captions Language: en recently okay you didn't do it that's good enough that's all right that's good enough all right it is 7 o'cl I'd like to welcome you to the planning board of September 3rd would you join in a Pledge of Allegiance please oh Pledge of Allegiance United States of America indivisible liy and Justice okay thank you and here comes our attorney we're good okay cther would you call the r please sure Mr Anderson here Mr P here Mr jordina here Mr Co here Mr Mal here Mr Mixel present Mr artuso here Mrs M here Mr Taylor here okay um and we have two items on the on is table manner one was the human being drive-thru Cafe uh they've asked to be tabled again so I don't know if there's anyone here for that this application will not be heard tonight okay short of that everything else is scheduled um I'd like to make one change on here actually if everybody's okay with this the first one was lachner uh but we also have the um um number three oh yeah number three on the regular schedule Splash Car Wash Mark why don't you read that if we can have everybody's all right with that we'll hear that one first just short and quick Splash Car Wash oneyear extension located at 1013 Ridge Road applicant Fox 5 LLC is requesting a one-year extension of final site plan approval for the public hearing associated with the construction of a 7,000 ft² car wash on a 2.16 acre parcel located in a medium intensity dist commercial District under sections 26917 and 3518 of the code of the town of Webster Miss Riley hi my name is Ann Riley I'm here representing the um the owner of the property we came here you might remember last year we came for an extension as well we're still in litigation we thought we were getting close and then the attorney for Splash left a new attorney's taking over trying to get up to speed so we need to get another extension because we don't want to lose our our approvals because we'll have to we're going to be probably marketing the property again once we resolve this litigation so okay and you you are aware actually why that's put in the code years ago was you know because of things change and since this was in we've had a couple of new ones in the general area car washes I'm okay with giving it another year extension but I think that should be the last one after that because there's been significant changes in regard to car washes you know so if everybody's in agreement with that we could give it another year extension you guys are right with that yeah right yes all right that will work you can tell them this you I mean it's it's only fair I mean that was the reason for that part of the code so that would make it if they come in again that'd be three extensions that's a little extensive okay so with that somebody want to make a motion for an extension for the splash car I'll make a motion for the Splash Car Wash that the planning board uh extends this this is at for 1013 Ridge Road and it's a Fox 5 LLC requesting the one-year extension we grant that for one year and this would be the last year for an extension second okay have a motion to Second all in favor I I we're good all right you're all set thanks Sam thank you very much thank you all right now go ahead and Mark with okay the first tabled uh matter tonight lochner subdivision located west of 1854 Lake Road the applicant mcmah laule Associates is requesting preliminary final site plan and subdivision approval along with a public hearing associated with the resubdivision of a 21.8 acre parcel into two 3 acre lots to be developed with a single family residences and one 15.8 acre lot to remain undeveloped having uh being located rather in an LL large lot single family residential district under sections 26911 and 29615 of the Cota town of Webster good evening alaroo mcmoo Associates we've uh we finally got the core of engineers to stipulate that the the wetlands is not a jurisdictional wetland so with that we're moving forward forward with the plans we've uh we think we've addressed all the comments both the informal uh meeting that we had with the PRC and the formal comments that we've received and so with that uh uh we're uh Janette and uh Tim are here can answer any questions you might have from the owners so with that uh I'll entertain any questions you might have why don't you just bring us back up a little bit I think we may have one new person here since uh since this application was in you've got lot um one which is the large one three and four and then where was the entrance going to be for lot one that was going to the west side of the property was it or the east side yeah that one comes directly off the private Drive mhm yep we we're trying to avoid any more curve cut County mhm access permits and we're trying not to overwhelm the the existing private drive there too MH okay all right yeah we went through this all just Pro the issue was mainly with drainage and stuff wasn't it wasn't that the biggest thing on that yes the drainage on the property right yeah these are um it's these are U alternate systems so they're they have to be 100t from the property line so that really caus an issue property in our front setback that sort of thing so um and then drainage wasn't really that much of a problem because we've had some lower areas we could drain to so it was just the fact that we had uh the the systems had to be 100t away from the property line okay anybody um I know Derek you had a couple questions the last time I remember regard to a you okay with us yeah my question is primarily dealing with the Wetland and it sounds like that's been resolved resolved okay um this is a public hearing so if there is I don't know if there's anyone here wishing to speak either for or against this project not seeing any then we'll we'll close the public hearing bring it back to the board anybody Dave no we've pry