captions Language: en you all set yep that's cool okay just get this stuff organized here okay it is 7:00 like to welcome everyone to the planning board meeting um would you join in a Pledge of Allegiance please FL United States of America to the for stands na [Music] indivisible you want to call R Please Mr Anderson here Mr K here Mr J here Mr Co here Mr Malta here Mrs mman here Mr Gasket here miss Cory here Mr artuso here attorney Chari here okay I guess we're pretty well set we have pretty lengthy agenda here this evening um nothing has been tabled at this point so I guess we can just go ahead and get started first application one Waterview phase 3 located in the northwest corner of Willow Point Way and nautical mile drive the applicant Legacy Development Company Incorporated is requesting preliminary final site plan subdivision EOD permit approval and lwrp consistency recommendation along with a public hearing associated with the proposed construction of six twostory townhouse style buildings consisting of a total of 56 residential units and one community center on a 13.5 acre parcel located in an mhr medium high residential district under sections 269-1110 D4 and 350-1433 I'm Chris Nadler general counsel for markv Enterprises with me here today is David Cox our design engineer from passero Associates Chris marzo our owner and president of markv will join us in a few minutes he just texted he's stuck in a traffic jam we're here in front of this board at long last it seems like it's been a while since I've seen you all um we have been hard at work with Town staff uh going hammering out issues uh but I just want to go briefly again over the project history where we've been where we are now and where we'd like to go um and go over briefly some of the comments and changes we've made over the last several months and uh then answer any questions David and I are both available um as you know decades ago this project was approved for seven story midrise uh on this parcel it was reduced to a five story midrise and we obtained permits from the dec for docks and Moorings down on the bay uh and then earlier this year or last year we came in for two three-story buildings uh with 90 units we met with this board a few times we met with the zoning board a few times and we talked to town staff heard from our neighbors and reduced the project significantly to 56 townhouse style Apartments at the in the fall of last year this board declared its intent to be lead agency and commenced Seeker coordinated review and we appeared in front of the zoning board of appeals and received required variances for the project including front setback and um uh another variance that we needed since that time we've been working diligently with Town staff your town engineering staff Highway Sewer Department uh uh planning department um and responding to comments about drainage potential Wetlands storm Water Management Systems uh dock permit conditions which uh in December Mr artuso uh spoke with DEC um and realized that or we realized that there were conditions of the dock permit that was issued I don't know two decades ago that the dec has been um renew for us every 5 years um we're not planning on building docks as part of this application so what's just in front of you is just the subdivision application and the site plan application um we also talked to town staff about construction phasing worked out a detailed plan that you have in front of you as well as uh various easements that the project requires tonight we're seeking from this board a negative Declaration of Environmental significance under Seeker an lwrp local Waterfront revitalization program determination of consistency an epod permit Environmental Protection overlay District permit subdivision approval and preliminary site plan approval as well as final site plan approval I believe we've worked for o over a year with Town staff and this board as well as the zoning board and the dec and our uh had the boards have all the information necessary to issue those approvals so now I'd open it up ask the board if there are any questions that we're happy to answer okay well with that we can get started I guess um any first of all anybody have any concerns or questions I Derek I'd actually like like to talk to you about the dock permit um cuz I'm reading through the permit it has been continuously renewed by Legacy development okay you they send in they request and then can you speak up I can't quite hear you so DC when they Legacy development has been renewing this permit every I don't know is it every 10 years whatever since it was first put in it's done at their request and dec's been doing it administratively okay and so the reason this is related directly to this project is that appendix B of this permit clearly says that parcel 2 which is included in this project shall be conveyed to the the genese valley Land Trust as a condition of the permit for the docks and so my question to you is that well it's not only lot two it's also a lot across the road from it I guess my question to you is that um why hasn't that property ever been transferred oh I'm sorry I thought I had said this earlier we're not building the docs as part of this application no I understand that oh but you have been actively renewing the permit ever since it was issued so you have the understanding and you know that the property was supposed to have been transferred it says on here within 45 days after the effective date of this renewal that property has never been transferred in accordance with the permit I don't understand question the question is why have you not transferred the property as a condition of this permit oh because we haven't built the docks and we're not planning on building them if we if we do go to build the docks we'll work that out with the dec I if that's the point there because that is condition of this permit that you have been actively renewing then I think as a board we need to notify DEC that this permit needs to be withdrawn it is not aaid permit because you if you go through with this development you're building on the neighboring property you're merging one of the parcels into the main where the buildings are oh I okay understood you're subdividing the whole parcel you're doing away with one of those Parcels that you committed to transferring to the genese valley Land Trust so this permit is null and void no I I think from now on until the future it hasang that's misleading we did not commit to convey that to the Gen see Land Trust we committed to as part of a dock permit if and when we build docks that will deal with the dec on that but I don't want I I think that's a little disingenuous to say we've committed to convey a parcel when that's not even a little bit what we've done as part of a dock permit excuse me as part of a dock permit we we would have to do that we're as I've said a couple times now we're not building docks at as part of this I understand that but you are making it to a condition that this permit that you have been actively renewing you cannot meet anymore therefore this permit would become null and void based on any action that we would take tonight regarding this parcel and DC must be notified that you are pulling the permit once again cuz looking through the record this permit has been as the development at the beginning it was pulled it wasn't going to be part of any project and then it reappeared at some point probably when they did phase two of this project the map that we have is in conformance with what's in the permit itself so you have a development that you've been actively renewing the permit for on the understanding that okay once the docks are built you're going to convey the property now you're before the board with a development that makes this permit null and void which do you want in the future do you want this development or do you want to notify DEC that you're pulling the permit applicate this permit that you've been renewing we're here seeking a site plan approval and subdivision approval for this project I can't stop you Derek from notifying the dec of anything why wouldn't you notify them I don't understand the question you I understand your point okay you so you wouldn't so why wouldn't you notify them hey we've changed our mind we want to pull this permit why you've been renewing the permit when you've had no intention I guess of transferring the property as was negotiated as part of this permit again that's a little disingenuous to accuse me of that but I understand your point thank you no I think that's the attorney is just questioning me he's saying do they have any intention of building the docks and my point there would be no there is no intent to build the docks currently so I hear what you're saying is it where is perit the permit must be pulled ex where is that coming into this if there's nothing going on with that at this point so this permit must be pulled as part of this project so can that be a stipulation put into the resolution they would have to make sure they follow up on it okay so if we put that in a resolution we we should notify the dec to to terminate this permit okay so so you feel that the town should notify them of this correct of termination permit which can be done correct okay I'm I'm comfortable with that all right so so in the future it's not like we're going to they're ever going to come back and say oh we had this permit because this permit's not valid anymore so part of the concy any approval could be that they notify him and the town notifies that there is no application or it's rescinded for the dock I can't see holding a project up like this for something as minor as that see that's just my opin comfortable with that condition Derek thank you if this if this was just coming in this thing has been going on we've been beating this thing to death for ever and somewhere along the line I mean it's been open again this is a public hearing so if there are people here to speak we will open it to the public so I guess the other object the item is dealing with the white lines the new Wetland regulations we do have a letter from passero that says they went out and took some pictures of it within the letter they talk about doing a Desktop review of the location of wetlands which specifically under the new regulation says you can't do anymore you can't rely on those mappings so has a delineation an act actual delineation been done and an application submitted to DEC for a jurisdictional determination some other points there has been an application submitted to DEC uh nothing in the regulations says you can't do quote a desktop delineation we have worked diligently with Town staff including the town planning board attorney Town attorney Town director of development Town planner and town engineer assistant Town engineer on that matter I think um our most recent submission shows that there aren't there isn't a wetland in the potential in the location that may be identified on the eaf map or whatever the substitution of that is under the new regulations yeah the new regulations so you can't rely on that information anymore so you say you have submitted to the dec have we received a copy of that submission I don't think you get a copy a submission we have some information about it I'm sure the town has whatever we've submitted and we have not yetem email saying that they received it uh when was that application filed a few weeks ago when the the issue came up in January right don't know the exact date I mean my my understanding is under the new regulations there's a transitional period and it's only effective if it's an application was filed before January 1 first otherwise the new regulations apply and like Derek mentioned um I concur with that understanding and even if you go onto the web portal to DEC it says that it's only for reference and it's not comparable to an actual JD application or actual physical response back from the dec indicating if a w lineation needs to be occurred or not but the during the transitional period again ACC 66 4.1 as a section the only time that you're granted a transition period is if you have a DC wetland perit in hand a final environmental impact statement completed uh or a site plan approval by municipality so otherwise you fall under the new jurisdiction requirement of applications so you performed uh a site visit was there GPS thata collected has that been submitted to DEC or did you just file a JD and waiting for a response from from the dec so I think I can I can uh we can we can get around those those details no no GPS data has been submitted to the dec so what the actual regulations say that took effect in January 1 is that we have the option of submitting a jurisdictional determination request they do not require a jurisdictional uh determination request as part of this review this board is is tasked with addressing and evaluating Wetlands impact to Wetlands excuse me as part of your Seeker process um but this board can do that based on New York state laws interpreted and and promulgated by the court system and New York State Town law and New York State Seeker regulations based on the information you have um the read the the way the regulations read not the way the dec keeps talking about it but the actual regulations say if it's a wetland then you may need a jurisdictional determination so it would be predicated on it being wet so what we've shown you is that there's no area that could be a