I want a pop of which, followed by a Pledge of Allegiance.
At Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, several of our U.S. battleships were destroyed.
Six months later, between June 3rd and June 6th, 1942, our aircraft carriers, which were not at Pearl Harbor at the time of the surprise attack,
engaged the bulk of the Japanese Imperial fleet at the Battle of Midway.
Based on the breaking of the Japanese code, Admiral Nimitz committed our entire carrier
force, which was outnumbered 2 to 1, by Admiral Yamamoto's fleet.
This naval battle fought almost entirely with aircraft in which the United States destroyed
Japan's first-line carriers.
Never again would Japan push eastward toward the United States.
The Battle of Midway was a turning point in World War II.
We honor those soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who fought so valiantly 75 years ago today,
and we continue to be ever grateful for their service and sacrifice.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of the United States.
If I could just add, there was a local person that fought in that battle named McCluskey.
When I saw the movie in midway quite some time ago, he got a mention on it.
He was also mentioned in the Buffalo News recently.
Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
Supervisor Weinstein.
Present.
Deputy Supervisor Sanders.
Present.
Council Member Popovich.
Present.
Council Member Backeye.
Present.
Council Member Spultz.
Present.
Everybody is present.
We have a quorum.
Minutes approval of Monday, May the 8th.
And I so move.
Second.
All in favor of the minutes.
Please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carriage unanimously.
Proclamation and announcements.
Okay.
First, proclamation announcement.
We have summer 2017, Amherst Youth and Recreation.
There's a whole bunch of them off to the side.
And we started the process to print up new public parks maps.
And out of the woodwork came two boxes that we had not distributed.
So we've got a few hundred of these public parks map select.
Anyone who wants them can take either one.
It's Mike Delemiere here.
Mike Delemiere is our energy manager.
I called him today to ask how our Solarize campaign was going.
He said we had nine contracts from two of the vendors, the third vendor he had not spoken to.
So,
we need one more to qualify and apply to NYSERDA for a grant.
$250,000.
Yes.
Public hearings.
The first public hearing resolution 670 is on parking and restriction, time changes,
and ISO move.
Second.
All in favor of opening the first public hearing, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carriage unanimously.
Public
hearings are characterized by a presenter. In this case, it'll be traffic and safety from the town engineering department and then an opportunity for a rebuttal if there is one and then an opportunity for anyone in the audience to speak on the topic of the public hearing for three minutes.
After that, we will close the public hearing and town board will get an opportunity to ask questions following that.
that sometimes the town board votes, sometimes they set a decision date.
So with that, Chris.
Good evening, members of the town board. Chris Schragel,
traffic safety coordinator with the town.
First public hearing before you tonight is in reference to a parking restriction time
change on Mona and Jasper drives.
The resolution reads that the parking restriction on the south side of Mona Drive
between and including 170 Mona Drive and the west curb line of Egret Road
is hereby changed to restrict parking between the hours of 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays only
and the parking restriction on the west and north sides of Jasper in their entirety is
hereby changed to restrict parking between the hours of 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays
only.
This request came to us from a Mona Drive resident where it was reviewed at two concurrent
In current meetings, March and April 2017, Jasper and Mona are located in the southwest corner of the town of Amherst,
bounded by Egret Road on the east and the city of Buffalo Line to the west and south.
Mona and Jasper drives our local highways, speed limit posted at 30 miles per hour,
with a width of 30 feet with upright curves.
The major difference between the two is the lack of a sidewalk along Jasper Drive on both sides as well as a 90 degree curve on Jasper Drive.
Park restrictions are already in place. We're put in in response to some Buffalo VA hospital overflow parking.
Look to the very left of the screen. You'll notice the VA hospital is located in the city of Buffalo just outside the town of Amherst Boundary.
Like I said, there's some existing parking restrictions already in place.
Those are indicated as red and blue lines on the screen.
Those in red are no parking anytime.
No vehicles can park in there at any point, weekdays and weekends.
Those in blue are no parking weekdays only,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. emphasis on the 9 a.m.
is what we're potentially changing tonight.
The resident concern was brought forth to the Traffic Safety Board and reviewed in March.
The original request was to modify the parking restriction in front of 136 Mona Drive.
That was to accommodate an in-home daycare business.
The business owner asked that parking be modified in some way to help out the parents and therapists
that occasionally visit that in-home daycare location.
Ultimately, the Traffic Safety Board ended up holding this item
to obtain additional feedback from all the residents on Mona and Jasper Drive.
Everybody was invited to the April meeting where it was discussed again.
This photograph is driving westbound on Mona, just shy of the Jasper Road.
North is to the right of your screen.
You will note that the VA hospital parking ramp was completed within the last couple years is at the end of that street.
And you've got parking vehicles currently on Mona Drive before or around the time of 9 a.m.
During the discussion, it was discovered that VA staff were still parking on Mona Drive before 9 a.m.
And residents were cleared that they did not want the parking removed on Mona.
They cited a couple concerns that on-street parking blocks driveways obstructs vision when backing out and prevents garbage collection.
Majority of the residents present at that meeting voiced a need to extend the parking restriction hours to cover an earlier VA hospital shift starting at 6 a.m. on weekdays only.
That is what, before you, the Traffic Safety Board essentially mimicked that with a recommendation to change all partner
restriction signs on both Mona and Jasper drives that currently state 9 to 4 to now read 6 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Again, that's all areas that are highlighted in blue.
At this point, I'll open up for comments and questions.
Thank you, Chris. This is the opportunity for anyone in the audience to address this parking proposal.
Come up here. Come back to the podium.
Thanks so much for letting me speak. My name is John Somasi.
We purchased in 1977 our house at 110 Jasper Drive, and we've lived there ever since.
I don't know about Mona. We get on the street quite often, but I cannot speak to their dilemma.
We do not have a problem on Jasper Drive. And in fact, for many, many years, especially now after the VA has completed their parking ramp,
The only people that I see parking on Jasper are residents.
And I'm very, very concerned if this draconian...
I will not characterize it in that manner.
If the parking restrictions are increased,
well, we were hoping, and many of the people living there were hoping,
that it would simply go away.
In fact, for many years it wasn't enforced.
Instead of that now, we are seeing that apparently the new timelines are going to catch us all in a web of the local shondom, which I hope does not happen.
We don't need it. I would hope that somehow the safety board or whomever is in charge of that kind of thing can reevaluate this.
And if Mona has a problem, then address Mona, but we don't have a problem on Jasper.
I'd be glad to do a survey on my street if that could be helpful to you folks making that
decision or not.
But I want to speak against it.
Could you please give us some relief on that?
Thank you.
Sir, did you express your opinion before the Traffic and Safety Board?
I had a wonderful conversation with a very kind gentleman as we came in.
And so he's aware of our opinions that my wife and I did.
But prior to that, I'm sorry that we were on vacation and we're not here doing any other meeting.
So we didn't have an opportunity to.
Yes.
My name is Herb Glose and I live at 156 Mona Drive, which is for the west end.
It's west of Jasper.
I was at the parking board and I spoke in favor of increasing
the parking limitations as were described from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m.
As recently as this morning, as I was leaving for work at 7 o'clock,
there was the daily parking of cars in front of my house.
House starts close to the corner of Lebron, works its way towards Jasper and eventually gets past Jasper.
There are cars turning around, hurrying to get to work.
There's school buses. There are people walking their dogs.
There's people pulling out of their driveways.
There's the garbage collection issues on Wednesday.
It's become a real problem.
I don't know why the hospital can't accommodate parking,
but it's clear that all these folks are rushing in parking at 7 in the morning
and coming back, because I had a meeting this morning, I came back at 8.55
and all of those people were rushing back to their cars, making three-point turns,
turning around in driveways and going over to the VA hospital.
So I'm not sure what the problem is, but it's a very dangerous and hazardous situation
for those of us that live on Mona.
Summer's coming, the windows are open, there's the noise, there's people talking,
people getting in and out of their cars. As I said, there's school buses, there's children getting the buses,
and there are folks walking their dogs. But just getting in and out of the driveway has become a dangerous situation
with cars parked up and down. So I am in favor of the recommendation that the parking board has made.
And again, I live at 156 Mona since 1986. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Okay.
All in favor of closing the public hearing please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carriage and Amnesty.
I've got a question, Chris.
Sure.
If we do the restriction, as proposed, on Mona Drive, but not on Jasper, would we be just
moving them into the problem?
Yeah, and that was the fear by the traffic safety board.
You never know until you do it.
I mean, the board has historically pushed, unintentionally pushed traffic problems
on to the next street, and that's what they're fearful of in this situation.
I don't know if the staff members will walk that far, especially with Jasper not having
any sidewalks.
I just don't know.
This Mona and Jasper restriction, as it currently stands, has been in from what I
hear for over 40 years.
So it must have been a large problem to expand out that far initially, whether
or not we have that problem today.
Day post parking ramp installation is hard to tell.
I mean, you see the extent, it's about seven to eight vehicles per day before 9 a.m.
Whether or not they'll move, I don't know.
Questions, soundboard.
So my first question with Mr. Lowe seemed to answer was whether these cars were moving at 9 a.m.
I mean they're coming there before 9 a.m. parking for a couple hours and then and then going where to the ramp
I mean to do we have an idea where they're worth the coins and why don't they just go there in the first place
Wouldn't be a pain in the neck to have to
The traffic safety board surmised that it might be the late shift, the third shift that
we're parking up until nine, and that's why they shifted it to six, but I don't know if
they're moving their cars at nine.
Has the VA been involved in these conversations at all as far as where their staff are parking?
We've contacted them on three different occasions. They've indicated that the ramp is three
stories, a large one floor being subgrade. The first two floors are for patients, the
top one for specialized employees. Beyond that, they have a ride-sharing lot, and then
they have a lot, apparently, in UB that they shuttle from. On the phone, they've indicated
that they have no control of their staff, so they want to seek on-street parking
elsewhere. And they've also indicated that they have no objection to increasing
the parking restrictions around their facility and encourage police enforcement.
Okay, I mean, I guess, because one of my concerns is simply the person who, you know,
in the summertime wants to park their car on the street and doesn't go to work till 7 o'clock in the morning.
Now from 6 to 7, their car is in violation. I mean, that doesn't...
I mean, theoretically, that's not the car you're worried about, but now you're going to be penalizing residents
at the same time you're trying to avoid...
Yeah, I don't understand. Primarily the people that showed up to the Traffic Safety Board lived on this side.
The first resident spoke to you, happens to live closer to Egert.
You know, the way this resolution was written, to speak on what Barry Weinstein was referring to,
is it's broken up into two parts should the board want to break it up and amend,
removing the second paragraph of that and leaving Jasper alone for the time being,
potentially even reviewing it in a future Traffic Safety Board.
The Town Board has the ability to do that tonight.
At the Traffic Safety Board public hearing, I mean, did you get a feeling from other Jasper residents that they wanted?
There was only, I think, one or two Jasper residents present, and they happened to live on this end.
So they would be directly impacted should the problem shift or move to Jasper.
We did not have good representation on the east end.
Any more questions?
Could we split this in part by leaving the parking restriction on Jasper?
Were the...
Just delete the second pair.
I was thinking of...
Go back to the picture.
The map.
Leave the parking restriction over here.
Yes.
I believe so, unless the town attorney wants to chime in, but I think it was advertised the
entire way so you can't increase the action, but you could cut off, and that's what you're
doing there.
I don't have these addresses to cite, but perhaps you could say right at the corner.
I'm fearful that if the perpendicular part is removed, people will start parking there
and they'll go right down Jasper.
I just want to make sure you understand that the current parking restriction will still
be in place.