much gone through everything we kind of went through it all before you guys all that with it yeah all right and the application is this for prelim and file somebody want to make a motion for approval I'll make a motion for preliminary site plan and subdivision approval Dave probably ought to do Seeker first okay yeah go ahead do oh yeah sure I'm sorry yeah go ahead do seek around it yeah we didn't do that right order of stuff it's a motion for an unlisted action town of Wester planning board considered a request by applicant mcmah Laro for re subdivision of a 21.8 acre parcel into two 3 Acre parcels and one 15.8 acre parcel having G number 0 37.0 31-36 located in an LL large L lot single family residential district located west of 1854 Lake Road and to provide access to 1854 Lake Road and existing 4.375 acre parcel having SPL number 37.3 D1 d353 the planning board determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to part 617 of the State Environmental Quality review regulations planning board determined that the proposed action is subject to single agency review pursuant to part 67.6 B1 of seeker and that it is the most appropriate Agency for making the determination of significance the planning board therefore designates itself sou Le Agency for the proposed action the planning board is given consideration of the criteria for determining significance as set forth in section 67.7 C1 of seeker and has one considered the information contained in the chart environmental assessment form part one dated October 17 2023 number two considered public comments directed to the planning board during public hearings on November 7th 2023 and September 3rd 2024 and number three completed Parts two and three of the environmental assessment form now therefore it be resolved of the town of Webster planning board hereby determines that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached notice of determination and nonsignificance be it further resolved that the town of Webster planning board is authorized to take all actions reasonable and necessary to file the negative declaration and to discharge the town of Webster planning board's responsibility lead Agency for this action be it further resolve that the town of Webster planning board based on the information analysis above the reference supporting documentation and discussions of the action by the town of Webster planning board as documented by the minutes for this meeting that the proposed action will not result in any significant environmental impacts be it further resolved that the town of Webster planning board therefore makes it determination of non-significance be forther resolve that the town of Webster planning board based on the above reason isues a negative declaration as evidence of its determination okay that be a motion a second second have a second all in favor okay Dave you want to go ahead and make a motion okay I'll make a motion for lner subdivision prary uh site plan and subdivision approval um subject to PRC comments subject to conservation board comments if any um all improvements should be constructed according to the specification of the town of Webster all roadway construction to be in accordance with the specification and regulations set forth by the town of Webster all site work is to be in compliance with the standards of the town and Webster uh comply with all requirements of any state county or town Agency address drainage and uh snow storage um approvals are subject to drawing number we got a cad file uh d0 141 and it's a motion that being a motion need a second I'll second it we have a motion or second call R Catherine Mr Malta hi Mr postel I Mrs mman hi Mr Mixel hi Mr Anderson I Mr jardina hi Mr K I okay you're on a roll make a motion for yeah I'll make a motion for a final site plan and subdivision approval to the lackner subdivision U subject to PRC comments subject to parks and Rex fees if applicable subject to preliminary approval conditions subject to all applicable governmental fees subject to the Department of Public Works approvals significant construction shall occur within one year as deemed by the planning board to expire on September 3rd 2025 conditions of the preliminary and final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final design plans uh are we going to need a letter of uh certification from the engineer um for this project I I don't believe so no I'll put it in there if it's necessary the engineer for the proposed project should provide a letter of certification that all proposed work was completed as per planning board resolution of final approval before certificate of occupancy will it be issued if applicable how about a letter of credit you going to do a letter of credit I don't believe uh there's any utility installations that would be dedicated to the the town correct so no so it's just subdivision of land really okay so Dave you want to make that for site plan and subdivisional land also all one resolution right they did it all on one okay yeah is that your motion that's a motion okay need a second second Mr Malta hi Mr Mixel hi Mrs mton hi m Mr K hi Mr Anderson hi Mr Jina hi Mr hi thank you okay I guess you're all set good luck with it took you a little while to get there huh yeah good luck thank you okay let's see what's this oh this is okay um go ahead first scheduled item on tonight's agenda Webster assembly of God's sign located at 708 Hard Road the applicant Jamie Catalano of vital signs as requesting sign approval associated with the construction of approximately 30qt Monument sign on a 2.2 acre parcel located in an R3 single family residential district under Section 2657 of the code of the totle Webster okay good evening I'm here in Jamie's place I'm Jos Palmer from Vital Signs representing Webster Assembly of God at 708 Hard Road um pretty cut