wetland uh on well correction on that there's multiple criterias to delineate a wetland it is not just if it's saturation it also consists of the hydrology of the soil and actual vegetation plantings that are existing there as well as microbial environment conditions it's not just if it's when or not yes absolutely I that's my lawyer speak as is it or not I didn't just mean is it wet I meant did somebody who's a what's her name environmental biologist go out there and say could this possibly be a wetland and she said no was there delineation no we're not saying that there was but that's not required at this stage now well I guess a point of clarification and I if you can assist me with is uh if we're tasked with determining if there's a wet or not but information wasn't provided to justify from DEC or from a delineator that there is in fact or is not in fact Wetlands outl H how are we going to make that determination without requesting uh JD or Wetland delation well you could probably take the word of a uh environmental biologist who's employed by passor Associates who professionally licensed Engineers stamped all this all the items in this application MH um could probably go look does it look like it could be a wetland no um but I think that's self self-evident if you know the dec regulations can confuse people I understand that um but I think hopefully we've worked that out with uh your legal advisers and your town staff to uh make it clear that that's not necessarily an impediment to making a a secet determination I mean I just want to disagree with that I think it's the applicant's responsibility in due diligence to provide that information uh since the applicant is requesting the Seeker thank you can something like this keep moving forward subject to these items being resolved down the road you agree yeah uh yeah I guess that's that's the question is is are you willing to have a conditional approval subject to the dec coming back um with their opinion Rel relative to the uh jurisdictional determination also the dec has allowed for a streamline of this um approval if you have a third- party uh person who has expert who has performed which which you have with with passero so um I guess the question would ultimately the legal question which why I think I'm I why I'm being asked is whether or not uh some type of U conditional approval conditioned to the having that DEC uh review and uh approval uh and and and ultimately we deter determining the D determining that the delineation is not required uh and that it's not a wetland um if we put that in the approval what's your position with regards to that seems that would be fine with us I don't think it's necessary um but to move this along of course we' we' we'd be happy uh would' be appreciative of this board if if you would move it along like that um you know if it's a wetland we can't build on it uh the dec would take us to court before we got sure you know to the second day of construction so that's what the dec's uh enforcement mechanism is it's not this board um that being said if that's the condition you want to impose absolutely and then to follow that up you are seeking the dec's determination jurisic for already and obviously what you just said is important for this board you wouldn't want to build on something without getting that we couldn't yeah absolutely jurisdictional review correct I mean I I do and again I apologize I'm new to the board uh this is my second second month here I I understand that there's history to this project and I understand that that they've been probably years involved in this back and forth communication I don't understand why there's a need to vote a conditional negative Declaration on something that can be reached out to DC and just gotten a clarification and be addressed at the next meeting if if a JD needed to be submitted or as especially as us being the lead agency uh for this application I I don't understand why there needs to be a rush into even including a a conditional portion language into it and I honestly I'm not even sure we can include conditional approvals in a negative declaration um under Seeker uh and but my point of view is uh it wouldn't hurt to have a call with the DC and get that clarification prior to issuing conditions or approving uh a Seeker process um without having that in hand as a lead agency so how long would something like that you feeli take to resolve I I feel like a phone call and a response can be within a month completed a filing of the JD uh is my understanding now um within the two to three days you should be getting back uh an email saying if you need to perform w l lineations or not well so if this was if this was done along the same lines but just making these items we do have a few items there's no question which make them subject to these things being resolved this is to me this is a very small part of this whole project the project to me is the development the traffic the where there's a wetland there's a puddle on the bank I could care less to be honest you know and let the dec argue that but and they can them we're the lead agency in this uh the dec is a consultant party to us as the lead agency yes uh essentially we're granting approval prior to getting feedback from the consultant agency so we're granting it making it subject to them agreeing with it if not it's no invoid so on January 6 2025 the dec responded to the coordinated review uh effort by the town under seeker and did not say that a jurisdictional determination would be required it's a nine-page letter I read it again this afternoon so I think that's your answer nobody here works for DEC they can carry their own water you don't have to we're gonna have to deal with DC obviously but keep in mind new regulations the transitional period does not apply in this case so we have to follow the new regulations since we don't meet those three criteria of transitional period okay we've got a long agenda here this evening and I'm not going to spend the evening just talking about DEC on this thing well I would this is excuse me I I understand where you're coming from but you made a statement earlier that I think is actually very concerning you know DEC with its new regulations is put it prominent that they're going to protect the wetlands of the United States and by you as a board member saying that you can care less about the wetlands that doesn't fit stop gring please stop your show here you made you made a statement that the reason the reason you it literally regation okay regardless one thing it's doesn't matter what it is my point the concept of a conditional Derek excuse me a second please my point there is simply this is a small part of this overall project yes they've had people survey it already their determination is there is no wet land there they have not done a delineation okay but there this is something that I'm saying let them move forward with that let them do what they have to do let them deal with the dec instead of of us here let them resolve this issue with them we move forward with it subject to them getting the okay from the dec this this is no different than things we've done in the past I don't believe we can do conditional because we are waiting for some more technical information and according to like the secer The Seer handbook that's you can't do a conditional Seeker that clation if you're waiting for additional technical information it specifically says at four or five places within the document that it's not allowed Mr nler what do you I mean you you can do what you I don't have an answer anymore I think this board can take such action as it wants it can condition its decisions that's very clear um if I don't think this board if this board as a whole is comfortable moving forward you can do so if Derek wants additional information and Mr gasich wants additional information uh I think they would have to convince a couple other board members that they wanted additional information as well um at this point okay uh you know we would ask that you open the public hearing take comments and uh move forward I just want to clar all I'm asking is for a month all I'm asking is for a month in order to get feedback from DEC that's all I was asking okay again this is a public hearing so what we'll do we'll open it for anyone that wishes to speak just ask that you go up to the microphone give us your name and address anyone wishing to comment on this again it is a public hearing if not I did have have some just quick questions about the actual hold on let me resp from people anyone no no one wishing to speak okay if that's the case then we're going to at this point close the public hearing for water view um okay go ahead what did you say I just said some couple questions on uh the design uh Josh if you want to maybe pan to those like one of the areas at the entryways of all the road accesses if we could incorporate stop signs I didn't see any in in in the drawings um the there's two areas that are called out for snow removal there's concrete curbs there um maybe do transitional sorry there's two areas that have uh snow removal indicated within the vicinity of the community center but they have curbing in those areas if you can do transitional curbing or maybe remove those so that you can plow the snow in those areas yep uh one of the snow storage areas on the South Side um is very close to a residential patio that's going to be right there so you know we we usually have a high amounts of snow I just don't think that that that area is realistic for snow storage it's going to be right up against the residential property there um the retaining walls used have ornamental fencing there are uh a location building one specifically Josh in the southwest there's a 10-ft drop after that retaining wall coming from that um um garage you know I I know being overly cautious over concerning but uh if you have a rolling car will that orn ornamental fencing hold the car uh maybe consider uh using uh like a Timber guard rail in that in that area just because it's a 10 foot drop after that that goes down um I was wondering just on the grading on the northwest corner of building six how that transition is happening with all the retaining walls if we can get a clarification just how that's all being tied in on on the Northwest side can slow down can we show I don't know what you mean yeah so you indicate a retaining wall here and but no additional grading or no additional toppo to the northwest of where that retaining wall abuts uh those Contours is there an answer to that yeah they're they're tying right into existing grade so whatever the existing grade is that would be the bottom of the wall elevation okay um and I had another comment just uh if you wouldn't mind evaluating the Landscaping plan it seems that you have some prominent uh tree species that are going to be within your pipe Network Deep Roots they're going to go right into the drainage structures and everything that you've indicated there just consideration given for long-term um success of of the drainage structures that are there in landscaping is that yeah in the Landscaping plan there's some um larger trees like right there pn2 you have two of them that are PN and they're right along the line of your drainage structures um so just if you would mind take taking a look at that um I guess this is minuscule but yeah if you look at between building four and building five you have uh a garage so somebody's going to pull out of the garage at night turn on the lights and they could potentially shine right into the window of the second story of building five uh again if you relocate those trees or move them just keep that in mind that you do you know something for visual or maybe to break up the light you have that scenario in couple locations even on the east side between building four and three and then also between building two and building one uh where you have you know vehicles that are going to be exiting the garage with potentially lights on um one thing to note uh you have existing vegetation along Willow Point Way is the intention to remove that vegetation or keep it the existing trees that are there uh all the ones that are shown are meant to remain okay uh there's I believe two that are in the driveway if you're removing them and then if you wouldn't mind indicating how you're going to protect them because there's some grading that is being uh that's occurring there it's more than 6 in so it could impact um you know maybe consider removing them it might might damage trees um there's existing hydrants on Martin Drive Mark time Drive sorry um the silt fence that you're proposing is in front of the fire hydrants if you wouldn't mind moving those behind the fire hydrants so that they're not obscuring First Responders and then um I would recommend to just uh add silt socks silt uh you know Inlet protections along all the existing structures uh along Willow Point Way Maritime Drive and mechan drive um again easier to clean a silt sock or Inlet than um than having to re flush the entire uh storm drain later on those all all mine for now you good jge okay you've got all those notes yep well okay you got all those in your head yes okay good the the one with the uh the fence on top of the retaining wall is the only one that I think we might have a problem with because we've got a design going I I don't think it's going to be easy to stop a car with anything and if a car goes over that it's