WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Websicr Town Board Mecting Room 1002 Ridge Road
7:00 p.m.
7 May 2024
ABSENT:
Anthony Casciani, Chairman
Dave Malta, Vice Chairman
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Derek Anderson
John Kosel
Peggy Maltman
Derek Meixel!
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Kyle Taylor, Attorney
Welcome to the May 7, 2024 Webster Planning Board meeting.
Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll cait
Lochner Subdivision, | don’t know if anyone 1s here for that but that also
again, they are doing some work on drainage and so they have asked to be tabled again. That was
scheduled as a public hearing but again, the Lochner Subdivision at 1854 Lake Road ts tabled.
Summary overview of outcome:
TABLED MATTERS
:
LOCHNER SUBDIVISION
McMahon LaRue
** This matter is tabled until further notice; pending jurisdictional determination
on wetlands from Army Corps of Engineers**
BELLA TERRA SECTION II
Tom Thomas
TABLED TO SPECIAL MEETING ON MAY 21, 2024
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
EMERALD HAIR SALON SIGN
Samantha Reed
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Pg, 53 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
WESTWOOD ESTATES SECTION 3
Mike D’ Amico
TABLED TO SPECIAL MEETING ON MAY 21, 2024
Located just west of 1854 Lake Road. Applicant McMahon
LaRue Associates is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the re subdivision of a 21.8-acre parcel
into (2) 3-acre lots (to be developed with single family residences) and (1) 15.8-acre lot (to
remain undeveloped) having SBL# 037,03-1-36 located in an LL Large Lot Single Family
Residential District under Section 269-11 and 296-15 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
** This matter is tabled until further notice; pending jurisdictional determination on
wetlands from Army Corps of Engineers**
(Mark Giardina read the second application):
Located near the southwest corner of Salt and Schlegel Roads.
Applicant Tom Thomas of 800 Phillips Road LLC is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN &
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL associated with the construction of 60 townhomes on a 26.8-acre
parcel having SBL # 065.02- 1-40.222 located in an MHR Medium High Residential District under
Section 269-9 and 296-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie from Costich Engineering representing the owner
and developer, Tom Thomas from TRAMAC Development. We have been in front of this board
for Section 2 a couple times, and | believe over those mectings we have gotten good feedback
from the Planning Board as well as town staff. We have received town comments, a few rounds
of comments from the Town Engineer and we have responded to those.
The most recent round of comments came out and | believe it was a weck ago and we did
respond to those last week and Mr, Artuso just presented me with some additional follow up
questions on those comments that we responded to last week so just as a recap of where we were
last month when we were in front of this board. We are requesting final approval of section 2
and section 2 is a phase2a and 2b. As you can sec, (VIEWING PLANS) a portion of the
development fronting on Salt Road and a portion backing up to the under-construction Meadows
II Subdivision. So, the plan is as presented and the subsequent revisions | fee! over all are
consistent of the layout of what the Planning Board did approve in the preliminary approval.
We have made some tweaks based on the fact that it is going to be a private righta way and a
private utilities; stormwater management facilities, all of those adjustments and corrections have
been made to the plans and with that, P believe these most recent comments that we did receive
from the Town Engincer are more “housekeeping” items related to easements that need to be
filed. I would be happy to go through cach ttem if the Planning Board would like me to. There
is one item, ] guess more substance than just easements being filed and that is related to the
onentation of one lot of the structure on that one Jot in conjunction with the stream so that
specifically is Lot 222 and the comment that was circulated from Mr, Chatfield state that he felt
Pg. 54 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
it was (oo close to the creeks edge and he requested that we shift it to provide additional
separalion. That lot as it is shown is exactly as it was placed on the preliminary plan, We do
understand the comment and what we have done ts further shifted that structure away and this
being the development as it was rezoned and approved. The requirement was 40 feet separation
between buildings and there was somewhere around 45 feet between that, and the structure and |
believe it was to the east. So, we shifted that a little bit further and it sounds like Mr. Chattield
still has concerns about that. | would note that, no [00-acre flood plain ts present in this area and
the structure as itis proposed, is 5 fect above the top of the bank but in sitting with Mr. Thomas
one resolution we do potentially have to that is there is an opportunity to go with a narrower unit,
tor that area to provide even further separation and potentially even maybe patio homestyle or no
basement in that area if ground water scepage is a concern as well.