and dry we're just uh proposing a 6 foot tall extruded aluminum Monument sign with push through acrylic internally lit letters so the face of the sign is aluminum on both sides would be opaque uh basically only the letters light and it would be kind of an edge lit effect with the uh translucent film on the face of it um okay is that pretty much the color you're using right there it's pretty much what you see right there two-sided anybody any questions or concerns there's go ahead no sure so we need the street address on there I think we should have the street address on there I agree that's that's a good point yep I can put one maybe a vertical one on the butt end facing the road running downward we can do some dimensional letters on that they can see it from both sides they can be on both this would be facing the road M facing the road right yeah I think that's okay don't you okay yeah it's far enough back that you should be able to see it we're 25 I think that's good enough okay yep we can add that yeah good good point JN thank you all right uh anybody any questions or concerns that's okay okay somebody want to make a motion J want to make a motion for it do we know don't need to do a secret we n jeez I'm much faster tonight AR I go ahead at Town of Wester planning board consideration request by applicant Jam Catalano of vital signs that construct an approximately 30t Monument sign on a 2.2 acre parcel having SP number d219 located at 708 Hard Road the planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under Section 617 Point C to the State Environmental Quality rev review regulations and therefore not subject to further review have a motion second second have a second all in favor all right you want to make a motion for the approval of the sign J I'll make a motion for uh applian Jamie Catalano of Vital Signs requesting a sign approval for the Webster Assembly of God located at 708 har Road as presented with the exception of they're going to add the street numbers to there to the front of the sign okay that be any motion second second motion and a second all in favor I I guess you're all set good luck good night guys thank y we'll see okay go ahead with the next one then Mark good accessory apartment waiver located at 943 coer Kettle Road applicant Fus okal loitz thei is requesting an accessory apartment waiver approval along with a public hearing associated with the construction of a 420t Edition and use of a 574 squ ft of space from existing residents to create a 994 ft² accessory apartment on a 0.35 acre parcel located in an R3 single family residential district under sections 350-12 and 350 -50 with the code of the town of Webster yes sir hi we're requesting a uh basically an in-law just give us your name and address just for the record tle col the third 943 Copper Kettle Road so you want are you putting this at in-law apartment in or something for parents or something I'm assuming there's 600 square foot approximately already there that was in addition uhhuh and then we're going to add to that another 400 square foot approximately get that 994 I guess it is MHM I was looking at now the only thing I'm and I'm sure it's okay where is the entrance for this is that the coming off of the porch yes so that's your entrance going into the apartment section there correct okay I see it now I got it okay and that's the new section would be just crawl space underneath yes yeah okay and there's no I think in your paperwork there's nothing at the front no no front doors or anything like that going out to to to address this particular unit no there's no changes in the front right from the front you probably won't even be able to notice anything it's just going to be in the back of the residence it's just going to go out straight out basically okay for the added square footage okay and there is an interior door between the two spaces current the existing in the the apartment what's that I didn't hear you looking at the plans looks like that just there is an interior door between the in-law apartment yeah that's a that would be that be his cut through there that which meets code yeah yes so you got access to the port and then access to the building itself yep I see no issues with it is anybody looked at it and you okay with it you guys are okay Dave you're all right y you're all right is this is this here because it's larger than 750 a waver because it's an addition to the addition that was already existing so okay all right no that's fine is this now one of your parents I'm assuming yes this is my mother oh you're going to be moving in it's my apartment oh nice good luck thank you that's good I like that looking forward to it I think that's great doing stuff like this I hope someday my kids do it with me I'll take it okay enough for around all right everybody's all right with this uh you want to do a Seeker on this T Wier planning board can consider the request by applicant PS okalo a third to construct a 420t Edition and use 574 ft of space in an existing residence to create a 994 ft accessory apartment on a 0.35 acre parcel having s number d129 located at 943 Copper Kettle drive and an R3 single family residential district the planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under Section 617 C9 of the State Environmental Quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review okay that being a motion we need a second second and we have a second all in favor hi okay uh for the approval Josh you're okay with everything on this yes the only thing that will be required is an accessory apartment agreement I'm sorry once it's built we'll just need the applicants to sign off on an accessory apartment agreement for the county correct yeah okay all right um I can make a motion for the approval of it let's see the read this whole thing the part of the code but