going to we can pull them out I mean it's going to it's not going to be in good shape but I think that's the only one that I would say could we not have that as an absolute condition but could we explore the possibility of doing that sure thank you sir okay anybody else any board members any uh I just had one question about the underground storm water detention structures um flip through the plan that shows okay they appear to be in the road yes they are and so the road you know this particular site plan I do see the outline of the parcel so those Basin are on a different parcel they're on the parcel that's owned by phase two of the project heading down to the lake or down to the Bay uh so I guess what I don't see on here maybe you could point it out is uh the easement that would be associated with that you know similar on the other side you said there's an easement that's for the detention Basin that has the forb and the sand filters I would expect also to be an easement for those items there there already is an easement in place for the sand filter um and the storm water Chambers uh will have an easement over it and that those storm water Chambers are really to treat the drainage of the phase 2 sure so um we where is that easan shown is really is a question oh that that was that was a a comment from uh Town staff so that's being added to the plans and filed before we uh get Myer signatures okay I believe all that Keith you guys you reviewed all that you and correct yeah you guys are pretty comfortable with it at this point the board has received our letter correct I'm sorry the board received yes we do corre M yep all there actually with three different letters that's correct um okay anybody board members Peggy I think we've been through this I mean we've answered I think every question Tony I just have one more sorry just because Derek brought up the storm water so the sand filter that's on the southwest side um I guess there's there's a road that's next to it uh is that what's the anticipated rating of that road that you're proposing there is it hs20 uh is a pumper truck going to be able to pull onto that road to maintain potentially that sand filter or so I think uh it was a gravel access path um so that you know trucks or whatever could get down there okay I mean would you be able to do a vehicle tracker just to look if a bumper truck can make it down there I I'm not sure you would want to take a bumper truck down there just the existing path to get down there is somewhat steep okay um so I'm not I don't think you'd want it take a pumper truck down there so how how is it U going to be maintained just curious what's the maintenance schedule for it I guess over time since it's yeah I mean if it had to get cleaned out you would do it with an excavator okay any J Mark I know we've been through this thing several times all the you know the different issues on this I think one of the biggest things was um on mchan drive and I think you resolved that you were putting a some bushes along or burm along there or something that's correct we did we enhanced the Landscaping protecting Neighbors in the other side basically okay and I think it's significant that you know this was a group of neighbors that you know really was concerned and now you had a public hearing that had no no comments and agree there's a lot of engineering detail and stuff in this and that's why the town Engineers have been working on this thing for several months now also along with the applicant um I know there's Derek you've got issues with the thing with the seeker and so on with the dec I I'm going to propose that we move forward with this project uh I want it gone and done whatever issues need to be resolved let that happen with the dec that's where the main issues are and they're they're I mean this thing what when was it January 1st they came out with a new rule that kind of put blotches here and there and said this is potential Wetland so now you tell us that it isn't and we'll get back to you in a few months is that not basically the well it actually doesn't say that it's uh that's what everyone seems to think it says the actual regulation says here's some blotches if you want jurisdictional determination we're happy to do that for you and here's the process by which you can do that but yeah pretty much there's blotches and I believe someone earlier today used the phrase it's clear as mud in terms of that's my point and I think to this board most of the board anyways the whole process into that is as clear as much but anyways I would like to propose that we move forward with this project and then leave the onus on to the applicant to have to deal with the dec and any other agency I think the town I'm that correct correct me uh Keith Mark you guys you you've reviewed all this stuff you're content with the engineering and so on there's some outstanding things that need to be we have a letter from the town engineering that says that we have comments that do not hold up the application I'm sorry I hear you have there are comments that do not hold up the application they will be resolved prior to my mhm okay that's that's good enough for me um all right this is going to be a lengthy little deal here now we've got actually six different resolutions to make um this first one we might start with the Seeker because we have to declare as an unlisted action I guess at this point so I'll read it out bear with me folks I'm sorry it's going to take a little bit ofek getting through them but anyways let's see these are all prepared by Town Town engineers and so whereas the town of Webster planning board is considering an application for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related to the above reference property uh to combine approximately 3.7 Acres um and 9 with an approximately 9.4 parcel acre parcel to create an approximate 13 total is a resubdivision of lots r2b and r2c plaque prepared by passor Associates dated July of 2024 and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed 5 10 unit and one six unit townhouse style apartment buildings a clubhouse building and Associated infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by passo Associates and all r elant information was subject submitted at the March 4th 2025 applications and whereas the planning board has reviewed the short environmental assessment form uh the AF and this eaf this is part one and this was prepared by the applicant related to the application and all other Rel relative information um this has been submitted uh as of March 4th and whereas planning board determines that set action is is classified as an unlisted action under part 617 of the New York State Environmental Quality review act and whereas planning board declares it's intent to declare itself as a lead agency under seeker and commence coordination review this goes back to I believe it was n correct me Josh if I'm wrong but I think it was November 12th that is correct right November 12th of 24 is when this actually started and and along with that we do have we do have the U certificate to that also and let's see whereas planning board determines that it is the most appropriate Agency for making the determination of significance therefore under the Seeker regulations and whereas the planning board has given consideration for determining significance is set forth in section 6177 C one of the seet regulations and the information contained in the eaf part one and whereas the planning board is completed part two and three of the environmental assessment form whereas planning board under the provisions of part 616 of the New York State Environmental Quality review has given thorough and comprehensive evaluation the impacts likely to result from the proposed action now therefore it be resolved that the planning board here hereby it uh declares itself to be the lead Agency for the purposes of completing the Environmental Quality review as required by New York State and the Seeker regulations it is further resolved that the planning board has reasonably concluded that the following impacts are expected and result from the proposed action when compared against the criteria found in the Seeker section 61 7.7 C there will be there will will not be a substantial adverse change in existing air quality ground or surface water uh there will not be uh large quantities of vegetation or forer removed from the site or destroyed uh action there will not be substantial interference with the movement of any Resident or migratory fish or Wildlife species as a result of the proposed action there will not be a significant impact upon habitat areas on the site and there will be there are no threatened or endangered species or animals or plants uh C there are no known critical environmental areas on the site which will be impaired as a result of the pro proposed action D is the overall density of the site is consistent with the town's comprehensive plan and there will not be uh any increase in the use of either the quality or type of energy resulting from the proposed action and if there will not be any hazard created by human health G is there will not be a change in the use of the active agricultural lands that receive any agricultural use under tax exemptions or that it will ultimately result in the loss of 10 acres of such productive farmland and H there will not be a larger number of persons attracted to the site for more than a few days when compared to the number of persons who would come to the site uh absent the action and either will not be a created uh there will not be created a material demand for other actions that would result in one or more of the above consequences and J there will not be changes in two or more of the elements of the environment that when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact in K there are no two or more related actions which would have a significant impact on the environment and be a further resolve that based on the information and Al analysis set forth above in the supporting documentation referenced above the proposed action will not result in any adverse significant environmental impacts and this is subject to the coordination set forth below and be it resolved further that the planning board does hereby make a determination of nonsignificance for the proposed action and the planning board chairman is hereby directed to sign the short environmental assessment form part three and issue a negative declaration as as evidence of the planning board's determination and that would be the motion I need a second I'll second it I have a motion a second Mr K Mr Malta hi Mr jardina hi Mr Anderson no Mr kosol I Mr gin no Mrs M hi okay okay and along with that then that would be should we put a note in there that the applicant be in contact with the dec to resolve any outstanding issues this is are you amending the resolution no I'm not I'm asking a question if we should I don't know not part of the resolution don't have to right no okay all right no we're not done okay all right that would be the resolution for the Seeker um I think we've got to do a subdivision approval Dave you want you got a copy of that yep whereas the ton of Webster planing board is considering applications for preliminary fital site plan approval and subdivision approval related to the above reference property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with approximately 19 9.4 acre parcel to create approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on the resubdivision of lots are 2-b and R 2- C plat prepared by passo Associates dated July 20124 and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed 5 10un and one sixun town house style apartment buildings a clubhouse building and Associated infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by passer Associates and all other relevant information submitted as of Mark Mar 4th 2025 and whereas the planning board has completed a formal review of the proposed subdivision and site plan applications in compliance with the implementing regulations of New York State Environmental Quality review act and whereas the planning board has determined the proposed development to be an unlisted action under part 6176 B4 of the Seeker regulations and whereas a March 4th 2025 the planning board made determination of significance and filed a negative declaration there by concluding review person the seeker and whereas in March 4th 2025 the planning board conducted a public hearing it was duly advertised according to law and at which all persons interested were heard now therefore be it resolved the planning board hereby approves the proposed subdivision is that the motion need a second second a second Mr Malta hi Mr jordina hi Mr Anderson no Mr Mr Cool hi Mr Gasket yes Mrs M i okay okay we have next would be the the environment Environmental Protection overlay District there's a resolution for that I guess I got it yeah so whereas the town of Webster planning board is considering applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related to the above reference property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create approximately 13.1 acre parcel is shown on the resubdivision of lots r2b and r2c plat prepared by pasero Associates dated July 2024 and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed 5 10 unit and one six unit townhouse style apartment buildings a clubhouse building and and Associated infrastructure is shown on the most recent