Beyond that, the last round of comments that we received were add sedimentation basin; move
topsoil stockpile, you know, reinforce fence instead of standard silk fence so we believe those
items that generally can be addressed if this board were in the position to approve after the fact
and the plans would not be circulated for signature until all comments were addressed. Now,
there was one final comment that I belicve again, not an Engineering issue per say but just
something the town wants to get straight and that is, in relation to an access easement and in
speaking with our surveyor at office as well as the county surveyors, it was pointed out that the
access easements will be granted to each and every lot in this development not that it’s an issue
since it’s private, Tom Thomas will own the road and units but it’s more of what the county calls
a landlock or a legal parcel. So, the lots along Schlegel and Salt all have legal access to a public
right of way but these internal lots on a private road will not. So, the county will accept
permanent access cascments granted over the private right of way, leading to the public right of
way as legal access to make it a legal tot. So, our solution to that is working with the developers
and securing access casements over all the lots and again, that is just standard casement practice
that goes into every subdivision that we do. So, we are confident that that is the path forward and
that will not cause any issues to the town and quite frankly, it is to the satisfaction of the county
before they accept filing the maps, so we are confident into he solution for that comment.
So, with that, am happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you!
Yes, there was another lot in there. Josh, what was that, you remember the
one we talked about? It was really close to that for access. Do you see the open space there?
(VIEWING THE PLANS)
Are you referring to the one where the revised retention pond is?
‘Phe one where access is to the open parcel. It was real narrow. I suggested
maybe cutting that lot on an angle. | don’t know the lot number though. Mike, also, these
blueprints that you are sending are ridiculous. We don't need those things.
Too big?
Pg. 55 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
| tried to open that, and you can ask anyone of these board members, they just
got it, and number 2, they didn’t even have the opportunity to open the thing up. You would have
to clear your kitchen table off.
| understand, We sent the clectronic version as well.
But that doesn’t help us. I want a piece of paper so [can open and see the
overall picture and that is part of what you have been informed to bring in. It is not something
new. We have got Westwood, and this is what we have right here. (SHOWING THE SIZE OF
PLANS) We can open this at a table or desk and see what we are looking at. So, please follow up
with it.
Alright.
Did you find it there Josh?
No.
It was access to one of the lots to the open area.
I think that 1s for the next application.
Was that on the other one.,.Ok! I knew there was a lot that was angled. OK.
Again, you have some comments on here. Paul has written them up and PRC comments. Their
comments and you guys shouldn’t be approving these things until everything is done right up to
snuff.
| agree with that generally. I believe the comments that are left remaining,
gencrally are nota major substance to hold up............
There is a bunch and that is the trouble Mike, there is several in there. { talked
to Josh about it and already talked to some of the board too. We are not trying to hold you up we
are trying (o work with you. This thing has been the biggest pain in the butt that we have had in
along ime. This whole project. | think in defense of I think this board would be more than
willing to have another meeting this month if you could get the stuff done; get it all in; get it
where we can sec it like this where everyone has the opportunity to look at it more than the day
belore the meeting.
Understood.
So, will table it. Tom, E know we are not happy doing this either and we are
not trying to hold you up, but we are willing to have another meeting this month.
(FROM THE AUDIENCE): We can do that.
Py. 56 May 7, 2024 Planning Mecting
We will do that just to help you get through this process but if we go back to
PRC, Josh and myself, these guys will be, “What the hell are you guys doing” given approvals
on stuff that is not really done.
Mr. Chairman, in response to that, we did get PRC comments last weck and we
sent revised plans in like three days in response to those comments. We sent revised plans
directly after the previous planning board meeting so and | understand that is the PRC stance and
Tam willing to address it and again, I generally agree on that in kind of broad preliminary terms
but I think the items that we are talking about are very detailed orientated but if the board feels
that these comments need to be 100 percent addressed before the board can be in a position to
act, then if that is the way the board is going, that is the way we will go.
With the variety of items that we see in here, and maybe some of them are not
so big.