The one from nine to four,
I'll make a motion to do just that change the parking restriction
on moment drive and Jasper for the vertical component, the north side, okay, the lead
to Jasper.
Supervisor wants to leave in just the north-south component of Jasper and the east-west leg
would be without.
The left, the horizontal part, the east to west, the east to west.
Yes.
There's over there.
So you want to delete the east to west portion of Jasper Drive.
Yes. Okay.
So basically you want to amend this to say the parking restriction on the west on the west side of Jasper Drive.
So if we just take out the north side of Jasper Drive.
That'll work. Okay.
Okay.
Okay. Okay. That's that's a motion second.
Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of the compromise parking restriction.
Please say aye. Opposed.
Carriage unanimously motion to open the next public hearings.
15 North Forest Road removal of due to restrictions.
All in favor. Please say aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
Do we have a lawyer?
No.
Woefully unprepared.
No, we have to have separate public hearings.
Meeting board members, Supervisor Weinstein, Elizabeth Holmes of Barclay Damon here on
behalf of Core Spaces, I along with my colleague, Jeffrey Palumbo, are here with Dan Flauberg
of Core Spaces.
We're here on two different applications this evening relative to the properties
at 2,915, 25, and 49 North Forest Road.
If it's okay with the board, I will kind of consolidate our presentation
so you don't have to listen to me twice. The first presentation tonight
is relative to restrictions on the property.
Core Spaces is looking at property at 2,915 through 2,949 North Forest Road.
It's three separate parcels. It's about a 6.47 acre parcel
located close to the Audubon Parkway and the 990, it's currently zoned NCDGC.
The public hearings set for this evening are for the removal of a restriction with respect
to all free parcels that limit its use to office facilities only, and the special
use permit request will allow course spaces to locate a dormitory in an NCD zoned district.
Just a little bit of information about the applicant before we move on.
Core Spaces is a nationwide development and management company
that specializes in privately owned student housing.
They have projects all over the country and they are focusing
this current application on supporting UB North Campus
in the town of Amherst. That's just an aerial of the
parcel, all three parcels there in the proposed type plan. You can move on
to the next slide please.
And those are the three individual parcels
that require the removing of the office facility restriction.
So just a little bit of information on the zoning history
for all three parcels, 2925 and 2949 were rezoned
from NCDSA to GC in 1989, February 16th planning board
resolution, which recommended the rezoning with the condition that we're requesting removal of tonight.
Town Board approval on April 3rd of 1989, 1987 was the rezoning of 2915 North Forest.
Same restriction was imposed by the planning board and voted on by the town board.
Just a little bit about the project details.
The proposed project is a student housing development.
It'll be one four-story building with up to 155 units, approximately 476 beds at this time.
About 300 parking spaces, some above ground, some below ground.
Square footage is 40,732, a little less than an acre.
And of course it will serve the UB North Campus, which is under two miles from the project site.
And again, these are high-end luxury apartments with full service amenities
and state of the art security.
And what's unique about core spaces is they not only develop the project,
but they manage it as well, so it's very streamlined.
This is the proposed site plan.
As you can see, there's a sidewalk on the lower end,
which is a recommendation of the planning board.
We have implemented that.
Of course, this is a concept plan.
If you will, we have not proceeded to site plan approval yet.
And
just some statistics with respect to the need for the student-run housing.
Core Spaces did their own independent study with respect to UB,
and the study produced some positive key trends of enrollment growth and low part-time students.
So, obviously, without a low part-time percentage,
the full-time students are going to be looking for housing.
The 2016 occupancy rate was at 95.8% and is increasing.
The 2016 rent cost per bed is fairly high and also increasing.
So the study essentially produced information that the performance is anticipated to continue trending above the historical averages,
which provides the need for the private housing.
This is a passing study and if you look in the upper left-hand corner, that is the proposed project.
Just to give you an idea of the area.
And then there are a couple slides that just have some conceptual exterior and interior renderings for your information.
And these are actual apartments, existing apartments, just to give you an idea of what the inside will look like.
The
special use permit that we're requesting is required pursuant to Chapter 203, Section 525 of the Town of Amherst Zoning Code.
It only permits dormitories to locate within an NCD district with the issuance of a special use permit by the Town Board.
There are seven criteria that the Town Board is asked to review and analyze in issuing the special use permit, which I have set forth here.
I'll go through them quickly. They should be on campus or within two miles of the institution.
We're located approximately one mile from UB North Campus borders.
They're required to have clear and safe pedestrian bicycle and vehicular connections to the campus.
We've already kind of discussed that and gone through that at the planning board stage.
And CORE has agreed to connect the dormitory to the existing Audubon bike path on the North Forest side.
And we are currently in talks with the university for the approval of a shuttle drop-off and pickup between the project site and UB North Campus.
And that's just an indication of the existing bike path. So if you look at the circle in the upper portion of the slide, that's where we would be located.
So we're in close proximity to the existing bike path and site plan stage will work with planning to facilitate an appropriate connection to the existing bike path.
Off
-Street parking I've already discussed. Well, actually I don't think I've discussed it.
476 beds to 300 parking spaces meets the requirements set forth in Chapter 203 of the code.
And we of course will work with planning with any parking adjustments that they would request.
The dormitory will not create traffic and circulation, conflicts or congestion.
We're proposing four means of ingress and egress to North Forest and Bryant Woods South.
We did have a traffic study done and it found that the project would result in an imperceptible impact on operating conditions.
They requested minor signal modifications and CORE has no problem facilitating that as well.
It will not create a concentration of dormitories and it will not adversely impact surrounding neighborhoods.
As I indicated, it's close to the Lockport Expressway.
It's surrounded by mainly commercial uses.
The planning board and their unanimous recommendation found that the proposal is consistent with the town's comprehensive plan.
And I believe they've also issued a recommendation in support of the special use permit,
which has a positive finding with respect to this criteria.
Substantial landscape buffers, if located in close proximity to a residential neighborhood,
we are not in that category, but of course we'll work with planning with respect to any landscaping
and buffering that they require at site plan review.
And the last criteria is just that the density, height, and layout is consistent with the surrounding development
as well as the principles of the NCD.
As indicated, there are a number of three and four story buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.
There are a few in here that we specifically set forth.
And I think that we attached in our application a number of photographs that indicate that our proposal is in line with the surrounding neighborhood.
Same with density and design.
Agency comments. We've received project approvals from the town attorney building department and fire safety and the planning board stage.
Department of Public Works, we received an approval on March 14th of 2017 based on our traffic impact submission.
We've also secured an agreement to purchase a .28 acre parcel from the Audubon Association,
which is really what facilitates our ability to provide access from Bryant Wood South.
So we're in the process of finalizing that contract.
We did have a wetland delineation performed.
There are two wetlands on the site.
Scott Livingstone of EDI performs a delineation.
he is confident that one of the two wetlands will be determined to be non-jurisdictional.
There is a chance that the larger of the two wetlands may be determined to be jurisdiction.
And if needed, we will secure the property permitting. We are currently in communications
with the Army Corps. We are waiting for them to assign the project to an investigator so
that they can go out and map the site. We're hopeful that and understand that we need
that finalized before the site plan approval. We had a geotech report gone and an archaeological
assessment, all positive findings with respect to supporting the project.
DEC comments we received at the planning board stage, and we'll address them.
So the long and short of it is there are no negative environmental or municipal
implications associated with our request tonight for the removal of the restrictions.
And again, we received unanimous recommendation of approval from the planning board
back in March. They did have some conditions associated with their approval,
which we are more than happy to comply with.
And again, the May 30th, 2017 recommendation
from the Planning Department with respect to the special use permit
finds that we are in conformity with all of the relevant criteria
that this board should review and analyze with respect to the special use permit application.
So in conclusion, we're requesting that the board issue a negative declaration,
remove the office building restrictions from all three parcels
and issue the special use permit pursuant to the code.
With that, I'll open it up to any questions.
As Linda Liz indicated, I'm Jeff Columbo with Barquay Day.
And I just wanted to highlight a couple more things that Liz touched upon.
I think it's important to note that respect to the wetland issue,
CORE has gone out of their way to design around the wetlands.
So the design that you see this evening does not impact the wetlands.
It is possible after the Army Corps of Engineers completes their review, as Liz indicated,
we have filed our permit application and our jurisdictional delineation, and it's possible
that they may disagree somewhat.
If they do, we redesign the plan, or we go ahead with the permit application.
So they're doing everything they can to avoid the wetlands.
And further confirmation of that is the fact that they are spending a lot of money
to do underground parking. You don't often see that underground parking in the town of Amherst,
but they have agreed to do underground parking here again primarily to avoid the wetlands.
So this is a company that does this on campuses throughout the country in Arizona and South
Carolina and Ohio State and so on and so forth who have come to the town of Amherst
to do this development, which we believe will add significantly to the area. It's an area on
North Forest Road that's been just ignored essentially for years. It's
vacant property and we think that it's the appropriate place to put this given
the location of the University of Buffalo. So we thank you and look forward to
your approvals this evening. Thank you. Anyone from the audience like to address the
board?
My name's Warren Clark. I'm the president of the Better Business Bureau
serving upstate New York. Our address is 100 Bryant Woods South. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. Nine years ago, the Better
Business Bureau spent over a million dollars to build a building in an office
park to maintain an office structure where we could have an office
environment. I do not believe that this project is the least bit compatible with
that. You have property values. Every Monday morning we read in the
paper about what's going on around the South Campus and I don't want to
to wake up and have my people have to clean up on Monday mornings for parties that students
have had. In addition, the other neighbors that these folks say are not that their building
is compatible with, everyone else in that area are seniors. I have a mother-in-law who
lives in one of the assisted living facilities, and besides that, they say that there's
not going to be a traffic impact. North Forest Road is two lanes. It takes me 15 minutes to
get from my house at Sheridan and Hopkins to my office on North Forest Road right now.
You can't tell me that 300 or more additional cars is not going to impact that. In addition,
they talked about the four stories being compatible with the surrounding environment.
The nearest four-story building that I'm aware of is the building at the corner of North Forest and Audubon, which is a substantial distance away.
I ask that you not grant them the right to make this anything other than an office park. Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Keith Bookbinder.
Could I ask for the slide with the site plan to be put up one more time?
It would be possible for me to just...
Okay. The sign that I just am giving the board a copy of says,
Bryant Woods Office Park, and that sign exists right at the corner of North Forest
and Bryant Woods South currently.
So right up there is North Forest Curves around to the top.
I can tell you that when we went to build our building
and invest a significant amount of money in our project,
we too were interested in the parcel of land there
because it was an office park.
And if I can tell you also if it said that it was
office, park, and student housing,
we would not have built there.
And I don't think any of the other people there
would have built there also.
The building to the lower right, that happens to be our building.
And when you talk about the relief of conditions, it says the proposed use will be consistent with the scale of surrounding land uses on this portion of North Forest.
I don't know exactly what that means, but I can tell you the four-story structure will stick out like a sore thumb in that area,
because every other building on Brian Woods North and Brian Woods South are only one story.
And again, student housing does not belong in an office park,
and I think that if any of you had made the investment to move your business
and to build a building in that area, you also would not want to see that kind of development
right next door to your building and your business. Thank you very much.
What
damage will be done to the company that wants to build there?
Is it so important to them that, I mean, if they didn't, they would dissolve or break up?
No. I wouldn't give anybody a special ticket to do something if it really isn't going to mean a real tragic end
into that company. So this is not a tragic kind of fail and get this. So you go along
with that. If it was a tragedy or something, then maybe a special, okay, what I call a
ticket, but it is a tragedy. They can find some place else. Thank you very much.