site plans prepared by pasero Associates and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4th 2025 and whereas a portion of the project is or may be located within Environmental Protection overlay District 2 steep slopes Protection District because portions of the project site contain or may contain areas within 15% or greater slope and are located on the boundary map attached as appendix one of town Cod 350 Z whereas applicant has requested that the planning board issue an epod development permit in accordance with town code 350-9299 protection or enhancement of the fragile and Environ environmentally sensitive steep slope areas within the town and whereas the planning board has considered the standard set forth in town code 350-9567 [Applause] probably add in there we can just add this into that you read the EOD I read the EOD why don't you want to keep this for okay want keep this for okay all right never mind that's it then that be a motion me a second second have a second I'm sorry who second it I did Mrs mman hi Mr Malta hi Mr jardina hi Mr Anderson no Mr Kul I Mr gkin no Mr [Music] K see what the water we still have to do too John you got that you want to do that local water revitalization where is the town of Webster planning board is considering application for preliminary and final site plan plan approval and subdivision approval related to the above reference property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on the resubdivision of lots R2 DB and R2 DC plat prepared by P Associates Associates the data ated July 2024 on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed 510 unit and one six unit townhouse style apartment buildings a clubhouse building and Associated infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by P Associates and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4th to 2025 and whereas the proposed project is or may be located within the town of Webster's Coastal area as defined in town code chapter 331 and whereas Town staff has prepared a coastal assessment form on the planning board's behalf in accordance with the town code chapter 331 and now therefore it be it resolved that the proposed project is consistent with the lwrp policy standards and conditions set forth in town code 331 d4g is that the mo that's the motion second second have a motion second Mr coil hi Mr Jina hi Mr Malta hi Mr Anderson no Mr gaset no Mrs mman hi Mr kushan hi all right slow but steady we get cover all the issues there all right preliminary then I'm going to make a motion for a preliminary approval for the water View application and that's where as the tell the Webster planning board just can you folks hear it with this I don't know can you hear back there barely barely really I me get a little bit closer I'm sorry uh let's see whereas the town of Webster planning board is considering applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related to the above referenced property to combine the approximately 3.7 acres and uh with the 9.4 for a total of 13.1 acres is shown in the resub map on lots r2b and r2c and plat prepared by Pas Associates dated July 2024 and on which combined Parcels is proposed to be constructed 5 10 unit one six unit townhouse style apartment building a clubhouse building in asso Associated infrastructure is shown on the most recent site plans prepared by passor Associates and all other relative information submitted as of March 4th 2025 whereas the planning board has completed a formal review of the proposed subdivision and site plan applications in compliance with the implementing regulations of the New York State Environmental Quality review act and whereas the uh town planning board has determined the proposed development to be an unlisted action under part uh 6176 B4 of the Seeker regulation and whereas on March 4th planning board made a determination of significance and filed a negative declaration there thereby concluding uh the view pursuant to seeker and whereas the planning board conducted a public hearing that was duly advertised according to law in which all persons interested were heard and now therefore it be resolved that the planning board approve uh the preliminary site plan with the following conditions and I'll give a few of those that I've got right here those would be the standard for preliminary and make those subject to um get into is the go okay subject to all PRC comments subject to a letter of credit posted with the town of Webster subject to all conservation board com comments subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments uh subject to the determination of the zoning board uh which the applicant has received the necessary variances um address any land to be conveyed to the town if applicable address any recent subdivision approvals of adjacent lands if applicable I don't believe there is all the improvements shall be constructed according to the spe specifications of the town of Webster all roadway construction to be in accordance with the specifications and regulations set for set forth by the town of Webster um all site work is to be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster preserve all mature trees on the site were possible it Mark said trees by the developers engineer prior to the commencing of any site work um comply with any requirements of any state county and town Agency address drainage lighting signage Landscaping buffering bming and snow storage and let's see the landscape heartscape site accessories and Associated finishes uh grading designed for the development must be prepared by a New York state licensed landscape architect the final landscape plan shall bear the seal and signature of the land Escape architect approvals are subject to the drawing number and what is it it's I lost it there no there c102 there there you brought it up again c102 yeah project number well the project number is is designated you can read it later okay and uh that's it that's a motion for preliminary approval second you have a motion have a second sorry no it's all right Mr K hi Mr jardina hi Mr Malta hi Mr Anderson no Mr Kil hi Mr Gasket no Mrs M hi okay we've got to do a final just uh saying I said c102 maybe it should be c204 yeah there's a there's a number on there know c102 is the one we're looking at but there's a project number well here I'll give it to you it's okay okay the final got it all right then we'll move forward for final approval I'll make a motion for final approval I'm sorry I'll make a motion for final got it yeah okay uh see final approval this is final approval for the uh Waterview subdivision and this is whereas the town of Webster planning board is considering applications for preliminary and final uh site plan approval and subdivision approval related to the above reference property to combine approximate acres and U the I we don't have to read it it's basically the same as the preliminary I'll skip that a little bit of it there you'll have a copy of it and fill it in this right and uh whereas planning board has completed a formal review of the proposed subdivision and site plan applications in compliance with the implementing regulations of New York State Environmental Quality review act whereas planning board has determined the proposed development to be an unlisted action under uh part 6176 B4 the secret regulations excuse me and whereas the U on March 4th planning board made a determination of significance and filed negative declaration thereby concluding the review pursuant to Seeker whereas on March 4th planning board conducted a public hearing that was duly advertised according to law and which all persons interested were heard and whereas the March 4th planning board completed a review and granted preliminary site plan approval and whereas the planning board has compared the final site plans with the approved preliminary plans and is determined that said plans are consistent and all conditions have been satisfied or will be satisfied prior to signatures being affixed through the final site plans that's an important part right there so now therefore be it resolved that the planning board does hereby Grant final approval with the following conditions and I'll give you a few of those and we'll make that also subject to a project Review Committee comments uh and make that subject to any parks and recreation fees that the town board would impose on this project I don't know how that fully works but that's up to them and subject to all preliminary approval conditions and make it subject to all applicable governmental fees subject to Department of Public Works approvals and cons significant construction shall occur within one year as de by the planning board to expire on March 4th 2026 the conditions of the preliminary and final approval are depicted on the cover sheet of the final design plans and that that's something you want to make sure you do all the all the approvals are on the cover sheet of those drawings and let's see theary right the engineer for the proposed so provide a letter of certification that all proposed work uh was complet completed as per planning board resolution of final approval before certificate of occupancy will be issued a letter of credit to the town for the project shall include the fee for the engineers final inspection certification of the site uh all storm water facilities are to be constructed first uh downspouts to be connected to the storm will leave that actually subject to engineering approvals that'll be part of because I don't know how the layout is and how you guys can deal with that and all down spots are see subject to resolution of the final approved minutes and approvals are again subject to the same drawing number and that's that's it for fin now wait a before I say that's it is there anything else do we need to put in there anything you feel we're missing not that I can think of huh you guys nothing I can think of Jos you feel anything else no you're covered with it okay everybody's all right with that then so that would be my motion for final approval I'll second it okay we have a motion in a second Mr kashani Mr Malta hi Mr jordina hi Mr Anderson no Mr coil I Mr gasz no Miss Mrs mman hi okay with that I guess we've completed the approval process for this application I know it's been long it's been arduous for everyone there's been a lot of issues um and again I reiterate that I think uh the biggest thing here is DEC stuff uh and it's always a big issue and holding a project up Let the applicant go and battle it um that's out of our my expertise that's for sure Mr Kanani yes quick question for you had I see a copy of the part two and the part three of the Seeker the completed part two and part three of the Seeker I have it have you got it Josh yeah okay well thank you all very much I don't understand why you're so animant and so fighting it so much I'm not fighting it your resolution said that the the planning board completed it yeah I would like to see if it's in the resolution I would like to see I think I completed by the planning board in these I have all right let's let's move on we we voted on have you have you got a copy of it Josh yeah I just Prov oh you gave it to him okay good all right with that we're done with this application um let's just take a couple minute break I want to just round up my papers I got 9 million papers laying in front of me here just take a recess for a couple minutes okay no more than that [Music] yeah this is all this other stuff this this under here what's it um I'll ask a question is there anyone here neighb who's that I'm sorry who said that of the agenda there's generally one on the poster out there you can take a look at it it should be one hand I'm going to assume it's there [Music] J's going up get some more you want you want an agenda huh you want an agenda no that's it's the fertilizer I have issues with that all right from where they've spread the the I did share it with um our sewer staff so yeah they were follow up get on yeah another same situation know know your thanks here is the assment for I knew I had it I said it was all this was this was the thing he was asking the coastal assessment for I had I knew I had it in these paper problem all shuffled in Vision changing you know over again it's like I us small 11 17 I have my binoculars I'm like what ises this say got magnifying class okay I guess we can get started again we all suck she's recording she's recording let's keep moving here comes Catherine all right why don't we start go ahead with the next one Mark and we can get going okay the first scheduled item on tonight's agenda is a Mori and Company the salon sign could you please stop token ma'am please located at 1050 Gravel Road the applicant Jessica Costa of Vital Signs is requesting sign approval associated with the installation of a 19.
