just want to ensure that that remains. What What's going to prevent any of these future homeowners from removing those trees? >> Oh, there's no conservation. Are you aware of conservation? No, but that was the crux of why the reszoning took place was there was a promise. I mean, I could show you the >> I can't Yeah, I can't comment on that because I haven't seen it.
But what I'm saying is there wasn't one imposed as part of the preliminary or as part of the the resupp or the rezoning. >> Frank, do you have any comments on that? >> Oh, well, first of all, let me ask. I mean, what's the urgency? Can't we at this point answer today the questions that put forth by why don't we have an opportunity to have the board review that in the middle I've ever seen this gives us just a brief opportunity to review what you submitted today Thank you for spending the city. Um, you know, I I'm not familiar with what, you know, happened in 2021 either. So, I mean, it gives us everybody just a brief opportunity.
I know that you want it be nice to get pricing and getting everything done right now. The goal is just to have this approved next month. I don't I just don't understand. It's not necessarily I understand where you're coming from. It's we're going back to the point place beginning where we started this process. But you've answered those questions presumably right today. So I mean it's not the board on it. I'm just I'm just the question is what's the me before to ask you um you know I'm not familiar what the preliminary plans were to answer John just question um you know if there were minutes that were put before the board to create a conservation plan think that it would come but I would have to go back and look at I just see the I think the intent is to to get this done just there were two pages These were the questions that need to be responded to.
I think it work. Hopefully they're they'll be satisf >> I'm listening to Josh. We actually there's some outstanding things that supposedly been done prior to that are still up. >> Yes. >> Suppose we get all these things logged out whatever we've got that needs to be done, so to speak. Um, is there a possibility to have a meeting before a month? >> I guess well >> would it help? >> Yeah. Part of my concern is so when we're we're now talking about things that otherwise fall outside of the purview of the board getting final approval. There are certain things that occur in phase one which I don't know what they are but >> whatever they are that's not relevant as to getting final and my only concern is that we provided our responses I understand I don't want to have responses provided the day before the next day next meeting and then we're back to work on right so if if we we get responses and I understand you're busy so I'm not throwing salt at you but we get responses to where we then can address anything that might still be outstanding so that when we come before the board let's say next month we're not trying to do the same thing I >> right that's my concern u and to Jar's credit there was a a mis communication on our part and I take full responsibility for the initial confusion relating to the two plans versus one so I did that.
>> Um, we just want to make sure that that we have everything correct and that there aren't any issues when you're going out to construct the project that we experienced the first time around. That's that's all I'm saying. So, okay, board could opt to approve it with all of these conditions, but just know that the town is going to take its time in doing a thorough review once we do get the revised plans if they do decide to go that direction. So if we if we gave it there's two separate ones phase two and phase three basically the same situation with both of them. >> The request is to have it in a singular set of plans as one phase.
So we're not going to call it phase two and three. It's phase two with 56 lots. That's requesting them both into one. >> Yes. Right now it's phase two and phase three. >> Correct. >> Okay. If if if the developer wants to to move forward with approvals for both, just call it phase two. All lots, one phase. That's our request because then when you have phase two and phase three plans, there's construction sequence problems. They're going to want to do building over here and maybe a lot over here. The town is not interested in getting into a situation like that. >> That's our concern. So is it that he wants the flexibility to any site or they sequentially go phase two and phase three because it still doesn't really make a lot of sense because otherwise you're not going to you're not going to skip from one lot and go all the way to the back.
That's not >> from phase two standpoint. you've got the debts set forth in the preliminary. So getting 20 lots approved, but then also getting phase three approved would allow some scalability of bringing in getting, for example, infrastructure clearing, roads, things like that potentially all at one time. But it doesn't mean that you're going to start construction on a 300 above lot, skip over two. So, >> so actually my my >> what's that? >> If it weren't for the gray area of conservation on the tree, I would agree. But because there's this gray area, I would say table it to the next meeting.
No need any get that item resolved because I have some recollection of conversations articles in the newspaper from the timeless original there is a public perception that there is an environmental protects the trees as much as possible and if that's something that wasn't recorded we would have to find a way to correct that. We quite often see on plans recent particularly on ridge road example of this here's a parcel it has on it line work showing proposed eased and that happens quite often. Oh, it's just listed on the plan as proposed. Even though it's approved, the word proposed is stuck on the plan.
And so it's never actually filed. And then years later, people come back and look at it and say, "Oh, it doesn't say easement. It says back then it was proposed." >> The reality is it should have been filed whether or not. We have seen it on several other projects actually over the years or these type of conditions they disappear. And I think in this case remembering the conversations about it and the conversation on the town board side for zoning area that this is a significant item that needs to get resolved before we move any move forward on it at all. And the follow on that too in response to the PC counts.