it's to conform with chapter 225 of the code regarding accessory Apartments uh accessory apartment should be limited to a maximum of 35% of the I don't want to read all that is not necessary why don't we just say that we accept it and that it meets it meets the application is meeting the requirements of 225 of the zoning 225 491 the code of the town of Webster so Tony just to let you know the the ordinance number changed did yeah that's interesting it's section 35050 all right 350 okay and uh significant construction within a year on the project anything else you think should be in there should be enough shouldn't it you okay with that all right that' being a motion with a second second second all in favor good all right good luck with your project thank you have a good night last item on tonight's agenda Waterview Apartments phase three located at the northwest corner of Willow Point Way and nautical mile drive applicant Legacy Development Company Incorporated is requesting sketch plan review associated with the proposed construction of two three-story 45 unit apartment buildings on a 13.52 acre parcel located in a medium high residential district under Section 3514 of the code of the town of Webster gentlemen good evening thank you very much for your time and hearing this my name is Chris Nadler I'm General Council for markv Enterprises I'm here tonight with Chris De Marza the president and owner of markv and David Cox from pass pasero our design engineer as many of you may remember remember this project was approved in the 1980s for an 8 story 150 unit midrise apartment building we've come back multiple times since then uh most recently in 2017 for a scaled down five-story apartment building um at that time we submitted a traffic study that showed that the proposed development would not have a noticeable impact at mchu and Bay and would not have a noticeable impact at Willow Point and Bay we submitted a line of site study in 2017 showing that no views would be impacted with a five-story building uh as well as many other environmental reports I'm sure the town has uh those on files and we'll be uh updating as needed um we've met with the town supervisor and the town planner and and are here today to present a much uh reduced a significantly reduced project to three-story buildings with 90 apartment units we're proposing to create a 13 acre parcel on which the two 45 unit buildings would be located that's 6.8 units per acre which is allowed by the mhr zoning code our primary access will be onto mchan uh Drive uh David Cox from passo is here to uh present the technical details and then we can both answer any questions and get uh the board's feedback uh and any suggestions okay thank you good evening board members I'm David Cox with past Associates and just to provide a little bit U more information so as Chris mentioned that original plan um was for a bunch of tow houses in in the front of the property and then that large you know eight story building or seven story building in the back here um so that was always part of the the overall plan development for this project so it was to be broken up in phases uh this last piece in the back was phase four that was the last phase and that's what we're here for is to complete that last phase so um from the from the beginning it was always contemplated to have a a larger building back here this plan actually uh spelled out 58 units um in this big building in the back here then as you can you know on the aerial photo you can see all the tow houses have already been developed and that last piece is what is still being um is still vacant and that's where we've you know instead of having one large building 158 units now it's just two buildings with 45 units each uh for a total of 90 units so a definite decrease and also just three stories so bring it down from seven or eight stories down to three stories and 158 units down to 90 units so uh quite a a drastic change there uh and then also I um some other projects in Webster that I personally have designed over my years I just wanted to take a look at those and see and they're actually um somewhat similar um so this is picture Parkway uh this is off of Hard Road here where there's a bunch of fourplexes surrounded by a large building this building is 72 units so very similar uh project is one we have where you have smaller smaller buildings in a larger building up front um we have uh Winding Creek Woods um where we have very similar we have a bunch of town homes down here and then we have a grouping of a more larger buildings um so these are five buildings and there's 130 units on this area in a pretty dense area pretty small area uh we got 130 units group there so similar and then uh Webster green or behind uh Brewsters uh we have once again we have town homes and then two larger buildings in the back here um each of these uh were approved for 60 units each so 120 units right here in this um tight little area and this actually got approved at 12 unit per acre um so that's almost double what we have at 6.8 units per acre so um just you know just on these projects I personally have designed you know a very similar style of you know some smaller town homes or buildings like that in one or two where you know five larger more dense units so so a little uh blow up area here uh we have Mikan drive to the north here so there's already an existing access point off of muan which we we will uh be utilizing for our access comes into the property um and we have Maritime Drive is the one that ties into muan so we're going to tie into that for the for the first building uh we have parking on two sides uh these buildings do have garages they have 10 garages um so they have five on each side so there is some garage space uh for these units which is a very nice amenity uh these are you know higher-end