Good evening, Don Smith. Quick question for the board here.
Will this project, if it is denied at this meeting,
will they have the opportunity to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
and ask for a reversal at the Zoning Board of Appeals level?
Have they been there already?
Recent activities there have shown that some of the resolutions
that this board has passed have been reversed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
So my question for you, is this a candidate or has it already been to the zoning board of appeals?
Thank you very much.
Judy Ferraro, 213, Donna Lee.
Removal of deed restrictions on a parcel of Greenland, really.
More green space destroyed for student housing, really.
Are you aware that according to experts that you have hired, Amherst is built out.
We do not need more student housing, hotels, business offices, the list goes on.
We need redevelopment.
Do not allow more green space, wetlands, wildlife habitats, residential neighborhoods
to continue to be destroyed for the simple reason of making rich cronies richer.
Thank you.
I'd
like to address the board.
Where do we finish the public portion?
My name's Mary Shapiro for the record.
I'm a member of the planning board,
but I'm not speaking for them tonight,
speaking for myself.
I have no view one way or the other on this.
However, I would like you to take into account
the recent fatal accident on North French
as well as the pedestrian fatal incidents on Niagara Falls Boulevard. That's five people within the past three years.
And I'd like you to consider whether there is a safe route for those people to UB. Thank you.
Anyone
else like to address the board on this public hearing? In a few minutes we're going to have another public hearing which is going to be identical.
anyone else? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Second.
All in favor of closing the public hearing, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Carried unanimously.
Jeff, you wanted to make a comment, and then we're going to move on.
Yes, I did. Thank you. I just want to point out a couple of things.
Number one, this is not a rezoning.
The property is zoned properly for student housing.
The only question is that restriction that was placed on a number of years ago with
respected office use only. So this is not a rezoning. Number two, it's compliant with
the master plan. Student housing fits with the master plan on this site. Fits perfectly
with it. In fact, the planning board's recommendation included a summary to you that supports
that position that this plan is in conformity with the master plan. Number three, with
respect to the issue of traffic, there aren't going to be 300 cars there. There's
going to be bikes, there's going to be people that walk. We have numbers that were submitted
as part of the traffic study. In the morning, the peak hour that we anticipate exiting the
site to go to the school is approximately 77 in a peak hour. In the PM, the peak hour
is 100. So we're not talking about a mass exodus all at once. We have classes that
go on throughout the day at the university, so people are not all leaving at the same
time and they're not all coming back at the same time, obviously.
And again, as I've indicated, many of them bite, many of them walk.
In terms of security, this company knows what they're doing.
They've done it as I've indicated throughout the country.
They take care of security.
They do background checks.
If there are any problems, there's a zero tolerance policy in effect with these places.
So we have that under control.
And again, I would ask you to support the recommendation that was made by the planning board unanimously.
Thank you. Okay. If it meets with the board's approval, I would like to have the second public hearing and then have a consideration of the board wants to vote on both of them.
With everyone's approval.
Question. Do you want to do all of our questions?
Oh, I thought we asked our questions.
No, you asked the question.
Oh.
Why don't we have the second public hearing and the board can ask their questions for both of them?
Okay.
Is that okay?
Make a motion to open the next public hearing on this site.
Thank you.
All in favor, open in the public hearing, please say aye.
Opposed, carries an answer. Did you want to do another presentation, Jeff?
This is actually your opportunity now to talk.
I would like the board to incorporate all of the statements and presentation that we made at the first public hearing.
We could certainly go through it again, but for the record, I will just make a few comments that we've already made.
Number one is that the property is zoned properly for this use, the student housing use.
We are compliant with the master plan. We have a unanimous, which is very rare,
a unanimous approval from the planning board asking you to remove this restriction to allow the student housing to take place.
We have a company that is proficient at what they do.
You can check their records. You can check online and talk about problems.
This is not a situation that they have at the South Campus at University of Buffalo.
This is a contained facility. It's a secure building.
There's blocks. There's keypads.
There's all kinds of things that keep strangers out of the building
and keep the residents in the building.
In terms of the traffic numbers, again, it's a very minor traffic impact,
given the fact that there are students here that use transportation facilities other than vehicles.
So for the record,
The morning we're talking about 77 cars, and in the evening peak hour we're talking about 100 cars returning in that one hour.
So this is not a significant impact, and that was confirmed by both the Traffic and Safety Committee and the county in their review of the documents.
So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. We also have a representative here from CORE.
Or if you'd like any more detail on what they do and how they do it, be happy to allow them to make that presentation.
This is the public portion.
Okay, this is the public portion of the second public hearing on this site. Does anyone want to address the board?
I would. Thank you.
First of all, it can't be zoned properly if there's a restriction on it.
So that is just a semantic. It's a silly use of words.
Second of all, there's no guarantee that there's going to be 77 cars.
There are 450 students there. Many of them could wind up with classes at the same time coming and going.
So this is just a guess at somebody, and they're guessing with our investment and other investment of business owners in that area.
I think this is wrong. North Forest Road is two lanes total, not in each direction.
Bryant Wood South is a curvy road as is north.
There's just no room to have 500 kids,
and I don't care how good these people are at controlling their own people with access.
There are going to be people on our front lawns and making a mess,
and their friends are going to come and visit, and these people can't control that.
And I ask you to please consider those of us that have already made our investments
and planted our roots in this area. Thank you.
This is the public portion.
I want to make, I'm Jeff Goode at 17 Roman Lane.
I wasn't here for this particular item,
but I want to make one small comment on the traffic study issue.
I work on the UB North Campus,
and one thing that's very clear is that the kind of drivers
who are 18 to 22-year-olds that you have drive differently
and much less safely, especially when they're late for class,
than the kinds of drivers who are usually going to an office park.
So I usually try to get to campus very early
and park far away from them specifically so I cannot be around people swerving in or out.
So I don't know what the traffic study did, but did it take into account the nature of
these particular drivers?
Thank you.
Anyone else from the public light, please ask the board on this issue.
If there'd be no one else, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Second.
Well, I'm closing the second public hearing on this site.
Please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carriage and Amazon.
Town board.
Go ahead.
I have a few questions. The relief of the condition is because of offices.
Correct.
My second question is in regards to vegetation. In the large packet that the board received,
it says the proposed development will consume nearly the entire site, allowing virtually
No existing vegetation to remain, but then in our board packet we have something that
says, number two, the action will not result in the removal of destruction of large quantities
of vegetation or fauna.
So which is it?
Are we destroying everything or are we keeping it?
Well, we certainly aren't destroying everything because we're leaving the wetland area,
so it's the latter rather than the former.
As you can see from the plan, the existing wetlands that are marked on the plan will
remain as is. They will not be removed. So all of that will be green area.
Okay. So it's partially.
Yeah. Well, certainly we will be removing
the green space to the extent that we build the building and the infrastructure,
but we'll be leaving, you know,
a substantial portion of it far more than what is typically required.
Okay. The third thing, there was a statement
somewhere here in our packet of information about right away.
The engineering department wants an easement for the sanitary sewer.
Does that just want to confirm that?
Correct. We will have to access Bryant Wood South for our sewer,
so we will provide an easement.
And we also, as Liz indicated, purchased a 15-foot strip of land
from the Audubon Association.
They held 15 feet back on our side of Bryant Wood South.
We're purchasing that property and the sewer will run through there to Brian Wood south with an easement as requested by the engineering department
In the March 16th packet. We received the fire chiefs was still pending
But the attorney mentioned fire safety
You saying fire safety and fire chiefs are the same thing or is it something I have not seen a comment from the fire chief
They were waiting for their in the March 16th packet it says the Audubon
Amendment table pending reviews the Highway Department the Fire Chiefs
Association and the Army Corps of Engineers and it was that tabling was
resolved with the letter from the fire and safety approving the plan and the
Army Corps the Army Corps of Engineers has our delineation that was
prepared by Earth Dimensions. It was assigned to Molly Conerton from the Corps, and then
Molly Conerton was reassigned elsewhere in the State, and it's being reassigned to someone
else that we've been trying to find out who, but it hasn't been reassigned yet.
So what will happen is whoever ends up reviewing this from the Army Corps of Engineers will
do one of two things. They'll either agree with the delineation that was prepared by
Earth dimensions, or they will disagree. If they disagree and indicate that there are more wetlands than what we've proposed,
then we will modify the plan accordingly. So you haven't heard from the Army Corps yet?
We have not heard yet from the Army Corps, which again is not unusual at this stage. We would certainly have to at the site plan stage.
Now, you mentioned underground parking and how many spaces are for underground parking?
It's 190 for the underground parking, 110, I believe, on top, yes.
And then the zoning, I know you said it didn't, but on page 3 of 13 in here, your form, it says,
it talks about zoning.
Is the use permitted or allowed by a special condition, yes.
Is the zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?
Newmark, yes, on the forum.
Originally when we became involved with this, we had met with the planning department.
And the planning department's maps indicate this was not rezoned.
And the reason for that was that the deed restrictions that we talked about
that limited it to office had never been recorded.
So the prior building commissioner had taken the position that unless those deed restrictions were recorded, the rezoning is not finalized.
The current building commissioner takes a different approach.
The current building commissioner indicated to us and has taken the position that the property has been rezoned.
The restrictions would have to be recorded, and those are the restrictions that we're asking you to waive.
So the answer is the property is zoned properly.
even though the form says differently.
Because when we filed originally, we were told one thing, and now we've since been told something else.
And I'm not blaming anybody. That's just the way the maps were in the planning department,
and that's the way they had always proceeded under those circumstances.
Okay. Thank you.
Debbie?
Yes. Thank you, Supervisor.
My question concerns flooding, again, in our big packet.
it. It says the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
commented that a state pollutant discharge elimination system, general permit
for stormwater discharges from construction activity will be
required for the project. A flood control land use permit,
protection of waters permit, and floodplain development permit may be
required. So this, and it does say the site is within an existing flood
And then Ramona was referring to the environmental impact questionnaire.
And it says the proposed action will result in development on land subject of flooding.
It's page 3 of 10.
So all that being said, if you want to build the dormitory,
how will this factor be taken into account with construction
that will be used to ameliorate whatever situation would occur with land like this?
Sure. Anytime you have property that's in the floodplain, you'll have those exact comments from the DEC.
It's every project that's located within the floodplain.
So it's incumbent upon us to obtain a stormwater pollution prevention plan that you've indicated.
We will have to provide that both to the town and to the DEC. Both of them have to approve it.
And this all takes place at the site plan stage in terms of the water on the property.
The water now goes where it goes.
We will be controlling the water after it's developed.
We will dictate in terms of where the water is stored and how it is released.
And it would be released at a slower pace or at least not a greater pace than how it's being released now.
The difference is it will be controlled as it's uncontrolled now.
You're welcome.
A couple of quick questions, Jeff.
In the packet, I feel like I'm testing on your application here,
But it mentions that there'd be potential variances.
Are you aware of any variances?
I mean, obviously, I've gotten to final design, but are you aware of any variances that will be required to get this to fit into this?
No. The design that you have here meets all the setback requirements, the green space requirements, so on and so forth.
OK. And secondly, I mean, whenever we talk about removal of restrictions, I mean, the presumption is there was a reason why the restriction was put in place in the first place.
Obviously I wasn't around in 86 or 88 whatever when the restrictions were put in place.
I can kind of guess based on the response we have from neighbors right now that it was put in place
because they wanted to have an office environment here.
So I guess what I'm asking you is what do you think has changed since 86-88
that would make whatever reason this restriction was put in place in the first place no longer applicable?
Because I mean, I don't disagree with you that the use is right.
