Planning Board Regular Meeting

Fishkill (town), NY · · More Fishkill (town), NY meetings · More New York meetings

View original source →

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT
AI TRANSCRIPT

This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person — it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.

[0:04] The way we call, no, no, no.
[0:11] You know, I think it was the most, at least, liquid, it's this.
[0:19] Yeah, yeah, everything is going to be.
[0:21] Really, it's not going to be too long, but we'll be, yeah, we'll be, yeah.
[0:25] So, yeah.
[0:27] That's not working, we'll be really, really working.
[0:28] That's a unique word for it.
[0:29] Yeah, that's a lot to do with this.
[0:31] It's not that easy.
[0:34] It's not that easy.
[3:29] I'd like to call them meeting to order. This is the town of Pishgill Planning Board, April 13th,
[3:34] 2017. I'm Jonathan Cantor. I'm a member of the Town of Pitchfield Planning Board and the chair asked me to
[3:44] suffer her tonight. She wasn't able to be here. So as the chair normally does, I will re-estatement about
[3:54] electronic devices. If you have any form of electronic device on your person, that in some way could
[4:01] communicate with any member of the sport or our consultants, you must either turn it off as
[4:07] in power it down or you may go out to your vehicle now and secure it to your vehicle.
[4:13] There should be absolutely no attempt by anyone, applicants, project sponsors, their consultants
[4:18] or members of the public to try to communicate with any member of the sport or its consultants
[4:23] at any time during the meeting unless it would be addressed and recognize by this sport.
[4:30] Okay, have them gotten through that.
[4:37] We are going to have two public hearings tonight.
[4:39] The first one is the grant construction subdivision.
[4:44] And the second one is the key smart self-storage facility.
[4:49] And so I'm going to read into the record the planning board rules of conduct for public hearings,
[4:54] which will apply to both hearings.
[4:57] One verbal interruptions, shouting or other outbursts, as well as slanderers, or of seen language, or signs, with haughty or face, or prohibited.
[5:08] Speakers are limited to one turn at the microphone. Speakers are limited to three or four minutes.
[5:16] Speakers should provide only new or different information or commentary. Repetitive comments made previously, or at prior meetings, are prohibited and not helpful.
[5:27] Commissar limited to matters involving the business before the board in that
[5:31] public hearing that is the particular application that's under review.
[5:36] Speakers are asked to come to the podium up here and identify themselves so that their
[5:41] name may be entered into the record by Mrs. Davis.
[5:45] And if a person continues to interrupt or assume that there had been interruptions after
[5:50] the chair has asked them to stop, they will be asked to leave and escorted from the
[5:54] room if necessary.
[5:58] So, those are the rules.
[6:01] So, let's get going with the first public hearing,
[6:05] and I'll read the description of that that was posted. This is the grant construction subdivision,
[6:14] and this public hearing was scheduled to start at 7 p.m. or send it after it is possible.
[6:19] The FNC seeks to subdivide a 5.64 or plus or minus h of partial into 2 watts.
[6:27] The partial currently encompasses an existing office building, storage building and an outside storage area.
[6:34] A flat one shall consist of 1.38 plus or minus acres and shall encompass the existing office building.
[6:41] And a lot too shall consist of 4.25 plus or minus acres and shall encompass the existing storage building and an outside storage area.
[6:50] The parcel for this proposal is located at 1, 4, 1, 8, root, 9, D in the GB general business zoning district.
[6:59] Now, a note on the wording that I just read, the acreage figures that I read are actually listed.
[7:06] They were listed and worked from an earlier plan that was submitted to the town.
[7:09] The current plan that's actually under consideration now includes lot one as 2.14 acres and lot two as 3.5 acres.
[7:21] I know that Mr. Barnett, you are consulted earlier today on that issue.
[7:26] I just wanted to confirm that we're good to go on moving ahead with the public hearing.
[7:30] We absolutely, that shouldn't in any way prevent us from moving forward this evening.
[7:36] Excellent. Thank you.
[7:40] Okay, so I'd like to ask the board for a motion to open this public hearing.
[7:48] Second, second.