I would argue that most are not, but a maintenance easement agreement needs to
be filed; access easement needs to be filed; these generally can not be done until the board
approves the project for the most part.
Like you said that one lot and reducing the size.
At the unit itself. We are not talking about making the size of the lot smaller .
There is a footprint area that they have to work with and that is one of sixty lots and generally,
we have to come to the town for building permits for every single unit that comes before or to
get built. So, again, I feel that the comments that were presented back to us were fairly minor,
and ones that we are 100 percent confident that can be addressed with town staff but if this board
would rather us come back in a couple of weeks with these addressed, we can do that.
Are there certain ones that you have reservations about?
| don’t have reservations with them it is just that the comments are more
statements of fact, some of them. An easement needs to be filed, a S-aere maintenance
agreement needs to be put in place and we agree. These are things that are typically are done
prior to planning board approval and they are typically things that the town won't accept mylars
for signature unul you have proved that you have addressed these things but again, it’s already
the first weck of May. We have been blessed with some nicer winters but traditionally, it is a
short building season and the last thing that we want to do is delay this and have the site work be
done in the fall wet months so.
Understood. Go to the next one, number 37, stormwater, and maintenance
agreement 1s to be provided. Well, that is all paperwork. It nceds to be addressed.
Pg. 57 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Understood and like I said, it’s typically how this board always handled comments
of that nature is that would be a condition of approval. Traditionally there have been a number
of conditions that the board would place and the outstanding comment letter being one of those
conditions and we have no problem accepting those conditions.
We have given approvals. Final approvals subject to this and that but one or
(wo items is not a big deal. I think this is a first, the first that I have seen with comments right
here...
I think that they said it was created a house ago.
It is whatever is, | don’t know this is based on the last submittal. I don’t
know what Is was....
Right, which we submitted on Friday. (BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING)
Ok, so lets cut to the chase. How about we do this, if you can get the stuff all
done and have all these reds turned to black again, sort of speak. In two wecks, get it in ahead of
lime and show it on your drawings, show the board what you are doing so on and so forth and
anything that needs to be showing on the drawing, present it and then we will have another
meeting on it. OK.
Understood.
I don’t want to hold you up, but we don’t want to catch anything from
aANyOnc.
RESOLUTION 24-0016 John Kosel made a motion to TABLED
APPLICATION TO MAY 21, 2024 SPECIAL
MEETING which was seconded by Derek Meixcll.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr, Meixell AYE
Mr, Casciani AYE
Mr, Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
I do have a question. One of the things I was reading though, was I know in
the past you said OK one owner and everything and you are not going to nced an HOA but are
you going to file an offering plan with the State Attorneys Office justifying the reason for not
having the HOA?
Pg. 58 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Edon’t think there is any intent to do that.
Is it something that is required’?
No, it is all one common ownership as far as [ know and Lam not an attorney, an
HOA is not required.
I think it might be something you want to check because some of the stuff Iam
reading through applies that even know it is one ownership, there is a number of parcels that you
have and the road way is also going to be owned by, 800 PHILLIPS ROAD LLC has to have tax
number on it and all that INAUDIBLE but there is atso this offering plan that whether you are
going to have an HOA it has to be something filed with the Attorney General’s office.
J will take note of that and speak with Tom and then he can speak to his attorney.
I don’t know if it’s something... it talks about deminimis offering with
INAUDIBLE that INAUDIBLE, but this is not deminimis this is a large development and I think
it is something that needs to get resolved through the state Attorney General's office first before
we can say no HOA for this development particularly since all the people that are going to be in
these houses are going to have to be on somebody else's right of way, somebody else’s road, it’s
a private road. There has to be something in place that makes sure that road is maintained. It’s
hice to say it is all owned by the same person bul that doesn’t really mean anything.
Well, for a standard apartment complex INAUDIBLE (DEREK SPEAKING)
It is not an apartment complex.
Right but INAUDIBLE (DEREK SPEAKING)
This is a single-family subdivision.
Right and each unit is for rent and owned by INAUDIBLE (DEREK SPEAKING)
That has nothing to do with it, Just as a single-family subdivision is made up of
2-unit townhouses that are all on individual single-family parcels that doesn’t have access to a
public right of way, we talked about it. They only way you have it is that over land that is owned
by Mr. Thomas and his corporation, and my understanding of this regulation was whether or not
itis something that going to be needed because when those parcels are sold to somebody else ,
right in the middle of it you need the HOA, so you need to have documentation upfront justifying
that and having it signed off.