73q foot Monument sign Monument style sign on a 0.50 acre lot located in a medium intensity commercial District under Section Mike nelli I'm the owner of 1050 gravel and my office will also be in there as well and this is the sign you're proposing to put in right yep it's pretty similar just you know updated is it any lights on it or uh we're going to put a spotlight but it's not illuminated or anything like that yeah just you know stick in the ground symbol all right nice to the address onor he's got the address on he's got the address on it which is good anybody any questions concern concs no no all right it's going in the same location as the existing sign yep thank you yeah it looks like it is right yeah on the side there kind of yep right in the bed all right uh what we got to do a Seeker Dereck you want to do a Seeker on that town wer planning board considered the request by applicant Mike m Telly to install a 19.73% Monument style sign on a 0.50 acre parcel having SPL number 07820 1-69 located at 1050 Gravel Road the planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under 67.5 C2 the state developmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review okay we have motion second who second I did oh Mark okay all favor I we're good with that um motion for approval for the sign 1050 I'll I'll make a motion for approval of a uh what do we got here 19.73% it okay you have a motion tode second have a second all in favor I I very you're all set good luck awesome thank you guys thanks second item on tonight's agenda garage replacement and pole barn located at 580 Bay Road the applicant Jack Burke is requesting preliminary final site plan approval along with a public hearing associated with the construction of a 2,100 ft² pole barn on a 1.20 acre lot located in an R3 single family residential district under Section 2 6911 and section 350-12 of the code of the town of Webster yes ma'am good evening I'm Susanna Dutro I am the owner of 580 Bay Road I've been there for 21 years uh and tonight we are here to after getting uh zoning variance uh we're here to seek approval uh for a pole barn to replace um an existing garage um um this is a registered historic property with the town of Webster so we are looking to continue the longevity of the property so that we can stay there and make it more functional um it being an 1868 home lacks storage in every possible way um so looking for storage and also a place to house Vehicles because the existing structure I have never been able to park a car in it it's was built it's not original to the property I think it was built in the ' 50s um and so looking to house cars because we do have multiple vehicles and I will in the next year have a work truck um I typically because we we work out in the field I have a staging and design company decorating company so we work out in the field but we do use a truck that I need to bring home with me so I'd like to house that in the pole barn so so that are currently they're seeing U-Hauls I have one in my driveway right now um to house that so to PL cleaned up appearance to the property and to improve um the overall function of the property MH yeah you came in with this the middle of last fall yes with it and I think everybody was pretty satisfied it's all stick buil too it isn't a pole barn really it's stick build yeah it is which is nice what are you going to use for siding similar this I've got this so it'll be like it looks now um it will be in keeping with a farmhouse it was an apple orchard um so it will be a red like a barn it'll have a black metal roof and white trim um white doors with windows so it'll have quite a nice appearance we it's important to me um as a steward of property that it looks in keeping with the property and um that it's an improvement because I want to pass this on this this house house has been a passion for me for 21 years and um I'd like it to continue and I feel it needs that update really for us to stay in it and for it to function well for the next property owner well your engineer did a nice job I think I mentioned it the last time too on on the project and I think it'll be an improvement for the neighbors too that can see it um they're on Del Rio right now they're seeing kind of what looks like you an old building that really needs to be improved upon so they're going to have a much nicer view um for the neighbors that can see it and when you drive by Bay Road I think it's going to be a much improved look um and it's in keeping with the Farms that you see interdispersed along Bay Road M what what is that stone building you want to attach to the pole barn is that that is that is was built in 1889 um it was a pig house they stored pigs in it and milk on one side so that is um almost as old as the house and that will remain there and will be is that is that used for storage now um it's really it's gardening it's a gardening shed more than anything it does have a loft in it so there's not really much that you can put in it um without climbing up a ladder which is currently a you know it's it was built in 1889 are you going to have electricity be water or he get out there in this new pole burn there will not be water uh there will be electricity um and at some point we would probably add heating um but it would be like a wall type unit um but there won't be water or drainage or anything like that it's not meant to live in it okay okay um again this is a public hearing so if there are any neighbors anyone wishing to speak in regard to this project you you already I got to see them for the first time in years that's good all right boor anyone any any issues or concerns are are there uh uh downspouts uh discharging on the surface or are you putting it like a drrive well um that's a good question we can certainly do that if that's something I'm just asking because uh it seems that the uh Barn is moving closer to the east side of the property there's only 30 F feet between the neighbor to the east not sure what the terrain is doing there are you potentially discharging into their yard or is it more sloped towards the west and not going to discharged into on what side of the property are you talking about uh it seems that this proposed Barn is moving 30 ft further east so there's only 30 ft between the property line so behind there there's actually a burm that goes up you guys are to the east yes yes they are yeah so there is a burm that was built up prior to me purchasing the property um so it will drain out that way but it will not be flooding into the okay neighbors yard yeah okay um no one is wishing to speak so we'll close the public hearing bring it up anybody board members any concerns we looked at this the applicant did go and obtain necessary variances um it's a nice looking building actually yeah any questions or concerns if not we can move forward you want to do a see um yeah just quick clarification for applicant is it really Susan Dutro for this as opposed to Jake I'm sorry I the applicant should I really say Susanna Dutro or it Jack actually did the initial application um I've been involved in meeting with the planning meeting so I apologize if that I could be added to that it's fine yes it is make sure I got the right names of [Music] them uh town of wested planning board considered request by applicant Jack Burke and suzan Dutro to remove an existing garage and replace it with a 2,100 ft pull Barn attached to an existing structure on a 1.20 acre parcel having SPL number 06311 d189 located at 580 Bay Road the planning board classifies as a proposed action as a type two action under Section 6175 SE to the State Environmental Quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review okay need a second for a motion second have a second all in favor I I I motion for the approval for it I you we can make this it's okay with everybody we'll just I mean we know what the situation is it's conforming to pretty much all the requirements of the U of the zoning ordinance chapter 350 I'd make a motion that we just enter that in without going through the whole thing did it conform to chapter the elevation approvals and so on yeah I think that'll simplify it okay let I'll make that well significant construction within one year we'll add that in okay all right that's a motion need a second second all in favor I I you're all set thank you for everything good luck thank you next item on the agenda mapan Industries located on Publishers Parkway the applicant Matt mcalpin is requesting preliminary final site plan approval and special use permit along with a public hearing associated with the multiphase development totaling 300,000 Square ft first phase totaling 1,200 square ft of light manufacturing on a 25.6 5 acre parcel located in an OP core Area North Office Park District under sections 26911 and 35021 of the code of the town of Webster good evening Mike Richie from costage engineering uh with me Matt mcelin mcelin Industries uh my board's a little bit too big I apologize if that's obnoxious um we were here uh in front of this board back in January uh for sketch plan review um we got good feedback from the board since then we applied to and obtained a variance from the zoning board of appeals um we have received comments uh actually two rounds of PRC comments and plans have been revised uh based on those comments um we've submitted uh a traffic study as well as architectural elevations uh for Town review um at this point uh it's our understanding that this project uh would be considered a type one action under Seeker uh so we're here tonight uh requesting that this board declare their intent to be lead agent under Seeker so that we can kind of continue this process um but with that we'd be happy to answer any questions that uh this board may have anybody questions go ahead um I got some sorry uh so just real quick uh February 24th you got a letter uh from uh Monro County planning section 239 M um have you one of the comments was with regards to again uh DEC um a JD that there's potentially State regular wet L on this have you filed we did we we filed on January 16th um they have 90 days to respond again um not asking this board to do anything they're not comfortable with you know the old maps that are now not to be used did not indicate any Wetlands the new informational Maps do not show any Wetlands on this property It's Our Hope belief that Wetlands will not be present but yeah we did submit and hope to have that um hopefully by April for for the the town to review okay uh I had a question about this would be on the site or utility plan is the hot boox that's out on Hard Road is that existing yeah that's the existing for you of our we're coordinating with uh Matt uh and the architect obviously it's our understanding this is going to be outside and and the next plan we submit will show the enclosure uh similar size of what's out in front of U ofar right now we're just coordinating that um but it'll be the standard kind of Steel metal you know uh enclosure we'll make sure that's on the next uh set of plans so you're you're going to have a hot box in addition to the one that's out there yeah cu the one out there is for the U ofar facility and it's you know two properties two services so this will be a a combined Service uh fire uh and domestic service which will provide uh for hydrant and sprinklers in the building okay um in the back of the propos po U 120,000 sare ft you have a Swale that goes to the Northwest to what is seems to be like a future phase Pond or storm water practice is there a reason that that pond is not being constructed now and then built out to accommodate any of the storm water that is sheet flowing off of the you know the back area uh behind behind the building into that Swale that then goes north yeah and I think it was kind of a phasing type thing and I think it can be built now um drainage currently um it kind of funnels back towards Publishers but there's not a real defined flow path so it's our intent that drainage in that Northern Area will continue to kind of sheet flow over to Publishers um but if it's the board's intent that we kind of solidify that and maybe push it there to a more uh uh dedicated path um we can look to do that in the first phase I I guess my question is the storm water treatment of the impervious this area that's being contributed to that North how are you addressing the RV cpv yeah yes so there's a bio retention along kind of the future North Area so the first phase on that uh Southeast Corner we're proposing the main storm water management Pond uh which provides water quality uh and Peak rate control for the whole site full buildout 300,000 Square ft and then uh there is a bio retention a large bio retention uh in the parking area for phase one and then we are proposing another bio retention to the north of the future uh Loop Road uh that bio retention was intended to be built out uh in future phases and that would all be connected and tied back in out at Publishers I guess how are you capturing the back portion of the oh the back to the directly to the West yes yeah there's a Swale that actually pulls drainage down back along and into the storm water Pond there's kind of a break back there there's a break kind of at the North End of the proposed building and then it kind of funnels back to the north so there is a break where I guess if you look north south kind of where the cursor is from there it'll break back south into the storm water Pond and then the future okay all right sorry I had 11 by 17 to look at so I couldn't see the actual Contour on that okay um uh this is more of a egress your question I've noted a couple of egress doors that that have um er stores have concrete Landings but a sidewalk should be provided and maintained for emergency eress so you you have you know door opens you have a concrete pad there but in the winter time it's going to be you know snowed in is it a way to do just a sidewalk out to an area that you know yes we can look to add that in okay um Downs spot locations on on the structure um I didn't see them on the elevation views are they surface discharged or are they