market rate Apartments uh and then the the other building the lower building will come off a Willow Point Way have access there um providing parking on two sides again same thing with those garages so um yeah and we're at about 1.6 parking spaces per unit I will point out that the original um design up here um had planned for 1.5 uh spaces per unit so that's very much in keeping what uh what we have proposed here um and then as far as just kind of an elevation view here's um you know rendering of what the uh you know conceptually what the buildings will look like um so a nice you know modern style looking building uh we do have a flat roof um so that'll actually be a very similar height to a two-story single family house with a pitched roof or a two-story town home with a pitched roof um so really uh similar height and keeping with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood uh as well as you know fits in with code so code is a Max of three uh three stories so uh we are within code for that there no issues there um and really tonight we are at the conceptual sketch plan uh so we really wanted to get feedback from the town that's why we're here you know to see if we need to make any modifications changes um and really really are looking for the board's input on this but this is a a great project um there's definitely a need for a diversity of of housing stock I know Webster is a growing a growing area a great place to live I moved here in 2015 because it's just a it's where life is worth living it's really a great town a lot of lot of trees and the Bay the lake there's just Webster has a lot to offer and I think a lot of people are knowing know that and uh it would like to move here so um yeah and with that we can take any questions you might have okay thanks David uh anybody any questions how many better are these units going to have how many variances bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms it it'll be a mix of one two and possibly a few three three unit or three bedroom units because with one point whatever car space is per unit there if you have a three-bedroom one and you have a couple living in there with their two of their kids they could be four cars or they be possibly a four cars uh that that is possible we actually regulate that through the terms of our lease we're not going to allow uh a a couple to let their adult children with vehicles live there without they would have to get a separate unit that we regulate that through our lease interestingly we did a a parking analysis of our properties there's uh 2,000 units throughout throughout the county um and what we need for our tenants and their guests and their service providers is about 1.2 unit uh spaces per unit um and in this project we're supplying 1.5 1.6 1.6 so it's a it's a high a high ratio of one-bedroom apartments the uh color sketch of the apartments that you're planning those are the colors you're going to use the black and the orange or excuse me yeah orange referring to this yeah I think those are some of that is wood uh would wood uh feature not orange I think by the time this project gets there is look a little bit different than this yeah I I think that's a good bet so let's leave it with that um to me the biggest issue with this is going to be the variances you're going to need some variances on this that one that one part right what is that about 8 foot or something 16 foot from the property line that that's going to be that issue that's going to be an issue you know we we we met last week we discussed a little bit controversy going on about the number of units per acre and you're combining the two Parcels of land and I know I was wasn't positive on how that worked in a situation like this I did do a little research on it and actually you're correct in saying that yep because looking up the town engineer in the past is looked at sites like this similar situations and has agreed that you use the entire parcel even though it's not usable it's Wetlands EOD this that and the other was still consider is there a written policy regarding that is there I don't know if there's a policy but that's what the town accepted on other projects I I realize that's what they've accepted in the past don't the town board never changed it yeah but I know the actual wording literally says maximum of five units per acre it doesn't it doesn't say average it says maximum per AC so there 16 how many acres is but they're saying they they have eight units per acre so that's that's greater than five there's 13 what do you have 13 and a half acres we have 13.1 Acres but the code specifically says maximum of five units per acre it's eight eight units per acre which is what you have which is which is greater than five the code says eight or says five units per acre no it says eight yeah I'm pretty sure it says eight either way one of the one of the nice things about this is that the development is focused up at the top of the hill completely away from the environmentally sensitive areas okay so that's different than what's online this I printed this from if that's how it is right I don't when I looked at it earlier the version I saw online literally said five so I don't know why because we don't have a printed book anymore we only have what's available online okay thank you but if you're specifically at eight that exact number we're we're well below we're at 6.8 we're allowed eight right but what you're doing is your average ing it over the entire parcel mhm and so what my question is so this thing says 8 per acre the way I read that when it says eight per acre mhm is that's it and you said you have six 13.1 ac.