You guys met the seven tests as far as location and everything else looks good except that
you're putting in the middle of an office park around office buildings that are not
really compatible with this use.
A couple of things.
First of all, the focus of this project is on North Forrest.
It's not on the Bryant Woodside, Southside.
The vast majority of the residents as they will be departing in the morning or whatever
time they leave, we'll be using North Forest. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go
out to Bryant, Wood South, and sneak around to Audubon Parkway. It just doesn't make any
sense. You're going in the wrong direction. So the vast majority of them will be focused
on North Forest Road. And that, again, is proven by the fact that there's been this
request for us to hook up to the bike path. So we will also be doing that. Nobody's
going out to South, to Bryant, Wood South, to hook up to the Audubon bike path. They're
coming out on the North Forest Road. The answer to the question though is those
restrictions were put in place in 1986, 87, 88, 89 in that area. That's 30 years
ago. People have had the opportunity to develop this property as office buildings
for the past 30 years. There's no demand. There's no demand in the town of
Amherst for office building. There is a demand for student housing and it's
demonstrated by the demographic study that we actually produced and showed
to the planning department, the planning staff.
When we first met with the Building Commissioner a year and a half ago, that was the first question
he asked us.
Is there really a demand for student housing in the town of Amherst?
And the folks from CORE, the real estate folks who have been out here and have been
out throughout the country looking for land, indicated you're not even close yet.
You're not even close to being filled in the town of Amherst.
And those numbers you saw today, again, prove that fact.
There's capacity, 98% of occupancy in the student housing in this area.
So there is a demand for this.
There is no demand for office buildings.
Again, and I want to stress the fact that this is focused on the North Forest side.
There are entrances and exits onto Bryant Wood South, but the activity is on the North Forest side.
Oh, sorry.
How many projects across the country have they done?
You said they were on the phone.
My name is Dan Floberg with CORE.
We've done projects, I guess, in multiple states.
We actually just opened up a new project in Madison where we've finished the first project there,
so two there.
We've done projects in Arizona.
We've also completed projects now at the University of Mississippi, so Ole Miss.
Right now for 2018, we're actually looking to deliver seven more projects.
So I think between the development and then also the management,
we're finally starting to really understand how to operate these buildings as well as develop them.
So...
I'm sorry.
Did that help her?
How long have you been in existence?
So, CORE has been around for about seven years now.
So the first project was started seven years ago.
In the other projects like this in office areas near the campuses but like in office parks like this?
You know we've done a lot of projects actually that are more urban so like mid-rise.
I'm actually doing a project now in Orlando that's similar about four stories.
But you know this is a little bit different where we do like to be right at main and main.
You know the students that we kind of cater to are a little bit more sophisticated
and are willing to I guess look for you know the best I guess housing available.
So that's kind of what we'd like to do here, but it's a little bit further from campus than we've usually done.
But we still think that with the parking and the size of the university, there's plenty of demand.
So there's just actually...
Certainly not that much space around the campus from all the research we've done, so.
Thank you.
If you put more landscaping barrier between your place and the office, would that help satisfy the office people?
Certainly. We'll work with the planning department to put berms there if there's room to put berms, put more landscaping.
Whatever the planning department thinks is appropriate, we'd be willing to do.
Well, the gentleman standing behind you, I know.
Yeah, no, that would not be an issue.
The other gentleman, sorry.
Thank you. I'd like to read.
You're trying to find a compromise here?
Well, I appreciate it. I didn't know what the protocol was,
but I'd like to rebut the idea, first of all,
that no one's going to go to Bryantwood South,
because if they go to Bryantwood South all the way up to Audubon,
that leads directly into the campus,
and that's actually going to be a more direct route than North Forest, which is windy and
two lanes.
And I have to tell you, when we pull into our office on Bryant Woods South, we're on
a curve right next to the Logan Valenti offices, and I can't tell you how many times cars
come speeding through there that if one of these kids is on a bike or they're walking,
that this is going to be a dangerous situation and it's going to be dangerous on Bryant
Woods and on North Forest.
There is no way that somebody is just automatically going to go to North Forest on this because
North Forest is busy, regardless of what they're trying to tell you.
Thank you.
Okay.
We don't have an exit to...
Traffic safety clearly indicated to us the preference to have access out to Bryantwood
South.
If at the end of the day, the site plan, someone feels that that's not appropriate,
then we wouldn't have it there.
But in terms of circulation and fire safety,
the more access you have to the building, the better off you are.
Okay, I was going to ask my questions next. Did you want to go again?
I just have a question. Do we have any comments or opinions from the University at Buffalo about this project?
I don't know if it's even appropriate, but do you have any information had you talked to them as far as need?
We have met with them, Representative Corr met with the University of Buffalo,
and they have no objections to this whatsoever.
In fact, they've agreed to allow the shuttle service from our facility onto the campus.
So they're in complete agreement.
My first question is, what makes your proposal this large building
more upscale than the existing student housing along Ranch Road or in Heron Court?
I think that the amenities within the building itself, the granite countertops, the floor
planks, whatever they are, all the different things that are in this building are top of
the line.
Everything in here is top of the line.
And as Dan indicated, they get higher rents.
So these rents are going to be higher than the normal rents, and they have no problem
renting these out.
As I indicated several times now, they're very experienced at it.
They know what they're doing.
How high are the rents?
We actually are very conservative on the initial underwriting of these, so it's right in line with the market,
but we think that there's plenty of room for us to actually get the demand to fill the building.
I'm sorry, what was the number?
Our pro forma number is it's actually just the same as market rent right now,
and it's actually opening that's not including two years of escalation that we will see when it is finished in 2019.
You can give us a number.
Well, okay, so we have different units ranging from micros to five bedrooms.
I believe the market rate here is $636 per bedroom per month,
so that's what we're underwriting, on average.
About the five bedroom.
So it would be the actual bedrooms, as you increase in bedroom size,
the rents are lower, like a micro unit or a one bedroom would be more expensive.
So the average would be the 636.
The bedroom and the bathroom per student?
Yes. The way we really try to differentiate these units is by having an individual bathroom per bedroom.
When you have 500 students in one building, how do you keep peace in the building?
Well, we do, like we said, security is kind of one of the most important things with our developments,
not only for the residents but also for usually the parents that are looking at these places for their students to live in,
So CCTV is enormous for us. We actually have CCTV in every hallway, every stairwell.
And then also for access control, we have key fobs to get into all the amenity spaces.
So basically, if something's happening, you can either see it or, you know, I guess the first elimination
would be people actually can't get into the building without being a resident or being let in by residents.
All the student housing facilities in the UB area talk about,
They talked about security when they came to the town board for their approvals.
They never stopped our police department from making multiple calls there.
Our fire department for unavoidable alarms, it goes on and on and on.
How are you different?
Well, I think it's, you know, we did kind of talk about this with the playing board
and it sounds like, you know, the false alarms are kind of difficult
with the way that you guys run the fire department or the way that the systems work.
where as if there is a false alarm it gets reported directly to the fire
department so it sounds like the most important thing we can do is education
for students so I think you know some well obviously none of our rooms are no
smoking is allowed in any of our buildings so that should help but you
know if someone burns toast it's kind of difficult to make the alarm not go
off so so I think it's education and just make sure that you know you try
and limit those occurrences so yeah we just had just to the back town
we had a lawsuit over some burnt toast.
Oh, really?
Oh, boy.
What are you proposing to do with all the dirt as you dig underground?
I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
What are you going to do with all the dirt as you dig underground?
Well, I think the soil reports saying that, you know,
number one, that this is a floodplain.
We actually have to raise the site a bit.
I close the two feet on average over the entire, I guess, three parcels.
So hopefully a lot of it can be reused. I think if it's organic material, we're going to have to, you know, ship it off.
And then there shouldn't be any environmental issues from what the reports have said.
So we're trying to reuse as much as we can from, I guess, excavating the garage and the lower level parking to then raise the rest of the site.
Is the Town Board having any more questions?
Does the Town Board want to vote on this?
Or does the Town Board want to send a decision date?
I'd like to set a decision state if there would be anybody else that would be willing.
Is there anybody else?
I'd be interested in hearing from the Army Corps of Engineers.
See what they have to say about the plan.
Then possibly you working out several entrances from North Forest as opposed to...
I understand the need for fire trucks being able to get into this area.
If you could have multiple entrances here and block somehow from the office, so those people who are concerned about the traffic in Bryant with South.
And then I don't know when do you expect the Army Corps of Engineer to hear from them.
I have no objection to tabling the decision to another day to allow us to meet again with traffic and safety on the access issue and fire safety.
And we will do our very best to meet with somebody at the Army Corps of Engineers.
And if the neighbors would like to meet with us, we'll certainly do that as well.
Those folks too, to try and work something out if you can.
We'd be happy to do that.
Also, Supervisor, to your point, which was a good one,
if you would be willing to meet with the Amherst police to just go over whatever security you have proposed
and to see how adequate or what suggestions they might have.
Fine. No problem.
Okay, thank you.
Do you want to set a decision date?
I'd rather wait until...
Okay.
Do you want to wait to set a decision date?
Okay.
It's a town boy's decision.
To not set the date?
Not set a decision date.
So you're incumbent on us to come back to you and then...
Until the answers to this information are provided.
Jeff, when you do come back though,
would you make sure that the second condition
properly listed as North French road instead of North Forest road, instead of North French road.
Second condition.
Second condition of both resolutions show it as North French.
Okay.
I don't think North French is anywhere near here.
All right.
So I'm assuming then you're not voting on anything tonight, including the second half of the
question.
That is correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm making a motion to open the public hearing on Resolution 673, creating Chapter 167, Social
Host Liability, and I assume all in favor of open the public hearing please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
If I could just add also, oh I see students in the back, high students, we're getting
to the end of the year and you need your government studies credits.
If you need a signature on your way out on my left, on your right, is Darlene Carroll,
our controller.
She'd be glad to give you a signature.
It's a little bit past eight, and sometimes students start to leave.
Okay, social host liability.
Do you have a presenter?
Good evening for the record.
My name is Jeffrey Marion.
I am the deputy town attorney for the town of Amherst.
I did draft the local law that is the subject of this public hearing.
Just to sum it up, it is a local law that is designed to create civil penalties as a result of loud or unruly house parties.
And to hold either landlords be they in town, absentee, also parents or the owner of the house or legal guardian,
and whoever actually has ownership of the house, to try to limit or deter the house party,
loud house parties held by those who are unable to or unable to legally purchase alcohol
in the state of New York.
We did our, I did my best in terms of drafting the law to try to make sure we do process.
What we're trying to do is essentially assess civil penalties in a form of fines that can
start at $250 and increase from there.
We also would be able to assess costs for police response.
For example, for a first offense, we have a $250 fine and the requirement that the
homeowner complete a, or landlord complete a substance abuse course within 90 days.
Second violation is 500.
A third violation within 12 months is $1,000.
The only reason I come up that I did want to discuss this with you publicly
is that as you consider this law, there are a number of sections of both the penal
law and the alcoholic beverage control law, the state of New York, that are very effective
penalties also that would include homeowners.
For example, the portions of 60 alcoholic beverage control law, 6565A, 65B, and 65C,
which all talk about the distribution of alcohol to minors.
Those are often ticketed offenses and can be brought into the courts.
I think the biggest one that you have is Section 26020 of the New York State Penal Law,
which is unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree.
Now, Subsection 2 of that states that the person gives or sells or causes to be given
or sold any alcoholic beverage to a person less than 21 years old.
There is a section of the statute that allows someone charged with this crime,
and it is a crime under New York law that requires as a condition of a future dismissal
or an affirmative defense in the case to attend a substance abuse course.