Mr. Anderson, we will look into that, and we will make sure we have a response to
that al our next meeting.
Pg. 59: May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
(SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE.SHOULD BE AT MIC) I did check with
the HOA, and you cannot have an HOA because they are all on INAUDIBLE.
Is that something verified through the town? We will have to research it
ourselves.
We are not looking to do anything that isn’t above the board, but we want to make
sure we are doing what must be done.
| am not an attorney, but | read through a bunch of stuff, and I sce this is the
middle of the requirement.
Ok, will check in on it to. Thank you, Mike, and Tom.
(Mark Giardina read the third application):
EMERALD HAIR SALON SIGN; Located at 790 Ridge Road. Applicant Samantha Reed is
requesting SIGN APPROVAL to allow a 10 SF building mounted facade sign and associated
tenant panel in an existing monument sign for a new salon business on a 1.2-acre parcel having
SBL # 079.17-1-15.1 located in a CO Commercial Outdoor Storage District under Section 265-
7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Samantha Reed and I am one of the co-owners of Emerald Hair
Salon over on Ridge Road. We are just looking to get the pre-existing sign for the previous salon
that has moved to another location and just change tt over to our own. We have temporary signs
up right now, but we would love to gel a permanent sign up as soon as we can.
It looks like you are just replacing it where there was a sign previously. 1s that
lit inside?
Yes, they are both lit and there is one on the side of the building and then there is
a pole sign in front of the building. So, both of them are lit. One is single sided, and one is double
sided.
Anybody have any issues with it?
Is it Emerald Salon or Evoke Salon?
It is Emerald Salon. Evoke was the salon that was previously there.
INAUDIBLE sign.
Look at your sercen, Itis the image at the bottom.
That's the sign”?
Pe. 60 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
That is an opaque white there?
It is not transparent; it is like a light green color but a paler background.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Samantha Reed for a 10
SF building mounted fagade sign and associated tenant panel in an existing monument sign for a
new salon business located at 790 Ridge Road on a 1.2-acre parcel having SBL #079.17-1-15.]
The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under Section
617.3(c)(9) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject
to further review.
RESOLUTION 24-0017 Derek Anderson made a motion fora TYPE H
SEQR which was seconded by John Kosel.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciant AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
RESOLUTION 24-0018 John Kosel made a motion for SIGN
APPROVAL Located at 790 Ridge Road.
Applicant Samantha Reed is requesting SIGN
APPROVAL to allow a 10 SF building mounted
fagade sign and associated tenant panel in an
existing monument sign for a new salon business
on a 1.2-acre parcel having SBL # 079.17-1-15.1
located in. a CO Commercial Outdoor Storage
District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the
Town of Webster which was seconded by Derek
Meixell.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malla AYE
Pg. 6L May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
(Mark Giardina read the fourth application):
WESTWOOD ESTATES SECTION 3: Located on the northwest corner of Schlegel and
Salt Roads, Applicant Mike D’ Amico is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL associated with the construction of 39 single family residences (36 fronting
Alyssa Way, 3 fronting on Schlegel Road) on a 47.1] |-acre parcet having SBL # 050.04- |-
72.001 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-0, 296-19,
and 350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing betore the board was Matt Tomlinson with Marathon Engineering representing the
owner and | also have Mike D'Amico Jr here with me as well. We have obviously been before
this board a number of times over the years for the overall preliminary and the first two sections
of this site plan. The graphic that is illustrated on the screen where it is outlined in red, is what we
are talking about now which would be the section 3 final approval that we are requesting . The
total subdivision just as a reminder to the board was approved at a 106 lots and 39 of those are in
this third section and in this section takes the dead end of Alyssa Lane all the way out to the
intersection on Schicgel Road to complete the road network and there will be three frontage parcels
on Schlegel as well towards the west side of the project.