[7:50] All in favor say aye.
[7:53] Any opposed or any abstentions?
[7:58] Hearing none.
[7:59] The public hearing is open.
[8:01] So the first thing you would like to do is ask the applicants representative to just give a brief overview
[8:06] description of the projects. Again, we're about the third or fourth time.
[8:36] There's all this kind of storage, and the second floor is just storage, and we're going to
[8:41] have the right amount of eighties, and we're going to do the work storage of the
[8:46] shopping here on the top, and what we're going to do when it's not being used up in the
[8:51] building.
[8:52] What they're going to do is we're going to be able to customize the part of the part of the
[8:56] part of the main.
[8:57] We're probably going to have a great part of the one here, which will consist of the
[9:01] existing building.
[9:13] You can use the microphone, you're not coming through that well, please.
[9:23] I'm hoping so.
[9:25] Sorry guys.
[9:26] I just want to keep going.
[9:28] I can't do it again.
[9:30] No, no, no, no.
[9:32] There's no, there's a change to...
[9:34] You're good, you're good, you're good.
[9:38] There's a disengaged one.
[9:39] That will remain a moment in here.
[9:42] And also a lot more over here than students in the United States.
[9:45] That will remain for...
[9:51] Alright.
[9:54] Okay, so...
[9:55] Are there any comments or questions from the audience regarding this proposal?
[9:59] If anyone would like to speak, please come up to the podium and we'd be glad to hear from you.
[10:10] I'm sure they count to 10 or it looks like nobody.
[10:13] Nobody really came for this particular, apparently.
[10:19] So,
[10:26] right?
[10:28] By the way, we are going to be considering this matter further later in the agenda.
[10:35] And so, any other questions that might arise from the board?
[10:38] I think we can hold until the end.
[10:40] So, having heard no comments from the public at this point, that I get emotional to close the public hearing, emotional to close the grant construction of the public hearing.
[10:54] Second.
[10:58] All in favor?
[10:59] Say hi.
[11:00] Aye.
[11:01] Opposed?
[11:02] No abstentions.
[11:04] So this hearing is closed.
[11:10] All right.
[11:11] So, yeah, so we'll be doing the further discussion later on.
[11:14] So I think
[11:17] we're ready to get to the second public hearing,
[11:22] which is theCUBE smart self-storage facility,
[11:25] especially its permit and site development plan.
[11:29] So I'll read the description of the
[11:33] application's representative of this getting set up.
[11:37] So again, at 7 p.m. or assume that after it's possible,
[11:41] it's just public hearing of this schedule.
[11:43] We have to get to see especially its permit
[11:45] and site development plan approvals to construct two climate-controlled self-storage facilities
[11:51] and all necessary site improvements in two bases.
[11:56] Phase one, child consists of a 97,275 square foot, two and a half story structure
[12:02] and phase two, child consists of an 18,150 square foot, two and a half story structure.
[12:09] The parcels for this proposal are located at the intersection of Route 82 and Route 52 in the GB general business owning district and consists of 2.99 acres.
[12:23] So, again, I'll ask for a motion from the board to open this public hearing.
[12:30] Second, all in favor say I, I oppose hearing none, the hearing is open, and we'll ask
[12:40] we have the instructors out of the, on this proposal to, again, give a, give a, maybe
[12:45] as somewhat not long, but more detailed description of the proposal.
[12:50] So we have a system that I don't know if you're going to want to be needing that in a minute.
[12:57] As mentioned, the site data is going to be available on 802 and 802 to be able to go back down.
[13:06] So the site is at 8.778 per site.
[13:11] There is the phase 1, there is the structure of a 3,000 to 2,000 to 2,000,
[13:18] 3,23 hours, one and a more critical skill.
[13:23] Hopefully that will be striking me in the front of the total load
[13:28] for the product.
[13:29] The printing system and now theitorant building
[13:33] based on the section building, which is 1000,
[13:37] getting swear peak.
[13:39] Two we are proposing one active point along here.
[14:21] I'm going to say maybe I'll punish one here and between the buildings, I'll run, I'll also
[14:27] have to pay for it.