right but you're you're doing an average of 13 acres yeah and that's you have a parcel but it says maximum per acre eight per acre Okay so of 13 so if you got yeah but it's not 13 acres you can't you're looking at it's the way it's written it says 8 per acre it's not an average of eight per acre it says a maximum of eight per acre what you're doing is an average of eight per acre you're taking the entire 13 acres and you're saying okay 18 therefore I get 90 whatever units I could put in I'm only putting in half of that but that's actually average of the entire acreage that's covered so the code is written it says eight so what I'm asking is even though the town has done this before has there been any kind of written policy that says that we have administratively determined that when it says maximum do we actually mean average and I haven't seen anything that supports that um I will tell you that I'm aware there's New York State case law that that defines it per parcel essentially I guess what you're defining it as as an average um but I think I'm sure that the Mr Taylor and Mr jenie and I can work that out yeah we would need to see something that supports that CU right I mean I understand that it has been allowed in the past and you've been had had higher densities in other areas but with the way the wording actually is it says a specific number per acre what you're giving us is an average for this entire development and then the other question I have in relation to that is that the back portion of this parcel when this original development has come in and by the way I have never seen any of the previous approval drawings even though I've requested them I've never seen any of the previous approval drawing by phase for this project okay okay this project is from 1988 things have changed significantly environmental wise you have environmental prote overlay districts that cover the preponderance of this entire parcel you have a forested protection area that's also covers most of this parel you are also still in you are in now the um Waterfront the lwrp which is also new from when this thing was done in 1988 so you have a whole new set of environmental regulations that have to be complied with with its development so the other discussion is is that all the area in the back that they're claiming is you can do an average of development on it's really not developable so does that really count towards the total Town engineer said an issue was discussed at a conceptual stage noting that town has to look at the entire site in the mhr zoning District it is not like eliminating Wetlands steep slopes as far as establishing density so that comes I don't know what that what's that what's that no it was some minutes from from from another meeting okay I I don't I don't know the context to that this is so this is what this is saying that so for this board right now for the application as it is in front of us it seems to me that we have to take into consideration that there is a huge portion of this parcel you really only got about three acres of this thing that's not in this area that is now protected by various overlay districts and so forth within the land and the the town has given me copies of those overlay districts yeah this was you know what this is can those overlay districts really be counted towards it's not developable land this is a question you actually you brought this up I'm just looking at it here Mr Anderson raised a question about the density of the development I've always questioned it and I've never really gotten an answer mainly because we were never given the final approval plans for Phase 1 two and three we have never seen any of those things even though they have been requested as a board we have not received any of those things so we don't have anything to go on Eric you're looking at me like I failed to give you no I I'm just letting you know because you're the applicant I'm don't having any discussion have stuff from 1985 right you you have that one plan which is very interesting because we've never seen that before the other thing I do notice because I have driven in the area took a look at it is that it looks very much like you have this parking lot for um the Eastern unit right in the middle of storm water detention Pond for the rest of the facility there's an outlet structure there and there's Cattails and that doesn't show up on your plans any place that's another change that's happened since 1988 is all the storm water protection requirements if you remember back then that stuff wasn't really in place okay why don't we do why don't we do this dere why don't we do this why don't you got some good point point and I think maybe the thing to do is maybe why don't you outline them take them into consideration at this point and then we can address these things because there are some unknowns here that we're just bewildered with well I think as a board we have to have an understanding and a discussion amongst ourselves too about we have these areas that have been identified as places that should be protected how as a board or we going to have interpretation to work towards this well the areas to be protected I there's certainly are this this a piece is the upper upper flat plateau of the whole overall parcel which goes all the way down to requite Bay sure and that's an EOD Wetland and everything else I mean that's all protected area right so there's nothing going in that area right but what they're doing is they're claiming acreage to apply towards total development towards that so the ultimate question is is that legitimate well you can't develop it so why would it count I guess is the question based on thing need the clarification of based on past in an mhr this is we have accepted it so that's why that's where I'm going with this so I don't know but you've never had this type of environmental overlay correct so that's why I'm saying this is unique to it so this is something why don't we why don't we let them check into that and come