being TI going to go to a storm manifold and then into the pond yeah so we're not looking to kind of Splash block that out so it is uh it is a store manifold underground system yeah we're again coordinating with the architect on exactly how those get shown but for the next sission can show uh an under drain line that connects to the pond okay um the um back garage has two retaining walls the detail indicated under drains yep are those being TI are those being tied to the foundation drain or yeah those I think we're actually showing that being tied uh into the uh sanitary or sorry it runs right now uh along the north side um and into the the storm line uh back there okay so you're tying it into the storm line yep yeah and then obviously we'll have to coordinate in future phases and and tweak that when additions are made um but that was the easiest way to do it um are you going to have in a future maybe uh this is for the water line um sampling typ locations identified yeah and we'll coordinate with the Water Authority uh I believe the most current plans uh have the sampling disinfection TAPS at the connection and at the uh kind of the connection to the building um to make sure that that is uh per Water Authority standards okay uh I think this would be one of my last questions or two to last questions sorry um I noticed the uh the combined system coming towards the proposed manufact building then you have a private hydrant then the combined system continues into the building which I'm assuming is sprinkler MH um just any concern with there being a hydrant essentially the first hydrant that the fire department could tap into and draw from water that could be going good point I think we'll look to make that separation okay to the domestic to the make that uh I guess t uh prior to that first hydrant so that there can't be cross-contamination yeah yeah okay uh and then just a quick question on the phasing the cover letter indicated that the third or Final Phase would be uh 2030 but the eaf indicated uh Final Phase being 2028 is it 2028 or 2030 I think it all depends on the market I think the way things going now it's closer to 2028 um and again we're doing this in an intent you know to get Seeker done for the entire development do storm water design for the entire development not PE meil it and come back you know two more times uh you know to go through the process but to design the whole uh site once appreciate it that's all my questions is this main the main entrance for this is this going to be off a hard Road correct yes y eventually if you do more expansion will you have a dryway going out the Publishers Parkway that's not our plan now and a traffic study was done with all the traffic going out to Hard Road and that traffic study didn't recommend any improvements uh with the exception of maybe adding a left turn lane kind of in that little Gore striped area that exists right now but no other improvements they said the level of service out at hard wouldn't be impacted and I think we had mentioned uh the last time we were here that the shift that these workers uh do is is kind of offset from uh most uh rush hour traffic okay any other questions actually there is no approval this evening for we understand that yeah we understand that this is kind of a secret process you need you know to to right make declare your intent to be lead agent Y and get that notification sent out so with that we should go ahead is this this is a public hearing do we we have to open it to the public at all or it's not a public hearing right there yeah it is say in the agenda it does yes oh you're right it does I didn't even see that okay anyone wishing to comment on this we'll open it but there's no vote being taken no one wishing to speak okay we'll close the public you know I won't close the public hearing because you're going to be coming back we'll leave it open just close it for this evening that's it okay okay thank you all right goad whereas the town of Webster planning board planning board consider considered the request by applicant Matt mccalpin of mccalpin Industries to construct a multiphase development totaling 300,000 Square ft of light industrial manufacturing on a 25.6 5 acre parcel having SPL number 079.0 6 -1- 32123 located in an OP core Area North Office Park District now therefore be resolved that the planning board determined that the action is a type one action based on the following criteria number one 67.4 b61 a project that involves alteration of more than 10 acres of land and number two 67.4 B65 it's in a city or Village having a population of 150,000 people or less in the facility with more than 100,000 square ft of gross floor area now therefore be it resolved that the planning board determin that the action is subject to coordinated review pursuing to part 617 Point 6B of seeker and that it is the most appropriate Agency for making the determination of significance the planning board therefore intends to designate itself lead Agency for the proposed action okay we have a motion we need a second second I have a second Mr Anderson hi Mr jardino hi Mr R hi Mr Malto hi Mr Cool hi Mr gaset hi m m hi okay all there now one thing I think Jack is probably your elevations you know when you come back show show some yeah I mean some elevation sheets I we got that little thing there that was yeah something significant in size and I'm going to recommend your Landscaping I would also the front there across your front something a little unique I mean I don't want to use the word brick but something that's across the front to make it not just a pole barn looking building and and and you know maybe work with Matt and the architect they're proposing kind of a stone veneer stone veneer along the main entrance yes not along the entire building but kind of the main entrance well but if this board why not the whole that that's your focal point yeah we can it's not it's not the long-term focal point phase two would have uh more of an administrative office in the front with the front lobby and that would have more of a focal point that you would see going down that axess road the the front entrance that you're seeing on the sketch plan right now is not it's not visible from the road and it's not going to be the long-term main entrance okay so we look we want that to look nice at least attract visitors that that is point compared to the this is one of the requirements is what we look for you know it's it's in the guidelines and we can look expand we've done okay okay thanks M thank you all right thank you let's see we've got one more now right two more more solar yeah okay is anybody here for that next item on the agenda solar B PV located at 1822 Lake Road the applicant Steve messic I hope I pronounce it right is requesting preliminary final site plan approval and a public hearing associated with the installation of a 24.5 6 kwac ground mounted solar PV system consisting of 64 solar panels and 64 micro inverters on a 5.0 acre lot having uh zero number SPL 0 373-1 d331 located in a large lot single family residential district under sections 155-9 269-1512 of the code of the town of Webster I I'm you're close Steve mjac with Aces energy uh this is kind of just a change order from a project that was approved a couple months ago the homeowners have just decided that they want to move the location of the pan the number of panels is the same everything's the same except for the fact that instead of one long array they're they're doing two shorter arrays uh other than that all the the design and everything is the same uh it's moving farther south about 100 feet or so now what's that former deed line so that's all it's all one parcel though right yeah okay in Gro I I don't I don't see any big issue with it it's it was approved before you're just modifying it changing the location of it correct it's still not visible from the road though correct it's hundreds and hundreds half a mile back from the road all right so uh the lner family and the stern family are they aware the panels going where they're being proposed Stern is the they're the stern sor okay lochner the one on the south side yeah we we we sent letters out as part of the okay previous um how close is their residence is is it inside of a potential glare Associated it's nowhere close nowhere close for any structures no okay again this a prary approval there's anybody I don't think anyone's here to discuss it um on with that oh I'm sorry I did don't do seek we probably should I guess redo Seeker on it um or is the other one still exist I think the still exists because it's still it's probably still adequate right would you that's fine you agree y Okay then if that's the case then we'll move forward with the approval so want to make a motion for the approval of the solar panel say I'll make a motion then we approve the proposed solar uh PV located 1822 Lake Road and uh make that as presented uh one one second um that we need to add a condition because it will require them to go back to the zoning board for the proximity to the front lot line so that should just be added as a condition yep to the front L is it 60 ft 50 well because it's Lake Road it's I believe a 7 foot front setback even though this parcel technically doesn't front on Lake Road um but it is scheduled to go back to the zoning board next week then we can make the approval uh make a motion to approve it and make it subject to them obtaining the necessary variance right okay all that be a motion need a second second all in favor I I good all right thank you very much good luck last scheduled item on tonight's agenda ideal group manufacturing located at 999 pitcher Parkway applicant Ben stroyer with ideal Manufacturing Incorporated is requesting sketch plan review associated with the proposed expansion of a manufacturing facility on a 10.30 acre lot located in an office Park District under sections 269-5211 good evening Mr chairman members of the board my name is Jerry Goldman I'm the attorney and agent for ideal manufacturing and it's related real estate entities picture Parkway uh Properties LLC and Bluff Drive Partners uh as long as everyone is up here I think I will introduce everyone who is here and we have with us Lee and Matt stroyer who are uh the second generation if you will of the uh of the business as well as Ian Ian kutchman from mcmah laroo who is the project engineer um we did provide a letter of intent on January 27th we are here this evening for uh concept review which is an interim step along the way we have already gone to the town board and the town board has granted us authorization to come to the uh to the planning board on this concept review ultimately we will go forward and do uh full preliminary uh full preliminary and final plans uh for this particular site and as a part of our application we're requesting um a couple of interpretations and those interpretations are designed to try to keep uh as much of this process with the planning board going forward um if you've taken a look at the letter of intent um our third request has apparently already been addressed by the staff comments that we will uh the PRC comments and we'll talk about those in a second but U apparently it has been determined that the planning board will handle uh the special permit uh for this application um let me give you a little bit of background in terms of what we are talking about I I ideal manufacturing is a light manufacturing business that deals uh with the construction right now of high capacity helic piles which are a necessary foundational block for building construction um the ideal manufacturing story is uh is a nice story fence stryer who is a father of these two gentlemen um started out uh started out in this business business uh in general contracting and then they move forward uh to actually cre uh create and obtain 19 patents uh for specific manufacturing processes uh the building that we are talking about that is currently occupied um along the picture Parkway Frontage is what many people who have been in town a long time Fally referred to as the J's building uh used to be the people that did yearbooks class rings and the like and note the note the nod uh and that's probably why the road going in was actually uh was actually named the way it is I mean we have uh nice creative history in town of of naming the roads after after the uses uh Publishers Parkway probably had something to do with lawyers Co-op if I would imagine I really don't remember remember uh myself but uh but this particular picture Parkway probably dealt with the fact that it was a yearbook company uh that started out uh with an approximately 60,000 ft building on this site uh the original property which is owned by uh picture Parkway properties an ideal is a 7.8 acre parcel which fronts on picture Parkway on which there is currently the 60,000 squ ft building over the course of time uh the stryer family has obtained property going all the way south to uh document drive basically two Parcels um which uh which is a a three well uh 7.8 acre parcel and 3.57 acre parcel what they are proposing to do is to do a 21,000 squ ft addition to their existing uh building the 60,000 ft building also construct to the east of that um an 11,4 squ foot processing building but then add three buildings at the far end of the site at the southern end of the site uh being a 10,000 ft office building a 5,000 ft training building and an 11,400 ft Flex building which will essentially