[14:29] I'll just go to the planning, I'll follow this, follow this, I'll take it this time, I'll
[14:34] have it in theineries, I'll let it, yeah, this
[14:51] is the architect for the motherboard, I'll
[14:53] make it up.
[14:57] Do you think I'm going to stop that trick?
[14:59] I'll hold it with this one.
[15:01] All the members rangering to show us the front side of the building with the main entrance, the sample materials kept in submitted to the planning board.
[15:14] All there are mix of brick beneath, stone base, storefront glazing and metal panels that are in a textured puddle-like surface, as well as a catalysis.
[15:28] We're going to have that make sure the different types like the blues, the blue, the talc,
[15:36] quarters at the top, and the blue corner towers that are slightly higher than that, we'll
[15:43] exploit these sets in the field,
[15:53] because we will be overall building from the corner.
[15:57] And, you know, there are just plain windows that have to be stacked.
[16:05] And, you show them for a thousand bars, and here you come all the time,
[16:10] and you can land, and you can land, and you can gather in colors that are interesting.
[16:28] Do you want to set for now?
[16:32] As just wondering, if we could see a show of hands for those,
[16:35] people who might want to comment on this particular proposal or any questions.
[16:40] Anybody here for this one?
[16:48] Okay, there's there's a taker. All right, could you come up to the podium?
[16:54] Even if it's just a question, that's okay, but we need to clear the microphone on there.
[17:00] If you could, please
[17:16] So, have you been done?
[17:18] Did not?
[17:19] Did not?
[17:19] Do you want to call it?
[17:24] Why not?
[17:25] We rather than have back and forth.
[17:28] If there are any other, do you have any other issues or comments that you are interested
[17:32] that we can get them all sort of address stories?
[17:36] Okay.
[17:36] I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say about it.
[17:38] Okay.
[17:39] Thank you.
[17:41] Is anyone else interested in commenting or any other questions from the audience?
[17:48] Yes.
[17:49] Could you come up to the podium? Thanks.
[18:05] And I've lived in the area since 1971, and I've seen the buildings coming up, and the special street walls.
[18:15] And I know that it's a commercial property, and I've had it seen something a little bit of a strange element of the street wall down here.
[18:26] I don't think traffic for a storage unit is going to impact the situation in order to track it up.
[18:37] But I rather see a structure of display here, rather than an electric wall or a duck indelent or anything else.
[18:48] That would probably impact the traffic and the last one.
[18:53] So, I think it would be fine to make anyone
[19:04] else.
[19:09] Yes, come right up.
[19:18] My name is Bruce Garcin.
[19:20] I am the manager of Bruce York in the store.
[19:22] Right next to this property.
[19:26] We've been there since seven and nine.
[19:27] We've been there since seven and nine.
[19:28] We've been there since seven and nine.
[19:31] family for a long time, and that is family's just making properties that you can
[19:40] continue on.
[19:41] I'm going to make my new releases.
[19:44] I like the design of a layout.
[19:49] I initially had to have some of the sort of what's this going to be the traffic, because
[19:53] I don't get meaning out of our places.
[19:55] The challenge is coming, but I heard some figures, I can't hold them up, you know, how many visits a day was given a little time at average, yeah, I don't see it as a traffic each week and there we are, yeah, I don't think we're going to be able to work with any community or traffic with the bill, I guess we're going to have to, yeah, sorry, I got a little bit, thank you.
[20:24] Thank you.
[20:27] anyone else? I think we're just getting rolling now.
[20:33] Well, maybe why don't we ask the applicants representative to come up and maybe just give a real quick summary about what you looked at traffic wise to address that first comment.
[20:44] And that, if anyone else thinks of anything, you would like to comment on the old free afterwards.
[21:13] we use in something to generate the key traffic during the AMV dollar and the AMV dollar.
[21:19] We did not do a formal traffic starting because of the basically the numbers.
[21:26] Just don't generate a traffic from the O.T.
[21:30] The entrance and the show on this plan is actually selected by the O.T.
[21:34] At that point, they felt that there was no need for traffic starting because of the low impact.