Now, the penalty in this case, it is a Class A misdemeanor.
That contains a penalty of up to one year in jail,
or a $1,000 fine or a period of probation,
there can also be a conditional discharge attached to it.
The conditional discharge being essentially what you might
hear of as a suspended sentence.
We're going to sentence you to up to one year in jail.
The judge could sentence to any portion lower than that.
Conditioned upon you maintaining the following
conditions that you have no parties,
You avoid further violations of the law. You attend the course, community service, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Also available as an option is a restitution so that we can also, if it's a concern about costs to the police force,
those costs can be made part of restitution as a part of any plea deal, part of a sentence after trial,
part of even what's known in the criminal procedure law and penal law as an
adjournment and contemplation of dismissal. Where you're dealing with a
first-time offender, you have a statute that allows you to say, okay, stay out of
trouble for in many cases six months and there are certain offenses in the
penal law that are one year, usually in domestic violence cases or drug
possession cases and the cases dismissed and sealed as if it never happened.
You would also be entitled, as a condition of that, it could also be brought forward
to have payment of our costs to come out as a response, payment for any damage that was
caused as a result of cars destroyed or any cleanup.
As well as the requirement to take the class. So as you consider this law, there are effective
tools that already exist within New York State law that do achieve the same objective and
do help crack down and make these homeowners aware, be they landlords or be they actual
tax-paying homeowners who reside in the home, make them aware of the seriousness of leaving
underage drinkers unsupervised to throw a party and cause problems for the residents.
I would also add that we have a very, very strong noise ordinance that also can be ticketed,
which does include 15 days in jail and a $250 fine.
So we have the tools also within our town laws and within the New York State penal and criminal procedure laws and the alcoholic beverage control law for our police to effectively enforce these laws and to crack down on these parties.
So I won't take up any more time. I'm also available for questions if anyone else would like to speak on the matter.
Thank you. This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to speak on this topic,
this
proposed local law. Please come on up, Sally.
Jim, for Coley. I'm having a little problem with A. We had a 50th anniversary party and
And there was a lot of noise, but so did we break a, no, there's no mention of anything
about booze or liquor if you have a party with loud and unruly gathering.
You have to go in that house and see what is unruly.
You have to go in that house and see why are they making such noise.
Well, the reason we did, because being married 50 years, there was some dancing,
some traditional tarot fellows.
It was a lot of fun.
But we could have been arrested by that ridiculous, excuse me, apologize,
price, that A part. Now if you threw a little wine in there and they were boozed, that would
not break that law either because there's nothing in A about booze. So maybe we can amend it
so we can add, you're at a party and there's underage drinking or just drinking which are
causing people to act mean or hurtin' other people?
Fine, but not that thing.
That thing is so...
It's like a lawyer who doesn't...
who hasn't had a serial in the morning.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name's Sally Yagerick.
I live at 36th Country Parkway.
The history behind this is we were asked
and signed an actual contract with Wake Forest
to work on a social host ordinance for our community.
Erie County has a social host ordinance.
We wanted to take it a step further with the education piece in particular.
I don't believe that adults serve underage drinkers because they want to do harm.
I think if they're educated on what's actually happening, they'll choose not to do that.
And if we hold them responsible for what happens in their home,
They're going to maybe take a second look at what's going on.
It's not just about allowed and unruly party.
It's about serving underage drinking.
And that's what the intent of this ordinance was.
So I urge you to take a good look at it,
and you've always done well by the young people in our community.
This is another opportunity. Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Ann Rohrer. I live at 44 Saber Lane.
I am the Coalition Coordinator for the Amherst Task Force,
which was involved in developing this ordinance
through a grant through Wake Forest.
We worked on this for over three years.
We have spoken to the Chief of Police in Amherst,
who was in total agreement with this.
We offer this as another tool to the police department
to help underage drinking in the town.
Our numbers are still showing by survey
that underage drinking and binge drinking is a problem.
We have results that show that at some of these parties there is a lot of damage being made to property damage.
There is damage being made. There is assaults that are happening on young people also from underage drinking.
It's just one way for us, one more way for us to protect the people of our community and the young people of our community.
Our biggest point was not to make this a criminal offense.
It was to make this a civil offense where we would offer education to people who were accused of having a party and underage drinking being served.
And for those of you who know me or don't know me, my biggest thing is educating the public and making sure everybody knows what's right and what's wrong.
So for us, the piece about education with the First
Defense is most important, not really the criminal
aspect. We know there are laws in existence,
but we have already spoken to Chief Aske, and he understands
this is just another tool that the police department can use. So we sincerely
hope that you give us the benefit of doubt that this is
something good for the community and good for the young people of this community
and approve this, which we have worked very hard to write.
Thank you.
Don Smith.
Don Smith, North Long.
Personally, I have no problem with the intent that this law states,
at least to the point it says, to help correct the problem of underage drinking.
I think that's probably a reasonable thing to try and do.
My question is to do is how is it effectively enforced
and how will it effectively help eliminate the problem?
Will it be just a law that's on the books that whose implementation does not in any
way change how actions are performed by the police in any way shape or form to actually
effectively handle the situation?
I have another question for you.
Under A, would a fireworks display at a country club be considered loud and noisy
and be subject to being an element that has to be, a complaint would cause them
to be told not to have it anymore.
Is there either exceptions to these rules for situations which occur in the town, or
would a fireworks display be considered loud and a boisterous?
From some respects, I think it is.
So I think it might, in summary, how does it effectively change how this problem
is managed by the police and by the community?
Thank you very much.
Anyone else from the audience like to address the town board on social responsibility?
Anyone else make a motion to close the public hearing?
Second.
All in favor of closing the public hearing please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed to carriage unanimously.
Town board questions on social host liability.
Any questions?
Oh, that's a question.
Jeff, just going back to some of the comments that Anne made,
The police were involved in the writing of this local line.
I know they had some concerns initially.
I don't know if Assistant Chief Cohen wants to come up and speak on this,
but, I mean, to your understanding, the police have been satisfied in the final version of the draft
that this is something that's enforceable that will assist them in doing their job.
Well, we did it. The police did have input right from the off
and also in this draft that I've put together.
So I can't really speak for them, but they did not express any concerns either way.
I did also run this by the court system.
I got their input as well.
So everybody's had input into this, and as I sent the draft around,
I got my comments back and I sent my final proposal out and that's sort of where we're at
So I can't necessarily speak for these departments, but if Chief Cohen would like to come up and bail me out here
That would be great.
Yeah, this is Jeff indicated. We have been
Conferred with from the very beginning. There was some concern that would be a big wound out of a lot of extra work
Chief ASCII has been stance. I was more closely than I had so I don't have anything prepared. I guess our official
We didn't ask for it, but we're not opposed to it, and if it does turn into a lot of extra
legwork and paperwork, we're hoping that if there ever is any fine money, it would be
directed back to the police department.
Thank you.
Any more time for questions?
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to approve.
Second.
Second?
Yeah.
Any further discussion?
I did know that Jimmy threw those kind of parties, but I...
You just don't get invited, John.
I don't.
I apparently was apparently was not on the guest list for that one.
All in favor of the
local law creating chapter one sixty seven called social host liability.
Please say aye. I posed care unanimously.
I'll make a motion to open the public hearing for resolution six seventy four.
A local or imposing a temporary wireless communication moratorium and I so move on favor.
Please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Care unanimously.
Good evening.
Jo-Anne Schultz, senior deputy attorney for the town of Amherst.
This local law for a moratorium is to be imposed on all antennas, towers, and any infrastructure
for wireless telecommunications in the public right of way.
Since there's been serious increase in the number of applications to put these antennas
with the facilities and the packs that go along with them in the public right-of-way,
we've recently had 12 applications to the ZBA for special use permits in the Willow Ridge area.
The demand is being created because of all the streaming that's taking place with Facebook and streaming Netflix, streaming YouTube.
This is creating a huge demand, especially in front of areas that are densely populated, mostly in apartment buildings, I think student housing, that kind of thing.
And we need time to sit back, look at the rules, look at the federal mandates, look at the state mandates,
look at what rights the town has to control their own right-of-way,
to make sure that these facilities are not going up willy-nilly all over the place,
that we put them in areas that aesthetically are pleasing,
or they're not going up in front of homes without consulting with the residents and perhaps
come up with a process that is easier for the zoning board of appeals and the building
department to process the applications.
And we also, I think, need to look at coming up with master lease agreements with the
providers.
So that's the reason for the moratorium.
It's going to take a while to go through all those issues, and we've put together a wireless
telecommunications committee chaired by Francine's both, and we have full participation now,
and hopefully we can come to arrangements that will please most people in the community
and while providing the service that's required.
That's the reason for it.
Thank you.
Anyone from the audience like to address the board on this proposed moratorium?
I'm your neighbor, David Gettert, 606 Long Meadow, and I've heard a little bit about this subject.
I've done a lot of work as an electrician, as an electronics technician,
so I know a little bit about radio and radio frequency energy.
people have, okay, I love Verizon Fios that comes through a fiber, fiber cable, and most
of our stuff is coming through, I think it's coax. So I'm not completely sure why we need
to have so much more wireless. What I want to bring up is some people have expressed
health concerns about the level of radio energy. And based on experience and reading, I cannot make a comment, but I have to repeat these concerns about radio frequency level. Thank you.
Okay, so I'm Jeff Good, it's 17 Roman Lane.
Just very briefly, I just want to say that I'm in support of this moratorium.
I've spoken about it before.
One thing that really strikes me about it is I think this is a somewhat unusual case
Where the interest of residents who are concerned about aesthetics and other aspects of their houses
and housing values really align well with the financial needs of the town.
So what we've seen are there are other towns that have been quite effective at structuring
their codes to make sure that revenue from these kinds of new antennas are going where
possible to the town, as opposed to various other groups that might be leasing this property.
And at the same time, there are clearly residents' concerns about where these go.
So I think this is a really good time when these two interests have come together
which makes this a really positive step forward right now.
Thank you.
Alyssa Shield, 17 Roman Lane.
I'm in favor of this.
That's a very unprepared statement.
I'd like to thank the board for its thoughtful action on this critical issue
and to applaud your bipartisan sponsorship and unanimous support of Resolution 2017.674 this past May.
I wholly endorse the enactment of a temporary moratorium in Amherst
and urged the board to vote it into law.
Temporary moratorium would grant the town
the rare opportunity to expand, strengthen,
and modernize its wireless zoning code
in order to strike a balance
between the sensible provision of wireless services,
the legal obligations of the town,
while also taking into account
to the extent legally possible the nature
and livability of our residential neighborhoods.
Under the protection of this temporary moratorium,
the town could revise zoning code guidelines
that would prescribe clearer, reasonable, and more predictable criteria
to access and process wireless applications to ensure that
negative impacts are minimized while ensuring the equitable and non-discriminatory
treatment of FCC licensed cellular service providers.
Furthermore, a moratorium would allow for a much-needed update of the zoning code
to expressly address new technologies like small cell infrastructure and distributed antenna systems
systems, and to address current practices, placement, and maintenance of communication
facilities like those mentioned, in the public right-of-way, while also protecting, preserving
and maintaining the aesthetic character of areas where such right-of-ways exist.
And finally, this moratorium would provide time to research and instill into the zoning
code innovative ways to take full advantage of the emerging unique sites and infrastructure
that new technologies like small-cells and DAS systems bring in ways that benefit the town financially.
Amherst could see steady revenue from carrier, small-cell and DAS usage of municipal structures
and lands in town-owned right-of-ways through access permits, leases, and master agreements.
For these reasons and many more than three minutes allow me to touch upon,
I urge you to vote this resolution into law. Thank you.