uh capture if you will uh the overall use within the uh within what will ultimately be a campus uh this is in the op core North District um manufacturing light manufacturing is a special permit use uh within the district um we are requesting that you take a look at a couple of interpretations relative to the site One deals with the fact that uh as a part of their operation there is a necessity to have uh some materials outdoors and there's always a question of how we Define uh the outdoor staging if you will of of materials uh we have a code provision which talks about outdoor storage but there's no definition for outdoor storage in the code so we uh we don't have it and also there is a question as whether that relates to outdoor storage as a principal use or as an accessory use this is clearly accessory uh to the uh to the use and the outdoor um staging if you will is for temporary storage of materials coming in going out uh and to that extent uh we consider that to be the same or similar uh to the use of the um of the property under the code uh and therefore should be permitted um as part of the planning board's jurisdiction we also talked about and and have requested I think this is more in the purview of town staff in dealing with this uh the code provides as a 45,000 ft limit on the size of manufacturing buildings this is already 60,000 sare ft we're talking about a 21,000 ft addition and I'm not sure whether uh the 45,000 sqt limitation uh should apply to a building which already well exceeds that and probably exceeded it from the time the code was actually created um and uh and whether we would need any sort of relief from the zoning board uh again Our intention is to try to keep uh the rest of the review of this project project uh with this board if at all possible um we have received comments from the PRC which I believe the board has received as well I I'm going to run through them at this point uh the first one talks about the need for the special permit from the planning board and uh and we understand that we will be making formal application in that regard um with regard to engineering at this point uh in terms of storm water quality management that's currently under design uh conceptually the engineers have um have indicated that we have uh sufficient room and sufficient area uh to provide for storm water quality management on the site and that will uh be part of our preliminary plans and preliminary details on the site second comment uh says what land delineation will be required obviously you had some good robust discussion if you will on uh on Wetland delineation already uh at the uh at the time of the early development of the site there were identified Federal Wetlands uh we had an outside consultant who dealt with that um we're we are well within and had a JD we are well at the federal level we're well within um our situation on that one without the need of anything more than a nationwide permit but we are going to go back to that consultant and review the new rules and new regulations that are that are involved uh I you've heard a lot of stuff that that's gone on and and January 1st really is a watershed uh we are considered to be oddly enough an urban area for purposes of uh of the Wetland determination uh so that puts us in a category where we're no longer subject to what was a 12 acre um limitation or or need for a 12 acre area for the state to obtain jurisdiction over Wetlands uh they'll be doing that on on a much tighter basis but we'll be reviewing what will be necessary under the uh under the new regulations to make uh to make sure that we are in compliance the highway uh the highway department had some comments and the highway department is one of our neighbors is as I'm sure you all will know at the end of uh at the end of picture Parkway is the uh is a Highway garage and Highway facility for the town so in addition to dealing with it as um you know as as reviewing agency they're also taking a look at it as uh as a neighbor and uh and they talk about the existing parking in the front and the public right of way obviously as we more fully develop the site we will be able to better uh control how we deal with all of that and we will be reviewing that that's comment number one comment number two is one that we will be discussing more at length with uh with the highway department and uh and with Town staff uh relative to the road itself it is um the strong desire of the um the Destroyer family and the business to maintain uh the road which would connect picture Parkway and document Drive servicing the site as as a private road um and we're going to try to see what we can work out relative to that issue but again we're still a concept the concept is to have that road uh that road connection uh going north south between uh between picture and uh and document uh with regard to the Sewer uh situation sewer connections uh we know that the sewer e that there is a sewer easement at the front of the building and that we will uh be dealing with this as an overall project this is this is not coming in as a um as a phase project if you will at this point but it it could ultimately be divided into phases but we are talking about trying to Res subdivide and combine all this into a single lot so um our request is that this board make the interpretation that our outdoor staging is is permitted uh on the site without need for any relief from any other board and similarly for you to consider uh whether an expansion of of the uh of the building itself um which already is above the uh 45,000 threshold uh would require relief from the zoning board talked a lot barely took a breath uh with that I don't know if anyone else on our team has anything to add to this at all this point uh we would like to obtain as many comments and as much comment as we can from the board so that we can move ourselves forward in this process uh there's a lot of excitement on the part of Ideal in terms of trying to um increase their footprint if you will and to try to stabilize uh their situation within the town of Webster so um Jer did did did um I know earlier when you guys were in um was thought to maybe question the neighbors you've done that I believe uh Mr Styer i' I've been told that Mr stryer has visited all of the Neighbors on the on the Hard Road Frontage um it it appears we may have a neighbor that's that's what I was just looking at and and I I was not involved in that discussion Ben is not here tonight so I'm really not sure uh my my understanding is that he had not really um received any opposition if you will to the concept and the idea ofum trying to uh trying to improve the property uh there is some separation I I can't see whatever maybe up on people's screens but you can see that there is some separation oh there we go thank you uh there is there is some separation between the residences and the uh and the neighbors uh there's intended to be uh a an enhanced landscape buffer uh in that particular area and uh and our clients are of course willing to continue to engage with neighbors on any questions they have I believe through there you also had I think it was discussed to put a Swale through there too drainage sale was going in the back there relative to when you say sale in the back you talking along the property line on the on the where basically where the trees are there yeah so there's an existing Creek's AEK that's an existing that that'll that's still there yeah that's that's refering to all right okay all right so your your other question was is this a staging area or is it a storage area storage area I don't see it any different than I look at it I'm you can look at it anywh you want to look at it I suppose but I I look at it as it's a staging area it's you're not keeping things you're moving moving things along from there and the fact of the matter is is that the code is no definition of storage so we really are kind of have our hands tied relative to trying to interpret that because uh you know there's a Continuum between what may be staging what may be storage and everything else but uh you know without taking uh Mr C's role and and uh in raising this question the one of the one of the legal tenants is that interpretations if they're vague are supposed to be interpreted in favor of of an applicant so in the absence of a definition I think that we have at least an ability to take that first step and to uh and to uh you know give you our perspective in terms of what it should be isn't the bus garage right down that street yeah it is it is that's pretty much outdoor storage yeah that it is right that it is in in the town G yeah they don't have to play by our rules yeah well you at the end of document we we the school district at the end of picture we've got the town I mean we're talking about major outdoor uses in the neighborhood right so it's not anything totally different correct in the neighborhood correct and and as long I think that as long as you do heavy buffering y uh behind the houses on Hard Road that that would be acceptable okay in my opinion I don't see any doctors for I don't if you there raw material that is brought in that with whatever you manufacture I'm not sure of the design of the building right now how do you how do you get stuff from inside to outside is there's six overhead doors are they on the south side of the building right now uh we have one on why don't you why don't you come up Lee and introduce yourself and time to put the kid to bed there you go so we I'm Matthew stroyer we have a uh right now we have overhead doors on every corner of the building except for the one facing picture Parkway the north side of the building MH so how many trucks with this addition is anticipated uh we don't anticipate fa that initial phase that it's going to change traffic at all so I guess a question on my part and if maybe we could have some Legends on on this plan and some call outs on the square footage of the buildings and what's proposed on each one of them it would kind assist in just the communication of this so the addition on the south side is uh how many square feet and the purpose of that is just additional internal manufacturing or internal storage that's internal manufacturing I believe and it's 21,000 Square ft okay of addition onto a 60,000 foot roughly 60,000 ft building okay the proposed facility to the east um I'm assuming that's like 18,000 ft what is that structure the the building right along the uh right along the same plane over there Y is a process ing is I think termed to processing building I don't know if you want to speak to yeah it would just be like a an outdoor area where we I mean indoors but right now we do all the stuff in our main building and it would just be an additional manufacturing space in a separate building so we'd bring our pipe and plate in there to cut it the I'm assuming what's in the gray to the south and east is that all additional Outdoors proposed stage area like lay down yards or is that potential Trucking parking what are you looking to do with the additional impervious area that's going to the South and the East there yeah mostly lay down yard the only other part is the dve the drive the road that would go through um and then that slightly darker area is like a truck loading area so the trucks would pull off to the side of the road there to get loaded and then pull back out the idea is to get truck traffic off of picture Parkway so they would come in document drive drive through our property get loaded and pull out on the picture um the material stored currently outside um any kind of chemicals or anything that could leachate into the ground uh be impacted by rain water or anything like that is it primarily just steel yeah just raw carbon steel yep the one good thing it's always maintained neat and clean there too it's all organized so what the image we're see in the background here is your existing operation aial photograph that's right yep there hasn't been any comments you've received from the public or the town has received in regards to storage that you have right now not not that we're aware of would you you know I know you're here you waited all this time would you like to say something it's not a public hearing but you're more than welcome to go up I'm sorry yeah go up to the mic just gives us your name and address to that sorry sorry and I apologize if you might have said some of this my name is Samantha tandle I am the owner Homeowner of 816 Hard Road um as I'm looking at this I'm like well the people that are affected the other families they're we're just like 12 families but um just because I'm the only one here doesn't mean I'm the only one that cares I met some of my neighbors for the first time they were in the back but they couldn't stay up this late um at 810 Hard Road and I spoke with my neighbors um at A8 Hard Road before coming we did positively receive the owner when he came by and he showed us some version of this um and he was very cordial but um he also kind of made it seem like this was a very distant thing may or may not happen kind of a thing so um now that people have had time to think about it some of the things that we're concerned about what I'm really concerned about is there are a lot of young children in these houses now I've been a homeowner there just gra for 5 years and in the time that I've been there the houses around me have turned over and um a lot of young families growing families a lot of children