[21:44] Thank you.
[21:46] So, I'll give you one more chance, if anyone has any further comments or questions relating
[21:53] to this proposal.
[21:54] Yes, sir.
[21:55] I'll come up to the podium, please.
[22:08] My name is Mark Eister, and I'm an official on my new role.
[22:14] The fact that I have a general question regarding the kind of,
[22:19] for a tree is intended to plant it on this facility.
[22:24] So there are these places, actually,
[22:26] quest for a special requirement
[22:28] for an unbiased amount of plant and more for this.
[22:32] Anything is, let's go on gently.
[22:36] I, there is a, as all the states now,
[22:39] we're going to have trees planted along the roof nine.
[22:43] And they just come down.
[22:45] When I made a request about that, they said,
[22:48] You have to have the trees that are going to be approved, but you don't have to leave them.
[22:53] So I'm wondering if there are requirements for the trees that are shown here.
[22:59] And it was the longevity of that particular committee.
[23:04] Let me first answer on behalf of the board that, and all of our resolutions of approval for site plans and special permits,
[23:13] which this one is, we include a condition that not only should the landscaping be maintained
[23:20] or replaced if disease or dying or dead, but we also reserve the right to revisit the landscaping
[23:30] at some future point if things like you mentioned happen.
[23:34] If trees are removed, that shouldn't have been or something happens to them.
[23:39] We reserve that right to revisit that so that goes that goes in all of our resolutions
[23:45] But why not we why not we ask the applicant to give us a little bit just the touch of that already
[23:51] What type of landscaping proposed?
[24:56] Does that answer your question?
[25:42] I know, in that case, we could make some sense anyway.
[25:44] It was no commitment to keep trees up once they would put in.
[25:49] And I presume here, in so five or six years
[25:53] if I were to tie this body out of these,
[25:55] I could come back and find out what the requirement was.
[25:59] And if it wasn't like it, before I'm the person,
[26:02] I'm going to take action to correct that.
[26:20] Do you want to help address that?
[26:21] I will, I am not familiar with the mobile station service,
[26:25] so I cannot address it.
[26:26] body if an applicant completes the process, and has a resolution of final approval from this
[26:32] board, as Mr. Canter said, there is typically a condition in there that requires that
[26:36] they maintain the vegetation in a growing state, et cetera, and if they get signed site
[26:41] plans, in other words, it ends. If those site plans indicate that certain plants or trees
[26:47] are supposed to be there, it is intended that they remain for the life of the particular
[26:53] question. So, in other words, if you can't just go willy-nilly, cut them down, as you
[27:00] suggest happens, providing we have a signed site plan, because we have the right for the
[27:05] life of that project to enforce that site plan unless the applicant comes back and makes
[27:09] a modification. There have been times, and I think you've been here where applicants
[27:13] have come back to either change the colors on the building or modify the facade, do
[27:18] Some other things, they all are linked together, so if the process is fully completed and
[27:24] the files exist in our, in the town hall, they are obligated to maintain that site in
[27:32] conformance with the site plan, or if they don't, they have to come back and either get
[27:36] a revised site plan, or the building's inspector can pursue it in whatever way he wants.
[27:42] So the goal of this planning board is to make sure they stay out, they're not supposed
[27:45] to be a year and down.
[27:46] As Mr. Canter, rightfully said, there's a maintenance period, and then this board has typically
[27:53] reserved the right if they have to a year and it's up and it doesn't look the way it's
[27:56] supposed to. There have been places where we've come back and asked them to do more.
[28:00] Yes, I think it was a change for the landscape being, he has to come back and then go through
[28:06] upon the process.
[28:07] Depends on the magnitude of the change, but he has to alert us if he changes it before he's
[28:12] on and got his final C.O. oftentimes, it's a plan of species
[28:17] aren't available, so he'll modify it.
[28:19] But if he makes a major change or alter stuff,
[28:23] he's typically asked to come back to the board
[28:25] before he gets his final C.O.
[28:28] Virtually, any noticeable change to a site plan could
[28:33] range from anything like lighting to adding a shadow,
[28:36] some sort, and certainly anything that would significantly
[28:40] to detect the landscaping plan would have to come back.