Don Smith Northong, I think whenever you get into new technologies, in this case, the
small cell technologies, I think the town and the people that are starting from behind
and the technologists are way ahead, I think there needs to be a time for everybody to
catch up with what's going on and frankly you don't have the time to do it today.
I'm more concerned about both the micro issues, aesthetics and issues, and also the macro
issues as to the total density and the radio frequency density over large areas and what
they may mean.
As a matter of fact, I do use fiber optic myself and I find it very useful and a better
way of doing it.
That's why we're attached to a pole that currently has the bandwidth that people
are needing.
The question you have to answer, I think, at this point in time, is what other technology
may come next after this one and the next technology after this one.
Do we need it for one year, do we need it for three years, we need it for five years,
will it go away in ten years, will we be left with an archaic thing on your poles
in ten years from now?
What's the life cycle of this particular technology, how long it will last and what
will we replace it if we can predict that?
Well, we need a process in order to decide how we're going to handle technology going
forward in all these telecommunication areas in the future, because right now I don't think
you have one at this point.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to address the board needs to local law proposal.
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Second.
Well, if they were closing the public hearing, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
Questions for Joanne?
I'll just address a couple of the issues this gentleman brought up with the RF, you know,
frequencies.
There's, you know, it's a unique area of the law where we have FCC mandates that basically
restrict the town's ability to, you know, make decisions based on some of those issues.
So those are issues that we need to study.
We have an interesting interplay between federal law, state law, and local law.
And that's one of the reasons why we want to take the time to address this issue correctly.
And I agree that the technology is changing all the time.
And this is why we're seeing all these applications for small cells
because they want to densify it even more.
So you're going to have macro towers with a lot of small cells in the public right away.
So it's a very important issue to handle properly.
If this local law is approved tonight, when does it go into effect?
It's going to
affect the microcells and the minicells in the right of ways.
It's not going to affect anything that's in the pipeline right now,
but it's going to put a hole on anything in the future.
Mobility came to us two months ago with a proposal that they had about eight locations
that they were seeking from, and they had some that were in Tanoana that they thought were
us. But I think there was representatives here last time asking for approval. And what
the Maratarn does is put a stop to those applications and say, okay, we need to study this and look
at these areas because one of the things we don't do is get the fee from the person
that puts it in the right away. They're only dealing with national grid right now
or it rises depending on who owns the pole.
If the 140-day moratorium begins on what day?
When it's filed with the Secretary of State, that's the answer that I should have given you.
Traditionally, a week, two weeks can be a month.
It can be six months.
Within ten days.
Right, right. As soon as it's filed.
And we do have some applications, of course, that came in already.
So we do have some issues there.
I'm working with the attorneys for Verizon to try and make that a smooth transition.
Over the days, two weeks.
I don't know if it makes a difference when you get it.
It's probably not worth it.
No, not worth it.
Don't worry about it.
Yeah, following up on what the supervisor was asking, which I think what he's trying to do
was trying to see if there was a way to extend the amount of time
that this basically goes for.
And the question becomes, I mean, 140 days
even going to be enough time.
And we're hiring a consultant.
We're going to look to write a new local law where
we've got a public hearing.
I can't imagine that this being done less than six months.
We hope to get it done within that time frame.
The problem is that we have shot clock requirements issued
by the FCC. So is it 140 days trying to relate to the applications that you've
already got, you're saying, or is it simple? I mean, what happens at the end of
140 days if we are not done with the new local law? Could we extend it? Can we...
We can extend it. We can extend it. But the reason why we picked that time frame
is because there's mandates, you know, federal mandates that say for a new
application you have to get a decision out within 150 days for a new
tower for a co-location. It's within 60 days. We obviously don't want to create a big problem
with the industry. We have to do this as carefully as we can, and that's why we chose the 140-day
timeframe.
We can extend it if needed.
How long could you extend it for?
You can extend it for whatever timeframe you want to at that juncture, whatever timeframe
and you think you might need.
But we're having a good dialogue with the industry.
They understand that this is not just unique to Amherst.
This is going on all over the country.
There's towns and cities that have put together
some great plans.
They have master plans that limit where they can go
and how they should look.
And this has been dealt with in many other cities already.
but it's definitely a new area that they're wading through as well because the FCC does
have mandates out there about requiring utilities to allow the cellular industry to put antennas
on their poles, National Grid has an agreement with all of them to do that, but we still
have a say with regard to where they can go in the public right of way, but a New York
state opted out of the federal agreement, but I don't think they've actually come out
with a mandate yet, so it's an interesting area. A lot of the townships and municipalities
are dealing with that. Have you submitted the RFP, resubmitted it for the consultant?
Yeah, that's out there and we're hoping to get the results soon. I mean, the responses.
And when are the responses due? I think it's June soon, within the next week or two.
Yeah. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the temporary wireless communications moratorium.
Second.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
Can I also just make one statement, Barry?
That's okay.
That's all right.
I just want to say that our advisory committee is already met and we're meeting every two
weeks until the thing is done.
Make a motion for a five-minute recess at the request of someone.
Second.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
This carries unanimously.
All right, come on.
All in favor?
Aye.
I don't know what I need to do.
Okay. I want to welcome everybody back.
Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is public expression and I so moved to open public expression.
Second.
All in favor of opening public expression, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
We've got John, Radzikowski first, followed by Warren Clark, who might have spoken, and
Keith Brookbinder, who might have spoken, moving right along.
Jennifer D. Ford.
I spoke to you on May 8th about requesting that all the members write a letter to Dr.
Zucker, the New York State Commissioner of Health, deny this certificate of need for
Project 171204 based on the unsuitable residential location.
On May 16th, 2017, I sent letters to Mr. Dr. Buckeye.
She responded with checking the paperwork first.
Second letter to Majority Yeager, she responded with a request that all members of the town
of Amherst board write to Dr. Zucker to deny the certificate of need for the 910 Miller
Board Highway Project 17120. I accept this Mrs. Yeager's request and endorse this.
For the record, I did not receive any correspondence or emails from
Barry Warnstein, Stephen Sanders, Francis Spapp, and Ramota Pavlovich.
All my letters will be submitted to the Town Clerk for record.
I strongly recommend to all board members to write to Dr. Zucker and follow Mrs. Jager's formal request. Thank you.
And I have all my letters that should be going into the record for the files.
So we send to every board member here.
Thank you.
Jennifer D. Fiore.
Jennifer D. Fiore, 500 IVHRs North, 100 feet from proposed clinic.
I am also here tonight urging the board members to read a letter to Dr. Zucker opposing Certificate of need for the 910 Miller's Port location on location only.
As with previous Town Council meetings and Egert Spill Community meetings, there has been zero representation from Catholic Health.
And yet again tonight, nobody is here from Catholic Health.
But we're here. We've been here every month.
Anytime there is a meeting, we attend, so we are asking your support.
Please help us by writing to Dr. Zucker.
Mary Shapiro followed by Thomas Franklin and Michelle Marconi.
Mary Shapiro, 16-year-old Woods Court.
I am, for the record, a member of the planning board, but I'm speaking just as an individual tonight, not for them.
I want to talk about Resolution 676 about mandatory training.
It says below that this is pretty much the status quo that the planning director would make it a log of the educational activities for each of the members, which is great.
That's kind of how it is now. I don't know if they make a log, but they collect the certificates.
The problem that I have is that there's no written procedure. There's no written guidance.
And I did try to find out how these certificates, et cetera, are compiled.
because we were notified that the 2016 educational activities were misplaced and that we should resubmit those.
I did submit mine in December of last year, and it's hard to believe they were misplaced by May.
So my question is, if you do pass this, can you also request that there's a written procedure
and that board members also receive the summary each year so we can make sure it's correct.
Second one is 692. This is amendments to chapter 203 regarding review of project applications.
I know that the town board did request the planning board to review this in conjunction with other members.
We did not. We were not really given any opportunity to do that.
And so I'm not sure where these recommendations come from, and I just wanted you to know that.
Last, and this is a personal thing, I really wish you would reconsider alienating 2.95 acres of parkland.
even though it's a stormwater drainage facility, it still is part of our recreational allotment of land in the town.
And I wish you would reconsider giving it away for something that's already protected green space
and replacing it with a commercial property. Thank you.
Tell
us, Frank. You can go on the show if you want. Go ahead.
I'll meet you here after a minute.
Michelle Marconi, 35 Livingston Parkway.
Reforms for the planning board are on the agenda tonight,
and it includes naming the town clerk as secretary for the board for documents,
submission, and minutes recording, requiring the adoption of rules of order to govern its actions,
rescinding minor site plan approval from the planning director,
and setting forth a framework for compliance with the 2007 New York State Law,
mandating annual training for all planning board and ZBA members.
These changes are welcome and long overdue and represented down payment on transparency for these key development bodies
in charge of the town's land use decisions.
Residents have been actively monitoring the manner in which the ZBA and the planning board undertake local approvals.
By attending meetings, providing testimony, and through full requests,
we have been reviewing the extent to which these boards follow local and New York State law
and operate consistent with town procedures in an open and objective manner.
We believe these boards should be accountable for their actions
and should recognize residents as stakeholders in all the decisions they make.
The reforms on the agenda tonight in resolutions 676 and 692 are a recognition that our work has demonstrated that the business as usual is flawed at its core.
The resolutions from the supervisor and the town attorney indicate an awareness of our concerns and we hope the board would pass them both.
Additionally, there are four different resolutions concerning financial disclosure by town officials,
elected or appointed, paid or unpaid, and the brouhaha caused when the Board of Ethics began a review
of compliance with the town's ethics code passed more than 25 years ago.
The law requires an annual disclosure of the employment, business, and familial ties that might be an issue in relation to participation in the public's affairs.
The law is clear what is required by who and when.
But it is unclear why all of the four action items on your agenda tonight fail to enforce the laws that exist.
Rather, the resolutions each suggest a different way to change the code of ethics
Respectively, skirting the enforcement of the law on the books today.
Especially problematic are the missing submissions for two key private sector representatives on the Planning Board's Imagine Amherst Committee serving without disclosure or recusal.
While there is no objection to a change in the Code of Ethics with perhaps tiered disclosure depending upon official duties,
The town board has an obligation to follow the law
and remove those appointees for failure to disclose,
either by omission or commission, whether intentional or otherwise.
I would ask for an amendment to one of these resolutions
and that you act tonight consistent with what town law specifically requires.
Are we a nation in a town of laws or are we not?
Thank you.
Thomas Frank,
followed by Don Smith.
Good evening, Supervisor, Town Board members, meeting attendees.
My name is Thomas Frank. I reside at 5403 Main Street.
And I'd like to comment on the Town Attorney's Resolution Number 692
regarding amendments to Chapter 203 regarding review of project applications.
And what I'm proposing is a project application for the Imagine Amherst Comprehensive Bicentennial
Master Plan.
Would you go to the next one, please?
It's not on here.
And as far as, would you bring it down a little more?
But as far as the study of the town of Amherst, the economic study that was done by,
Well, this was presented by David Estel with the Delta Associates, the contractors for the,
this NYSERDA provided a grant to the town for $161,251,250 for a major statewide initiative
having to do with to reduce emissions and generate economic development.
And so I've been going to all of, would you go to the next one please,
all of the colloquies, the siliquies, the charrettes and the charades,
but still a worldly drive has not been included.
And I'm asking that an amendment be considered, because I attended today the New York State
Consolidated Funding Application Workshop, and were qualified.
The governor signed two pieces of legislation having to do with issues that affect
Ellicott Creek as the watershed greenway parks and trails as far as interconnecting the drainage.