up with a solution to that would that be the answer yes Derek your point is is noted and certainly applicants Council and myself can take up that conversation and and get resolution there yeah good all right um I know there's some neighbors here I'm assuming Neighbors from from the project this isn't a public here there is one other point too is go ahead in the presentation you reference the traffic study that was done on the previous 2017 that traffic study showed that this intersection fails and at that time the argument was made that it fails so therefore we can put whatever we want because it's failed anyway that's not a legitimate uh the traffic study and what we said about it what it the traffic study says is that at the in 2017 I'm assuming it's been corrected but I may be wrong the eastbound Lane failed not the intersection the intersection coming out of Willow Point fails did not say going into Parks side that is a that was definitely a takeaway from that traffic stud and anyone anyone that travels up and down Bay Road tries to get in and out of Parkside tries to get and out of Willow Point they know it has failed because you could sit there for five or 10 minutes trying to make a leftand turn lane out of there before you get a prayer chance to get out of there so that intersection has failed there is we have to see some kind of recommendation and the recommendation is not simply it has failed so therefore we can make it fail worse I think I think ultimately there's going to need to be a traffic study on the site of course that many units and that much traffic we I think we're all in agreement to that yep that would be down the road um those are good points that it's brought up um you know what wait a minute this isn't a public hearing I just want to for the record so it's not open for public speaking however however I know there's some people here you have interest in the site if a few of you want to come up maybe two or three people can come up I just don't want to get repetition going come up just give us your name and address and and maybe you can help us out too sure go ahead hi I'm Dave guy I live at 400 beuan Lane so I'm I'm a direct neighbor to the property MH um I'm very concerned about the exactly what Mr Anderson was talking about which is grouping for on convenience sake grouping all the acreage together but then not being able to utilize the acreage and actually that property with all the overlay zones um there's uh you know a beaver pond at the bottom there's a runoff that's going to come off of that and I'm very concerned about shoehorning in the uh the property in the buildings uh into a much smaller area and I know the planning board is really concerned about the Aesthetics of the project project um and I'm concerned that that will not reflect well on what we're trying to do in Webster uh because we are just jamming in as many units as possible uh the last attempt that um that Legacy put in uh submitted was for 98 units this uh this uh attempt is for 90 units uh a lot of concern about parking uh the town code as you know is is two units per uh plus an overflow parking so 225 units of parking uh they're looking at 144 units for parking I'm not sure where those other 81 people go but I'm concerned it'll be by Mr Johnson and my home so I am concerned about the Aesthetics and then of course the how many how many units were just trying to jam in this area uh if we went with how how big this this area is at 3.76 Acres we really should be putting looking at something like 30 units in that area and that should be the maximum okay thank you thank you yeah my name is Charlie Johnson I'm at 440 mckuin which is directly behind the properties it's actually the last property before the yeah right yeah right yeah right there right before the pumping state um so obviously we're looking outly at the back of this structure um again I'm not an expert at reading these but in terms of the tree line itself in terms of what they were taking down what they were going to keep uh that existing tree line stops I think at the measurement they have for the property next door to mind maybe you'd have to zoom in there so obviously what I'm talking about is what we're actually looking at right uh we also have children right two children that have to walk up muu and drive to Bay Road to take the bus every day right just like Mr guy indicated uh just from a pure volume standpoint even trying now trying to make a left turn on the Bay Road going to work every morning is a challenge uh I don't know what's going to happen with Willow Point but if they're saying muin is the primary Road they want to use right that has a very negative impact on quality of life so to speak right uh and the last part is and I'm not sure how this works but uh access to the interior parts of the building um if there's an issue in between those buildings I don't know how Emergency Equipment gets in there yeah that's that's result just looking at the way that structure do they go through that little Peak there do they come back to mckuin how would they access that would have to be that would be controlled by the fire department they'll they'll review that part sure um and then my last question that's more of a zoning or variance issue uh we don't have a measurement from our property to the back of the dwelling so I don't know if that's 100 ft or if it's the property line or if it's the actual dwelling itself that's 100 ft from the next District okay thank you all right anybody on the board any I think I think the best way to handle list is to review some of these questions that were brought up address I mean we've done this in the past um I don't know if were we wrong in doing it I don't know by including those partials into the overall equation and then using part of it I know like in a cluster development