under the age of 10 live in there I have four children under 10 myself um the traffic in the morning I know you're going to do traffic studies and stuff like that but I just we just added the medical building that you know kind of off Hard Road there's a other project we heard about earlier today now this with I'm assuming increased trucks eventually the it's already nightmare in the morning I've been in an accident on the way out of my driveway um just because of the school traffic there's the buses coming coming out and in multiple times a day it's not just the schools across the street all the buses that go to the CLM South and Clem North go by there too my children's School Bus has been in an accident out there there's just a lot of traffic already um and I worry about the kids walking playing in the yard you know those kinds if there's going to be a lot more big trucks um the other thing that the neighbor at 810 asked me to speak for they're watching at you on YouTube at home now was the noise it's already a noisy site I will say that we brought this up um when whoever came to our house and it does seem like it got a little bit quieter at night um but they sometimes it sounds like you're dropping like the steel pipes from a great height and I don't know if there's like a way to move them quieter at least at night with all the young families and stuff it's sometimes hard um you can't have your windows open in the summer you know that kind of thing it's very loud you can't have company you can't have a barbecue in your backyard cuz it sounds like you're in a industrial Zone which I don't know I knew when I bought this house that eventually it probably would get developed and it could be worse but I don't know I just still am a little like worried I guess about some of these things so how how many are those existing those trees that are along that property line now Jerry or anybody you know no there there were a bunch of ash trees both back there and in that little narrow strip along my house they came down and caught all the dead ones which was good cuz we all worried about the safety of that um I get that reminds me of one other thing I was hoping that maybe they could clean up that area in between um where you're at right now with your that's still all just full of down um trees and rubbish in the empty in the empty area and um even way before that it collects garbage in there I don't like to look at it so twice a year I go out there and pick up all the garbage I don't know where it comes from but it like blows in there um I think there's probably a rodent problem with all the down my cat likes it but I don't so um this just another like small thing I do think they have a right to make money and like use their property but I just want them to be kind and respectful and you know that kind of thing well they one of the things can be done as far as you're considering you know the noise and stuff is that can be mitigated with some landscaping and stuff they're showing some we don't know how but this is just a sketch right now yeah when they get a final you know preliminary drawing it can show adequate to you know subdue some of the sound I'm sure okay thank you sure not thanks for coming up I just have a couple of comments you know on document drive with a bus bus garage there every morning and every afternoon you'll have over a 100 buses going out of the garage there to the schools around Webster so that road does get is very busy and also being by the highway department we have a a leaf pickup in the fall there and the leaves are stored at the highway department and about every 3 weeks they go around and they turn the leaves over so that afternoon you have a very organic smell throughout where our mulch pit right y it's not just for like 15 minutes in the morning it's feel like an hour and a half oh yeah and then they come back too yeah yeah okay all right um does this business is this a one shift or a two a three shift operation or you had two shifts right now they start start to start yeah 6:30 a.m.
and then B shift ends at 11:30 p.m. so when you're working the night shift they're not doing as she just spoke they're not dropping metal yeah we have told them multiple times that to keep it we have tried to enforce it multiple times with our employees just telling them to keep it quiet after 8:00 p.m. but I can uh do a better job of that and okay well that would be something maybe pass yeah B shift is quite a bit smaller as well it's um a lot less employees than as shift so okay do do you have a trucking operations during B shift as well as in trucks pulling in pulling out they would maybe pull in but no unloading or loading okay do you guys work on weekends at all no not recently okay what's your next step now just move forward with the our next step right now is that if we get clearance um question becomes what go what if anything goes to the zoning board and what do you keep here um we've requested two interpretations as far as I know our site plan is itself uh doesn't require any variances it's just a question as to whether uh the outdoor staging is something which would be uh handled as uh as something which is U same and similar as the existing use and the question of how we deal with the expansion of the building I know Josh has a viewpoint on the expansion of the building so I don't want to I don't want to preempt him uh from commenting if he wants to but you know if we get interpretations the way we are looking for we keep it all here if not we're going if not we're going to the zoning board but we need from here we go into uh we go into full design we go and analyze Wetlands we go and analyze all those other elements that we need to do uh to have a good preliminary submission to deal with seeker and everything else on the site okay the only building that's 45 square foot 45,000 sareet is would be the the original building correct the the the larger building right now is a 60,000 foot building we'd be talking about adding 21,000 ft to it everything else is is well under the 45,000 ft threshold okay um so that I guess you need a variance for that then right well yes the town's position is that the building expansion would trigger the need for essenti there is a provision in town code um an expansion of a non-conforming pre-existing non-conforming structure so I think that portion is clear um the outdoor staging um as Mr Goldman mentioned we do not have a definition of outdoor storage so I my interpretation that would be that it's it's staging area it it's mhm no different than highway department or like Dave said the high the school the school buses okay it's a staging area I don't know anybody else what your opinion on that give them a consensus maybe yeah eliminate the zoning board if possible I agree I would say let zoning board weigh their opinion on that as well I mean the difference here between uh school buses and Highway operations again um is is the use of the material uh especially for public good here this is specifically business and this is raw material that is then also being manufactured and then you have something potentially staged outside that is then going to be loaded up and sent off so I can I I can I I can relate to the difficulty of determining whether it is staging or if it is uh storage but I it sounds like we have to go to zba so your opinion is it needs to go to the zone that your gen what you think yeah I think so how is this is this like pipes or whatever that you're starring outside or metal or Y is there I mean this is a neighborhood now we've kids around what to stop kids come in there like on weekends or at nights and playing on this stuff at staged outside John the stuff has been there for 15 years yeah it's nothing okay well we're going to have a lot more with though obviously I'm ready for bed yeah right so you're eling the the two definitions or the one definition this I'm sorry for the definitions you're looking for is it just the storage or for the staging is well we're our our view is that it's staging and therefore the planning board should take hold of that and it's there's no need to get the zoning board involved in that issue it looks like we are going to the zoning board relative to uh relative to the building addition and if that is the case uh we would request that this board consider uh a recommendation in favor of that when we when we you know at this point after the concept review because what that does is that it increases uh the amount of area which is inside also visually it's not obtrusive because it's uh it is all right behind the ex building excuse it's not like we're expanding the the visual footprint of it mhm is there a neighboring community that has a definition there are there are lots of there are lots of codes that Define what outdoor what outdoor storage is you don't really see a whole lot with just say outdoor storage and don't Define it it's uh you know here here's just been an undefined term is this use consistent with the other definitions that you've seen uh yeah the other the other definitions vary in terms of uh in terms of what's what's going on they talk about storage of materials and and they also are can be somewhat vague in terms of how they deal with it well again if it's if if we're leaving the interpretation to this board then I'd take a poll of the board and see where we are with it I don't want to see government getting involved in every step of the way if we don't need to go to the zoning board why are we going to the zoning board it's a simple thing it's just an interpretation the size that's that's that's a set thing that I understand I I'll I'll acknowledge that in terms of I think the the the town staff's interpretation uh has Merit when there's an existing business it's been how many years have you guys been there 2004 how many 20 years 24 years there's been no issues with it the same stuff has been out there is what we're talking about so now we're going to say now go get a zoning board after 24 years get in approving for it well that kind of goes back to my original question on this is I'm looking at saying it's been there for so long there's never been a complain about it no the town hasn't had to do any kind of action it so therefore by default it meets whatever definition is available Peggy what do you think I agree I mean you're not anticipating the third shift at any point no no and you're not going to how many people will be added for the new operation overall not any immediately it'll just depend on how the market goes if we grow then we'll add some but yeah defin not a third shift at this point okay yeah then I don't see a problem with outdoor storage there the staging area okay I feel the same way I Mark if it works don't break it y it's a good interpretation Jen yeah that's fine I agree with Mark so you want to driv well you prefer went to the zoning board I guess but yeah I I I guess my hesitance there is just if if it's a way to limit it to the raw material of the steel that's there and not let's say there's a future expansion all of a sudden there's a new product that they're looking to manufacture and requires some additional outdoor storage that is outside of what we're currently seeing there you know is is there a way to say yeah it's outdoor storage because it's a raw material to Steel um instead of all of a sudden you see containers out there for something and it should have been in an enclosed storage space I don't so far is a rough poll here I'd say that the board's interpretation is does not do if you can document that in some way for us that would be great so that we can take that not necessarily take that to the bank I will make a motion that the board make a determination for the ideal group subdivision that uh the outdoor storage be considered as a staging area well why why we just call it outdoor staging call it out as what outdoor staging outdoor staging okay just different word okay that being a motion I need a second second want to call the roll I don't Mr K hi Mr Co hi Mr Malta hi Mr jordina hi Mr Anderson hi Mr g i Mrs mman I okay thank you thank you and I assume that what this means is that we're authorized to go forward and put in a preliminary appliation right yes ultimately when we're ready I'm sorry go ahead I repeat that I'm sorry I was I'm sorry he was goad repeat he was talking to me I didn't hear you okay okay I I just want to say I assume that now we're authorized to go ahead having gone through the concept to deal with uh to deal with filing a preliminary application on this go through yeah yeah okay are they still going to the zoning board for the expansion yes we will need to go to zoning board for expansion whether we wind up doing that between preliminary and final we do that before uh preliminary I don't know at this point and we'll get together I'll be talking to Josh and we'll see in regard to the board sending a letter and support of it we would appreciate it so we'll see where that goes we appreciate it all right I guess that's it well thank you thank you and we'll talk with it we'll continue talking with our neighbors as a matter of fact that will start right now thank you very much I'd like to make a motion for approval of the meeting minutes from February 4th 2025 I'll second it have a second all in favor the minutes anybody oppos okay then we're done with the minutes we're done I guess that's it we're all set and uh before 9:30 so thanks for coming in this evening yeah right