From my standpoint, we have not received a response. >> Okay. No, just just you you say you emailed them after 5:00. >> I respect. >> Okay. >> None whatsoever. They might be in my inbox. Okay, >> I'm not obligated to check my emails 5 minutes before the meeting and read through all this stuff that got submitted at the last minute. >> There is a time frame. Maybe there was a screw up >> of telling when things were supposed to be put in, but we need time to read any kind of response to the year. >> So, from my perspective, they don't exist. >> I have not seen them. We don't even have printed copies here coming from desperate.
>> I can certainly give you a copy. I'm not >> this project really should be tabled completely. >> Hey, okay. >> Why don't we do this then? We consider tableabling this but for when you come in again. What are we coming in under? One phase or two and three? Well, I'm seeing two letters. One letter says from December says combine the work into a single phase two without 2 A and 2B or revert to the original phasing under which the town would review phase two and phase three separately. Then the next letter I have here from January phase two and three must be combined. So what are we doing? So as I tried to explain earlier, I think what the initial intention of the first comment was to submit for phase two at this time with the assumption that phase three would be coming in the future.
So I think that's where the miscommunication came from. What we intended to say is either combine all the lots into a singular plan set or move forward with phase two now and phase three when you're done with two. that that was the intent of the original comment and it was mis it was not clear like I said I apologize for any ambiguity and u I make a suggestion see so talked to Walt Walt could get revised plans addressing PRC so they're just not comments okay >> to the town by the end of next week I don't how much time does the town need to review what I'm thinking is can we have a meeting to discuss those prior to the last public >> meeting internally with towns staff?
>> Yeah. I mean or if you review them and say hey Jared we're going to go that's one but if there's other issues for example you've raised the conservation question that that is going to result in dialogue. Sure. Right. So, I would like to that is my concern about not voting and getting the table is I just want to make sure that we're getting things addressed between now and next week and so we can commit to the town that we'll have revised plans to you by the end of next week that address the PRC comments. >> Okay. Then I guess what I'm looking for from a town standpoint is your review giving us comments back if there are any and that if there's going to be some concern or issue raised regarding >> um why don't we why don't that's fine.
I mean obviously speak can't do it but right the Josh myself you can go over that you can have referring questions after the meeting you can make it hammer it out for the next couple weeks >> and then you know >> we would have to have a public meeting right >> no public hearing >> no it's not a hearing so we can have a special meeting >> we have a special meeting >> forever >> well But I mean, again, I don't know what you would >> accomplish with a couple weeks. >> I'm willing to be flexible. >> All right. >> Yeah. Why don't we just We could have a meeting, three of us, or you can answer any questions with us, and then we'll make sure that anything that they want, anything that you have to complete can happen before the next.
I think what we need to do is get all these concerns that the town has. I mean, I know we get this one. It's like a It's like a freaking newspaper. Every day additions coming out here. Um, let's get them all documented down. One sheet of paper, go over it. What does the town actually need? And end it. We can't, you know, I have to agree with them partly. I mean, you know, once you got the approvals, why did it get this far? there was things lacking and if you got this far with it um how I mean Josh other than what has been put forth in the two letters that were presumably answered there's nothing more that you know off the top of your head right and that pretty much is what we need to have answered so I I would presume after tonight this will be the questions that they have unless it's a question with regards to their answer.
There won't be any new things in the car. >> Not aware of >> see like children locations of any known farm tile. Why is this coming out now? This should have been done way back when. >> See what I'm saying? >> It's interesting because phase one had a massive issue with a spring popping up water in the middle of the construction site. It did. So, yeah. And there's evidence of another tile in the phase three area. >> All right. Then that that justifies tableabling this thing and going through this. >> Get all the paperwork together all on a sheet of paper and say here resolve this. Put it on your drawings.
Tell them to ac you should be set. >> Yeah. I' I'd be happy to facilitate scheduling. >> I think that's directly with the engineering department. So all of the technical details can be hashed out directly between town engineer and the project engineer. >> I think we have I mean PRC comments and our response. We just need to memorialize those and plan essentially. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> So we table this March third meeting. This is okay. Suggestion is to table this thing for the next month. >> Where is it? March 4th. >> March 3rd. >> I'll make a motion. We table the application for u Engineers project of Aberdine Estates phase 2 and three to March 4th.
>> Second >> or third, I'm sorry. All in favor. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right, guys. >> Anyone in the board like I do have favor copies be helpful response and also the PRC comments. Anybody want copies? >> Yes. Might as well pass them up. >> Next week. I'd like to make a motion to approve the January 6 meeting. >> You need a second? >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> I wasn't here. >> All right, that's it. I guess we're all set for this evening. Thanks for coming. Sorry. Thank you for saying that.