[28:47] But thanks to the column of settlers, that was interesting.
[28:51] So anyone else is there anyone else who would like to speak to this matter?
[29:05] Or we closed the hearing a couple of things on the first one.
[29:10] I wanted to enter into the record a letter that we received from a Harriet B.
[29:15] And she writes on behalf of Haslete, slash JLD, Bishgill, LLC, property owners of 1603 and 1610 root 52 to state that we meaning she has no objection to the building of climate control of self storage units on the nearby root 52 property.
[29:40] So let's see any further comments, Mr. Andrews, at this point.
[29:46] No, I did issue comments to the applicant back in February.
[29:53] We met with the applicant later in February.
[29:57] I think we've reached conceptual agreement under
[30:00] The drainage and we're just trying to fine-tune the numbers to make sure they all come together. And they are otherwise, I think, in the process of addressing my concerns, the health department concerns, and trying to finalize things with the town board, as far as I am aware.
[30:15] Thank you.
[30:16] And Mr. Donnelly, welcome. Good to see you.
[30:18] Good to be here.
[30:19] I think the only issue that is not yet resolved is either a water district extension or out of district water user agreement,
[30:28] and you need to make that overture to the town board, so they can get back to the U.S. to which their preference would be.
[30:40] All right. I will give the public one last chance before we close the hearing.
[30:45] So, going once, going twice, do I hear a motion to close the public hearing?
[30:51] I'll just close the public hearing.
[30:53] Second.
[30:54] All in favor? Say aye.
[30:58] I'll be opposed.
[30:59] hearing none.
[31:01] The public hearing is closed.
[31:08] Now, let me just ask, are we waiting?
[31:11] What else might we be waiting for?
[31:14] Probably not.
[31:15] On the other side of the water issue.
[31:17] Mr. Andrews, please.
[31:22] The
[31:49] question Mr. Lynch, please, if I may.
[31:52] Between the last meeting, and now you did make an updated
[31:55] submittal, so that I think you address some of the concerns of the board, that they wanted to make sure that they were
[32:01] President public hearing.
[32:03] My question to you is do you want me to review that or you want to talk one last
[32:08] time on drainage how would you like to portray that?
[32:10] I don't want to waste your time and I'd like to see if we can bring this to a conclusion
[32:14] so I don't want to review something that you might be changing.
[32:20] Okay.
[32:21] Very well.
[32:23] May I then have the board's authorization to meet with the applicant to review the
[32:28] final details on drainage and slightly out please?
[32:32] Could we have a motion?
[32:34] Yes.
[32:34] I moved that way.
[32:37] Did we authorize Mr. Andrews to meet with the applicant?
[32:41] Do I hear a second?
[32:42] Second.
[32:43] All in favour?
[32:44] Say aye.
[32:45] A close.
[32:46] A ring none.
[32:47] It is a.
[32:49] Under.
[32:55] Oh, what?
[32:56] Let's see.
[32:56] I don't know that you mentioned the correspondence with Metro North,
[33:01] from the railroad railway.
[33:02] Is that is there any ongoing communication on that?
[33:05] We can come back to the work site.
[33:09] We can come here.
[33:10] If you can't over the last page, there's a lot of questions.
[33:14] We've got a lot of questions.
[33:15] We've got to be very important to talk.
[33:16] We're going to submit that.
[33:18] We'll explain the document in a minute.
[33:19] We're going to put it in the back of the program.
[33:21] We'll also be ready to start on the basis.
[33:24] I think we'll send first.
[33:28] All right.
[33:29] So I think we're also at on this one?
[33:30] Yes, thank you.
[33:31] All right.
[33:32] Thank you very much.
[33:33] And we'll put it to say, next time.
[33:35] Thank you.
[33:36] Okay.
[33:44] we'll just pause for a second while our other attorney comes back in
[35:11] our right now that's
[35:13] okay the next item on the agenda if we can get our other playing board member back
[35:23] Mr. Lopez.
[35:25] Thank you.