As far as the IJC, the International Joint Commission, you've got a contaminated waterway out in the back here.
You used to be able to swim in it.
So this is a process, and Alec Creek is 112 miles that extends to the state park upstream.
But also, what's interesting here is that the, as far as the public-private sector,
Amherst partnership with the Amherst Industrial Development Agency,
that there are opportunities here with the, and the governor signed the legislation as
far as the New York Power Authority, the relationship, and you should know last thing
I'd like to mention is the fact that the Erie Canal Bicentennial coincides with the Bicentennial
of the town of Amherst, and where the canal comes into town of Wanda Creek is one of
the most historic geographic locations in the country.
And nobody even knows it's there.
Thank you, Tom.
We'll actually go over today.
John Smith North Long.
Excuse me.
At the May 18th planning board meeting during the director's report,
the planning director stated in the director's report
that he had been mandated to accelerate the Imagine Amherst project.
Mandate was his word, not mine.
And as a result of this mandate, he had reassigned people and changed the workload of his own
department members and how they functioned within their department.
Certain projects and their priorities had changed.
When asked who mandated him, he said he couldn't say.
So then I try to find out if there's any documentation relative to this mandate, and
as far as I can tell, there is none.
So I asked myself the question.
Who can mandate the planning director to do anything?
The only answer I could come up with that made any legal sense was the supervisor.
But in this case, I don't think the supervisor has mandated the planning director to do that.
So then I have to ask myself the question, what does this mandate really mean?
I don't know.
But I think the public needs to know, and in writing, what an acceleration of the
imagine Amherst project is, who ordered it? How is it going to be implemented? What changes
does it represent? This was the schedule change that had been mandated. What acceleration?
What milestone changes are going to occur, if any? What workload changes and what changes
are those going to occur? And frankly, how it all came to happen? What happened? Just
Just so everybody knows, the Planning Board has a special meeting, June 22nd, that's not
on the schedule any place, it's supposedly coming up.
I haven't seen it yet, but I must say I would really like to know who mandated the Planning
Director to accelerate the Imagine Ambers project.
Thank you very much.
Jim Turcoli.
Followed by Judy Fumar.
Jim Turcoli for Columbia Drive.
The general move for me was basically going to talk to you about what I've been trying
to find.
I submitted a foil, and unknowingly, you cannot submit a foil for words.
You have to submit it for a record in writing.
So I was at the meeting when our planning director who has no, I don't think has any part with the planning board.
The planning board was working and at the last five minutes he said to them,
well I have to tell you I've been mandated to tell you that you have to work quicker.
we have to get the more speed out of you to get the Imagine Amherst project going.
Okay? At that moment, one of the people, members of the planning board said,
Mr. Gilliot, who directs you to say that because we're the group that are,
have the power to tell you that, and his reply was,
you'll know someday or something would take it wasn't yes it wasn't no it was you
know do nobody okay mr. Gilead took it upon himself to do this I sat with a
supervisor and I asked him did he direct mr. Gilead and he said absolutely no he
did not direct him to say that at all.
That leaves one person himself.
And you assert the power of the supervisor.
You are breaking a law, and it's not a misdemeanor.
It's a serious law.
You can't go ahead and do your projects,
because that means what you can do is do things
for your friends and other entities, and I think it has to stop after all these years,
and if this board doesn't look into it and find out who did direct Mr. Gilliard.
We know there is money people around, and developers around, and people who want things
enamors their way.
Well, if they are influencing Mr. Gilliard, maybe at his age he might just consider retiring.
And let's start all over it. Thank you very much.
Judy. If anyone else would like to speak in public expression, they need to sign up now.
Judy Ferraro, 213, Donna Lee. On the list of financial disclosures required of committees and boards, there is a blaring absence of the people on the Imagine Amherst Committees.
Imagine Amherst is the mechanism steering the future development of Amherst. Therefore, committee members should definitely be required to submit the long disclosure form.
David Chiazza and Michael Montante represent two of the largest development corporations in Amherst.
They are on the Imagine Amherst Working Committee.
And according to meeting minutes are pushing their own agenda without recusal or disclosure.
They exemplify the reason why financial disclosure forms were instituted in the first place.
Does anyone doubt there is a conflict of interest being played out before our eyes without accountability
and without serving the best interest of the people?
These facts are alarming and raises questions about the real purpose and
legitimacy of Imagine Amherst.
I'm Martin Pasternak, I live at 480 North
Ivyhurst Road, feet from the proposed methadone clinic and I'm asking for the
town board's complete support for to deny the certificate of need from the
state for your help. If you could do that for me, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Make a motion to close public expression for the first time.
Second.
Barbara, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Carried unanimously.
Madam Clerk, please do the consent agenda.
Okay, very good. Thank you, Mr. Supervisor.
Consent agenda.
Under committee reports, Supervisor Weinstein, Item 1, Council Member Papawitch,
Items 1, 2, and 3, Council Member Buck, Item 2.
Town Attorney, items 1, 4, 5, 9, Town Clerk, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
Assessor, item 1, Building, Building Maintenance, items 1, 2, 3, Comptroller,
item 1 and 2, Contract Compliance, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6,
Engineering, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Highway,
items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Human Resources, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
Item 8 was withdrawn.
Planning department.
Item 2, police.
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Senior services.
Items 1, 2, and 3.
Youth and recreation.
Items 1, 2, and 3.
Communications.
Items 1 and 2, both consent.
Item 3 referred to planning, building, attorney, and highway.
Items 4, 5, and 6 all approved.
Item 7 referred to supervisor.
Item 8, 9, and 10 referred to town attorney.
Item 11 referred to drug court.
Items 12 and 13 referred to the LOSAP Committee. Items 14 and 15 referred to Planning and the NFTA.
Items 16 to Planning. Items 17 referred to Engineering, Attorney, and Traffic Safety Committee.
Items 18 referred to Controller, Engineering, and Attorney.
Items 19 referred to Attorney, Planning, Building, and Engineering.
Items 20 referred to Planning and Attorney.
Items 21 referred to Attorney and Cell Tower Committee.
I am 22 receiving file.
23 was referred to the Amherst IDA.
Items 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 all referred to the town attorney under public improvements.
Public improvement permits. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were all consent.
Motion to approve the consent agenda.
Second.
All in favor of approving the consent agenda, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
Sure. Yes.
Just a quick reference, a couple of residents had asked about the certificate of need.
Communications number seven, which was referred to the supervisor, was discussed this afternoon's work session.
And the supervisor will be writing a letter to the state requesting that they deny the certificate of need.
It's going to be going to the Department of Health, but also to the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Problem.
So it's going to be going to two different agencies because they would probably both have an impact on the decision in this matter.
I'm not sure of these.
I'm not sure if the two gentlemen just walked back and heard this.
You want to repeat it?
Okay.
Okay. Resolution 676. This is the planning and zoning board.
It repeals mandatory training.
There was an amendment on this to put in numbers.
Added additional sections.
It puts in the sections. So minor amendment. I'll make a motion to move second.
I'll make a motion to amend. Second. Discussion. I'll make a motion to all favor the amendment.
Please say aye. Aye. Oppose. Carriage unanimously.
I'll make a motion to approve as amended. Second. Is there any discussion?
long favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carriage unanimously.
Okay. Six seventy-seven, six eighty-one, six eighty-two are all on ethics.
As is another one on ethics somewhere. Six eighty-six. Ethics.
And there is a suspension now that was just received tonight from a county executive.
You're pulling cars. You could put that up.
Let's discuss all five of them.
They're all related. Anyone can jump in there.
They want to talk about the county executives letter first before you don't like because that has nothing to do with the ethics resolutions.
Oh, I'm sorry. We're we're on ethics. Oh.
Thank you for correcting me. Okay. If we are going to dispatch the rules, we can bring in the suspension before we do the rest of the resolutions.
But no, I got my ethics in my method. Don't use the press.
Oh, wait. I'm sorry. You've got three resolutions and a fourth one on ethics.
Go ahead. Thank you.
Resolution 677 is is to amend the code of ethics.
We had seen a draft of 686, 686,
which was an amendment to the Code of Ethics.
I don't think that went far enough. I think there were additional items that needed to be included, specifically.
I think we need to more clearly define the responsibilities of the members of the boards and committees.
If you read the code itself, it describes, defines who an officer is,
and they have to perform discretionary acts on behalf of the town with respect to any business dealings.
a business dealing is providing contract service, work with municipality, buying, selling,
renting, leasing, otherwise acquiring from or dispensing to them is...
Anyway, bottom line is I think there's lots of members of committees that aren't officers
under this definition, and I think this needs to more clearly define what each responsibilities
are, and also the code very specifically, the only penalty that exists is a fine,
and that is to be done by the Board of Ethics.
So I am also suggesting that through this resolution that we add that failure to file the form be considered a voluntary withdrawal from the committee,
and I think this gets around the issue as to whether we can remove people from the committees.
And I think this makes it easy just they don't file their forms on time then they're off the committee.
So those are the two recommendations that I have.
And the third one will be part of Ramona's resolution.
I still move these changes.
Second.
Are you guys planning on voting on these one at a time now?
They're independent.
They're both well-related.
They're related.
They're the same topics, but they're covering different issues.
Do you have any discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried four to one.
Okay.
It's okay with the supervisor.
Please go ahead.
The resolution I sponsored and co-sponsored by the Deputy Supervisor Sanders
interesting. Consumers' response is Resolution 681, amendment to Chapter 19, the end of disclosure
form.
I think we all understand that the reason for the disclosure form conflicts of interest,
you know, pure and simple. But we have different types of committees in our towns and boards.
We have several boards that I think are necessary for what I'm going to be calling the long form to be submitted.
But there are other committees, such as I said, the 9-11 committee that I don't think needs to be, you know,
have to go through the rigmarole of the long form.
But a short form, which I'm suggesting, which would just include the name, address, email,
address, telephone number, and checking the box that they've read, who will follow the town code of ethics.
I think what motivated me to do this was when I saw people's names in the Buffalo News.
I thought just for normal volunteers, you know, that was tough on a lot of these people.
And some have resigned, and a chair of a committee has resigned, which I'm disheartened about.
You know, I want to make Amherst a welcoming environment, you know, that to have people serve our town.
And so that's what motivated me for this resolution to create a short form, which I just mentioned,
and be a result that the town attorney drafted a text amendment of the town code to include the short form,
and be it further result that the ones that are listed there, and if you could, Kathy, if you could just move it up,
So to include everybody, that all of the elected town officials,
all department and deputy heads, members of the following from the IDA down to the zoning board of appeals,
that they would have to continue to fill out the long form and then be a further result that other
town boards and committees will be required to complete the short form.
And excuse me, and that the further result that these changes take place immediately,
if you could just flip it over there, upon the amendment of Chapter 19 and be it further
resolved in the future when boards or committees are created, the sponsor of the resolution
should clearly indicate whether the board or committee shall be required to file a long
or short financial disclosure form and comply with the Section 19 of the Town of Amherst
Code.
And I so move my resolution.
Second.
Discretion.
I'd like to make an amendment to add another grouping to the following
to be required to file the current long form.
And I would move that the members of the Imagine Amherst Project Working Committee
should also need to file the long form, and I so move that amendment.
I have a question for the town attorney.
I mean, I guess it's related to this amendment.
And I mean, currently, we have boards or we have committees that are made up of residents
that aren't listed in the town code at all, and aren't on our official website as far
as they are.
But members of the public are in those.
I mean, I guess, I mean, is Imagine Amherst already covered under the Code of Ethics?
Yes, but as an example, I already issued an opinion that they have to file the form
disclosure.
If you don't add them to the list, they're not going to be required to file anything.