Since we have been before this board last, in between sections 2 and 3 we have had numerous
meetings with town staff and progressed the discussions relative to culver to the stream crossing
that was always necessary as part of this section and that entailed quite a bit of coordination with
the Town Enginecr, town staff, and Town Highway Superintendent and the Sewer Department on
the sanitary sewer crossing of that stream and the culvert configuration and it also included us
reaching out to the US Army Corp of Engineers because we wanted to make sure that had Ps
dotted and T's crossed as it related to permitting for that culvert and we received the Army Corp,
which I believe was in the engineers report back in the first week of April which triggered us to be
able to come in for this approval here with the board.
We have received comments from both PRC as welt as Town Engineer and we responded in etter
form to those comments with no corresponding plans because we did not have adequate time to
update all of the plans so we understand based on the last conversation, we may be making another
irip to come back and see you which is OK. However, | would echo the majority of Mr. Ritchie's
comments related to casements and filing of that nature. Those are typically done once approval
granted because that is when comments are finalized for those, but we have recognized there are
several comments here that we have addressed, and I wanted to at least get a letter to the board for
discussion purposes in case there was anything that caught the boards eye relating to the actual
plan.
Pe. 62 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Iclid want to point out 2 or 3 of those comments that we have addressed in writing but just to flag
those for the board. Generally, | through 9 are very standard and straightforward items that get
done after approval such as casement filing, sequence of coordination with the town, sequence
with the construction and town. Obviously, we have a new roadway entrance onto the county road
being Schlegel, so we are coordinating with County DOT there and | have already received
comments from them.
Comments 9-12 are really specific to erosion control; stockpile locations and of course we will be
complying with all DEC regulations from stormwater permitting standpoint. This entire project
already has coverage through the DEC and the MS4 being the Town of Webster because as the
DEC developers took # look at this on a global scale if you will for the whole project because the
whole thing was designed with the cohesive treatment of stormwater so coverage for that already
exists however, we will be required to obtain a S-acre waiver. This section comprises of
approximately 16-acres of disturbance in total with some on various sides of the stream channel
and therefore will be very cognizant of working with town staff and town engineers department
during construction to ensure that all requirements are met.
The only real substance is related to the guard rail at the culvert, which Iam going to touch on in
a second and then also access to (he 7-acre open space. So, if we could switch to the grading plan
which is probably a couple sheets higher in the set (JOSH LOCATING THE PLANS ON THE
SCREEN) at the creek crossing, we are providing over a 100 feet in width on the west side of the
stream for access point and I believe that the specific open-space thal was mentioned is open-space
that is designated 3.1 which is to the cast side of Alyssa Way and you can sce south of the stream
there, we have left a gently graded slope for access with that width access of open space where it
touches the towns right of way is over 90 feet wide so we believe that there is substantial provision
mitde for access to that open space from the right of way consistent with the access points else
where which are anywhere from 30 feet up to 100 feet in width.
That brings me back to the guard rail discussion, the original design we extended culvert ends
outside of the right of way to provide adequate recommendations for clearance for shoulders with
minimal slope before we slope down to the culvert ends. If the town desires the guard rail to be
installed, we need to have a conversation with the Highway Department relative to that and the
guard rail may allow for slight shortening of that culvert which of course would make the Army
Corp very happy, but the intention would be to leave the design as is if guard rail goes in and it
restricts access to that open space and we would then have to explore either an easement between
lots ora different configuration to provide that open space. So, again, I just wanted to mention that
because we are cognizant of the comments received. So, with that, these were the primary
comments if you will that are going to take some addressing and | would be happy to answer any
other questions that the board may have related to the proposed plan.
Matt. on lot 318, can you move that down, (PLANS ON THE SCREEN) Were
iLcomes in on the wetland area, where ts the access there that goes into that open space. What am
I looking at.
Ps. 63 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Into the open space west and north of the property?
It was really narrow, really tight. | mean, if the town is going to take it and
mow it, it would be almost impossible thing to get into.
318 is on the north side (MEMBERS ON THE BOARD SPEAKING AT THE
SAME TIME) there is a total of 170 feet of that open space that covers the right of way that
provides access. Now the stream channel does encroach on a portion of that 116 feet but only 20-
30 feet of it ts encumbered by the stream so there is a significant width of open space that is
avatlable.
Ok, so for the town to go in there and mow or do whatever they have to do,
how would they get in there?