you don't you don't add that land in but my understanding in an mhr you do add it in I'm I don't know if I'm right or wrong that's my understanding of what we've done I'll tell you having reviewed the code entirely uh after our meeting because it came as a surprise to me um it's in compliance with code to use the entire uh 13.1 Acres it's what your code says you can't read anything else developable Acres you can't read in um you know the stuff we want to be developed or not want to be developed it's just what the code says and the way you've been doing it apparently is the right way it's what your code says and that's all we can that's all you're allowed to follow no matter what you want and I can say from the three projects that I previously did um none of the Wetland areas they all three of them had Wetland areas the Wetland areas were not taken out of that calculation and in that type of like in this case the mhr correct yep they were all all three were in the mhr yeah well again I'm reading this is one of the comments was from the town engineer at the time stating that that's what we based our information on but let's get it clarified 100% you can talk to our town attorney see if we can get some documentation on this another thing I'd like to before I forget is coming off a Willow Point way I know there was an issue with you know there was you had an issue going with the people in there or something a lawsuit or something whether you could use it or not and I know can't it can't be blocked that's all that that was the last I understood okay the town is ordered that it not be blocked yeah um you know we have access to a public road that is sufficient MH um and we'll show that with an updated traffic report okay that that would that I think those are the little things that we need to absolutely so they were given permission to go cross private property excuse me I I'm thinking back to the comment that I mean those was the big the biggest argument that people in Willow Point had was that this is our private property property and that you're proposing a development that goes through our our land and again this is something the last time I was here was never totally resolved so I guess I'm curious Were You by some kind of agreement lawsuit court order give permission to go through Willow Point now what I said was we have access to a public Road mchu in that is sufficient to handle all of the traffic from this right what about limiting access to going through Willow Point cly didn't want to have it okay your second building exclusively goes on Willow Point Way from what I can say we own Willow Point Way at that point so that parcel back in the 80s when this was originally approved the entrances were off of Willow Point they had to have that also mchan but absolutely right that's exactly correct all right so if you can get some documentation just showing that just to sure we can absolutely do that okay yeah no I see that there I see what you've got there but I think probably just something in a letter form okay a checkl different items agree have that cover us y all right well thank thank you very much um anything else um Tony yes I just just want to confirm that you're looking for uh planning board members and any other staff in the town to provide any follow-up comments or uh concerns uh so that the applicant can address them yeah okay I just want to make sure we're we're clear with that as well yes I mean I I'm I'm sure engineering is going to have some you know some is there a PRC meeting this week there is so more than likely this would be part of it yes okay so then there'll be some so there will be further comments coming to you exactly that more than what was already discussed now and just wanted to make sure that we identified that those comments would be coming to you so you can address them either in the drawing and as well uh written form great thank you very much okay we appreciate it what else is see you go have you your schedule for the zoning board we're on for the zoning board next we next next week are you or something okay all right well I guess that's all we can really do tonight um I think we've got a a start in a direction I think I think we just have to verify it that's all I think there's a lot uh you know of information that our a full set of site plans will tell this board that will alleviate a lot of concerns for you know an updated traffic report I think that'll alleviate a lot of concerns and um you know we'll go from there sounds good thank you very much for your time okay thank you gentlemen all right thanks for coming in folks now this when they come in ultimately the way this process will go they'll be back in again and I don't know the next stage may be another just a review like this ultimately then there's a preliminary hearing for it and that's gets to that if if and when it gets to that stage that's the public hearing that's when you can get up and speak and so on okay but then we'll all know a little bit more what's going on too okay I'm sorry oh they're they're just going to there's two separate pieces they're just going to put them into one just just take just take the lot line well you can do that they'll just combine the two Parcels of land together just do that yeah anybody can do that yeah this that's done all the time with how how it there's two lots can be joined together yeah anything like that's legal yep okay all right well thank you very much for coming in I guess that's all for this evening and we'll close the meeting and thanks for coming is there any other like to Derrick's point I was putting shoes on with velcro and carrying my peanut butter jelly sandwich in a brown paper bag when this came up oh yeah know I know so I know to Derrick's point I feel completely uneducated on how this is all gone it's right there e