In this resolution, that one?
Sure.
Right.
If you don't add them to the list, they're going to be required to file the short form, not
the long form.
And that's the difference.
Okay.
Debby, there was no second.
I knew a minute.
It is unfortunate.
I mean, on the question, I mean, I guess this is something that Councilman Papowicz
and I discussed earlier.
is trying to figure out exactly which committees should or shouldn't be included on here.
And, I mean, I had a lot of concerns as to whether what should or shouldn't.
The supervisor made a very interesting observation that it seems that the boards all have some sort of legislative or financial influence,
if you will, powers that would suggest that they should be included, whereas most of the committees don't.
I mean, I don't know if that's really a red line that you can use to try and figure out
which boards and committees should only require a short form.
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to saying that the members of Imagine Amherst should be
required to file a long form, particularly where they're influencing our future town
code, which is going to affect the way development occurs in this town.
I wonder if maybe there's another way that we could do this to determine which ones
are included, which ones aren't, rather than trying to have a set list like this.
I mean, I...
Well, since I serve on the Imagine Amherst committee, that's...
And I just lost my train of thought.
I went to a meeting in April, and they do a lot of very important things,
and they are making recommendations that are going to be implemented
with the new town code in our commercial areas.
So they actually are performing very important work, and that's why I wanted to add that amendment to that resolution.
Yes, they are performing important work, but it's the town board who makes the final decision and we can we can change anything that they recommend to us.
And that's that's the bottom line. But all these committees that do the work for all these different topics, we can always have a different opinion from them as well.
and those people have to fill out those forms.
Well, I mean, that's not all of them.
I mean, the ZVA has authority independent of the town board
as they've demonstrated very, very recently
related to the special use permit for Maple Road.
So, but other boards that are on the list,
for example, Traffic Safety Board
can't institute a traffic parking ban
that has to come to the town board to be approved.
So I mean, so some of these already on this list
already do have to come to the town board that they don't have final approval.
So I mean, I guess that's what I'm just, I've been kind of having trouble
digesting since the beginning is just how you determine which ones should be
requiring a long form and which ones can get away with a short form. So I'd
be more inclined to list the ones that can do a short form and then just
assume everything else is required to do a long form rather than the other
way around. So my observation is that there are some committee members that
haven't filed any ethics form and I don't think they care whether it's a long
form or a short form they seem to be ignoring the requirement so I think the
long form and a short form are irrelevant really. You look at the
committees the committees do not have the committee members do not have much
input into the town's financial structure so to speak. The boards do.
I can't find a committee that I think the members should file anything on.
I think the board should file what you're calling the long form.
And if you're talking about removing board members, and some of them are legally appointed,
with definite terms, I think you have to give them adequate advance notice
before they're appointed that if they don't file this, they could go lose their position on the board.
Well,
I would make a motion. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Supervisor.
I personally think my observation is that I think that the town's volunteers have been treated very poorly.
There's no reason for putting their name in the newspaper.
All they did was volunteer, and many of them volunteered innocuously on innocuous committees,
and which they had no idea that their name was going to be in the paper if they didn't file a form for their service as a volunteer on the Veterans Committee or some other committee.
Two of these volunteers have already resigned. One was a village appointee to the Glen Park Joint Board and someone from the IT department, the IT committee also resigned.
Maybe there's more than I'm not aware of.
I think we should be very appreciative of our volunteers.
We should thank them for the input that they provide.
I don't think we should penalize them for participating.
I don't think we should put their name in the newspaper.
Those members of boards that have decision-making authority,
which is the planning board, the zoning board of appeals,
the IDA and host IDA board.
Those are fair game but we have to tell them in advance that
Their tenure will be terminated if they don't file on time.
Go ahead, Debbie.
Sorry.
I would say at this juncture, perhaps should we table this resolution for another two weeks from now
to have more discussion about how this all should be worked out.
And I so move.
I would second the motion to table.
Tabling motion gets precedent.
All in favor of tabling, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
No.
It's table three to two.
We're up to the next one now.
The next one is yours, Dr. Boca.
Yes.
You want to table that one too?
Yes.
I would say that I will table this for two more weeks just to re-evaluate this.
I can say that so far only 26 people remain that have not completed the financial disclosure form.
I did like the language, though, that the deputy supervisor just used about if someone
doesn't fill out the form.
It's a voluntary withdrawal, and I like that nomenclature better than removal.
So I think that I'm going to, I would make a motion to table this for right now to
revisit it in two weeks, and I still move.
Second.
All in favor of tabling, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried 5-0.
I think we're up to 6-84 next.
Jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. 6-84.
Yes, 6-84.
Okay. Resolution 6-84.
I need to table my resolution tonight because the proposed local law was not attached for the community to review.
But I will bring this very important resolution forward at our next meeting.
So I need to make a motion to have it tabled.
I'll second it.
No discussion on tabling motion. All in favor of tabling please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
Thank you.
686 is again on ethics.
I'll make a motion.
No, I'll make a motion.
I'll forget it. Sorry. Never mind.
I personally think it's premature for a public hearing
because we don't know what we want to, we have not agreed what we want to put in the local
law.
So I think we just don't move this and move on to the next resolution then.
We could withdraw it.
What are you saying now?
All I did was make some proposal to cure some problems that were there to begin with,
not these other problems.
So these are text amendments meant for discussion only, but until you all decide how much
more you want me to add or subtract from it, it makes perfect sense not to set
the public hearing.
All right. So let's withdraw a new amendment and we'll set the power care in place.
Six eighty seven is a bond and I so move.
Second. Discussion.
Roll call.
Madam clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor Weinstein, Deputy Supervisor Sanders.
Yes. Council Member Popovich. Yes. Council Member Bucke.
Yes. Council Member Schultz. Yes. The bond issue is carried.
The next one I have is 690. Yes.
Yes. Make a motion to approve.
This is the designating the House and Assembly and Senate bills for the alienation.
Second. Discussion. This has the bill numbers.
It's properly done. But this is a lead into a hotel on town property.
And I don't think it's a good idea.
Is any any more comments?
on favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Carried three to two.
Six
ninety-one. Six ninety-one is, well, I'll move six ninety-one. Second. It's a personal
service contract of less than five thousand. The supervisor is authorized to sign. There's
an amendment to this. Yes.
Thank you. I'll second it.
The amendment is to take out the aggregation issue.
There's one line that talks about aggregation.
If you take that, I'll go along with it.
On the amendment, all in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
Make a motion to approve as amended.
Second.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
692 is put in by the town attorney.
Is there a motion?
I would move this. Is there a second? No second.
I have next is 740.
740 has to do with a special use permit for the dormitory.
Since we have. I think we kind of we kind of table the whole thing.
We can table this too. I'll make a motion to table second.
All in favor of tabling 740, please say aye.
Post carriage unanimously.
Make a motion to remove from the table resolution.
Two one seven dash three six two and three six five and three six five.
Second, all in favor of taking them off the table, please say aye.
Post carriage unanimously. Make a motion to receive and file both.
201-7362 and 201-7-365 as they've been supplanted by resolution 711.
Second.
Discussion? All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Carried unanimously.
Suspension is your up next.
Make a motion to suspend the rules for four unlisted items.
Second.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Carried unanimously.
The first item is communication that we received from the DEC regarding hogwarts.
I don't know how many people, hogweed, hogweed, giant hogweed.
I'm calling hogwarts.
Giant hogweed.
So make a motion to refer this to ACAC Highway and the Invasive Species Committee.
Second.
I'd like to also send it to IT and have them posted because it's the state DEC offering
help to residents that have this problem.
Sure.
Let's add IT, then.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Okay, unanimously.
Thank you.
The second resolution is it's to apply for a grant for the Canalway Trail on Tonawanda
And I so move. Discussion? Questions? All in favor, please say aye.
Aye. Opposed?
The third item came from our brand new contract compliance and administration director, right here, just on the job.
So this is to extend a contract for Deering Landscape Contractors, and I so move.
Second.
Discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Care unanimously.
The fourth item is communication that we received just this afternoon from the county executive regarding the methadone clinic.
And
I'm open to ideas on how you want to push up a little bit more.
Do you want to see paragraph three?
That one paragraph that says, my team, this is from the county executive,
my team has discussed this matter with Catholic Health
and they are willing and eager to work with the town of Amherst
to find a new location to provide these critical services.
And I think that's a good thing.
I'm very excited about their offer to help us find a new location.
So make a motion to accept the county that kid is offered to help find a new location.
My question is do you want me to send off that letter to the health department also?
Yes.
Okay.
I will accept county executive polling cars offer to work with us on this.
We'll identify some locations.
We'll ask our department heads to identify some locations and then we'll be up to the Catholic health system to decide what they're going to do.
Supervisor, if I could make an additional suggestion.
Yeah.
That when the locations are identified, if we could have a pictorial representation of
exactly where they are.
Sure.
So that everybody would be aware of the location.
Yeah.
If they impact a neighborhood.
Right.
So that we have a picture of what we're talking about.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, I've been advocating they stay in their present location on Sheridan Drive since day one.
So that's going to be one of the sites.
So we work on this now.
Make a motion to refer to the supervisor to follow up with the county executive.
All in favor, please say aye.
Post carried unanimously motion to return to the agenda.
Second. All in favor, between the agenda, please say aye.
Post carried unanimously. We get the public special number to make a motion to open the public special number to second.
I'm all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Carried unanimously.
It's an opportunity for anyone who didn't speak during public expression number one to address
the board.
Do we have anyone?
I'm Mali.
I'm the chairman of the Board of Ethics, 146 Burroughs Drive.
I just wanted to, I had a question and a comment with regards to the resolution that
actually passed.
Is that going to be retroactive or is it perspective because you passed at least
four to one?
And I think it was Resolution 677.
And with regard to the short form, Ms. Popovich, if they fail to file that short form,
will there be any sort of direction that my board would have to take?
Or, you know, if they, even if it's just a short form as the supervisor indicated.
We're hoping to be working in conjunction that the alternatives would be found,
like if you then submit it then.
No, that's great. And so that would apply to both the long and the short form.
Fair enough.
Stephen, did you use the first resolution to answer this question?
Well, sure.
I mean, the direction was to write a local law, an amendment to the local law.
So it would be something that when we write it, it would then go into effect at that point in time.
We can't retroactively apply it to the existing board members, which would include the potential
penalty of making the, I mean, what I propose, if Stan says that it works, I don't know,
the deemed withdrawal from the committees for failing to file, then, I mean, again,
now we have to be something basically anybody newly appointed would be subject to that,
because presumably anybody appointed prior to that, I think you'd have tough time applying that to them.
But again, I mean, that's stuff that we'll have to work out in the local law.
Okay. Except for an unexpected vacancy in one of these board's high-profile committees,
I wouldn't expect much of this to go into effect until next year.
Okay, so from our board's perspective, I'm just going to go along with the code as it's written right now until it's changed.
Well, can I just add that in two weeks I might have a resolution that says right now we have 26 people because our child clerk was kind enough to check on this, so the number has gone down.
So maybe next time I would have a resolution to say if the these 26 people that were we're working on the
2017 form so maybe if they don't file then they
Maybe could be deemed that they voluntarily are withdrawing themselves if they don't file it by a certain date that might be what I would be
Looking for my resolution was more focused on
2017 okay again, that's things were
Prospectively, whatever the action the board takes and then directs our board to take obviously we'll follow. Okay. Thank you for your work. Thank you.
Make a motion to close public special number two.
Did someone want to speak?
No. All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, carries unanimously.
Make a motion to adjourn.
Second.
All in favor for adjourning, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, carries unanimously.
Thank you everybody.