There is 116 feet there to add access there, so Lam not entirely sure
Ok.
Where is the 116 feet?
It is totally between lots 318 and
319. That entire width through is touching the
public right away which the town will own and maintain. So, anywhere along that strip the town
can enter the open space.
I don’t think that the concern on access was on that side of things because | believe
there are other access points from previous sections of the development (APPLICANT
SPEAKING OVER JOSH 32:24) It is really this open space here (SHOWING PLANS ON
SCREEN) this area adjacent to tributary near the culvert, that was the concern.
And again, that arca is 96 fect wide along the right of way and we have graded
that on 1 on 6 or | on 8 slope which is extremely traversable by mowers, walkers so I don’t know.
What is the width of the narrowest part?
I think that comes down to about 62 fect, but I can get that exact dimension in
the future.
That would be a good idea. Just mark that on there so that it is on the record.
Yes, we can do that. Itis definitely in access of the 30-foot strips that are provided
IANUDIBLE open space.
Looking at it, i looks narrow, and you know how steep that slope is.
Pg. 64 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Yes, its pretty flat for section 2 there. We can provide additional detail for that
as well.
OK.
Can I suggest that you talk to Pat and get the plans in before the PRC meeting
on the 16" of May so that it can be addressed by the Highway Superintendent in advance of that
mecting and the plan reflect of what he would like to see,
Absolutely. Yes, it sounds like this board is having a special meeting and I don’t
know if we can resolve it or not.
We don’t want to leave these plans just hanging out there and make them all
subject to this and that it has caused problems. So, if we can get it all compiled and it’s done and
everything is on there, everyone is ok with it, and it’s signed and done. Again, like I just said
before, ] think this board is willing to have an extra meeting just to help you guys get through this
stuff .
I appreciate that. Was the question about access to open space also from the
Highway Department and is that who | should talk to about and making sure they are satisfied?
Yes
On that particular open space, you have the creek that cuts right through it, how are
they accessing it? The eastern part of that.
| don’t know if there is a desire lo access it or a need to.
How is it going to be maintained?
| don’t know the towns plans for maintenance of open space. I think there is
discussion about dedicating that to the town, but it is not intended to be continually mowed to my
understanding.
So, another words there is no access to that side?
We are not providing deeded access to the other side of the creck. That would
have had to been done in Section 2 if that was requested because there is no portion of the section
three lots that boarder the other side of the creek for that open spacc. So, 1 don’t know all of the
conversations that happened when Section 2 was approved but that was not something that was
requested or required at that point. | don’t know what the intention was for that open space, but it
has been a couple years since this board has seen it.
Ok, so you can address any of those comments that need to be addressed.
Pg. 65 May 7, 2024 Planning Mecting
The plan changes are the ones that | highlighted, and we will work with the
Highway Department and the Town Engineer to resolve and again the casements; signatures and
those kinds of things those are done after approval and prior to filing subdivision maps,
Matt, can you clarify the other open space area that is behind the homes that front on
Schlegel. That 1s land that is proposed to be dedicated to the town as well?
| don’t know that I have a 100% .... meaning is it designated as open space in the
overall plan, yes it was. That is correct and the access to that would obviously be off of Schlegel
for the portion that touches the right of way. That was designated as open space 3.32 on the
original overall approvals,
Ok, so you want to table it to May 21?
Not unless you are willing to give approval now.
Well, we could but then dealing with everything else.
Ok, | understand. [ don’t anticipate any issues trying to resolve with Pat and with
he Town Engineer and Josh and we plan on being back on the 21%.
Ok.
RESOLUTION 24-0019 John Kosel made a motion to TABLED
APPLICATION TO MAY 21, 2024 SPECIAL
MEETING which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson
Mr. Kosel
Mr. Malta
Mr. Meixell
Mr. Casciani
Mr. Giardina
Mrs. Maltiman
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
Pg. 66 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting
Minutes were approved for April 9, 2024 (Giardina/Koscl)
With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight's
meeting al 7:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
sun LM Dirt din Ls
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
MAY 22°24 Py 12:56
FILED WEESTER TWN CLK
Nous . my KA. Magn
Pe. 67 May 7, 2024 Planning Meeting