[35:26] Thank you.
[35:27] No.
[35:28] I refuse to do Mr. Lopez.
[35:32] Thank
[35:40] you so much.
[35:43] Okay.
[35:44] They're trying to figure something else out.
[35:45] But we're moving on to the next January.
[35:48] So, the next of the day, in general, I don't miss the forward to approve and adopt the January 12, 2017 meeting minutes.
[35:55] And the March 9th, 2017 meeting minutes.
[35:59] Thank you, sir.
[36:01] I'll wait for the second.
[36:15] All right.
[36:16] I have board members that are chance to review both sets of minutes.
[36:19] Yes.
[36:21] And are there any corrections or comments on either of them?
[36:25] Other than, you know, editorial or anything else?
[36:30] OK.
[36:33] So with someone like to make a motion to adopt both,
[36:36] The January 12th, 2017 and March 9th, 2017 meeting minutes.
[36:43] Second.
[36:46] All right.
[36:47] All in favour?
[36:48] Say aye.
[36:49] Any opposed?
[36:51] Hearing none.
[36:52] Both sets of minutes are approved.
[36:58] Okay.
[37:02] The next item on the agenda is,
[37:04] has to do with continental commons,
[37:07] special use permit and site development plan.
[37:09] But it only pertains to the board acknowledging received of the final report from Paleo-West.
[37:18] And no comments will be taken at tonight's meeting.
[37:22] But for those of you interested, this is what the report looks like.
[37:28] The report is on the town's website.
[37:32] The actual full title of the report is archaeological resource assessment
[37:37] and Historic Property Treatment Plan for the Proposed Continental Commons Development, Town of
[37:43] Fishgill, Duchess County, New York, final report, and the report was received by the
[37:48] Town of Fishgill Planning Department on April 10, 2017. So I just wanted to reiterate, the board
[37:56] will not be discussing the report tonight, having just received it. It's a pretty long in-depth
[38:02] detail report. And there will be no comments taken on the report tonight. The appropriate
[38:08] time for public comments on the report and other matters will be at the public hearing,
[38:14] which will be scheduled at some point in the future at the appropriate time.
[38:21] So again, I'm sorry, what you're done.
[38:24] I'm just going to mention as obviously we're not there yet and we don't quite know how
[38:31] when we're going to need to schedule the public hearing.
[38:34] But I do want to just alert folks to the potential
[38:38] of the possibility that what we may end up doing
[38:41] is looking to do it on a special, as a special meeting,
[38:44] on a separate evening, so as not to consume a regular agenda,
[38:50] regular agenda night on the Thursday.
[38:53] So keep that in mind.
[38:54] I know at some point in time, Debbie and Mario
[38:57] probably circulate in for dates that are good for everybody
[39:00] of it, once we know the, we get a sense as to when the public hearing is going to be appropriate
[39:08] and hopefully it won't write into too many scheduling difficulties, but we're going to do what we can to make that happen.
[39:18] Well, I know that we have, not only this report, but quite a few other matters to kind of get back to and review and depth that we haven't visited lately.
[39:28] So, I anticipate they're going to be without name on a number, but several meetings before
[39:35] we're able to set the public hearing just so you know the timeframe.
[39:41] Having said that,
[39:44] though, Mr. Andrews, you have any other...
[39:47] No, I said the Board may recall just two quick items.
[39:51] I did issue a comment memo in dated March 17th, which was circulated to the Board.
[39:57] We, the applicant, did have a meeting with New York State DOT to review their comments and
[40:03] detail and develop a response and I did have a follow-up technical meeting as authorized
[40:10] with the Board based on my March 17 review on March 23. The applicant has made a
[40:19] resubmission. They're starting to address some of the comments but they still have some
[40:24] issues that they'd like to technical matters, so we've got a tentative meeting scheduled going
[40:29] forward again to take a look at some of those issues in more detail.
[40:34] And what other than that, we are making progress in trying to wrap up those items that you
[40:39] suggest.
[40:41] Okay, thanks.
[40:44] So I don't know if we normally, for acknowledgment of report, do this by motion, but I would
[40:50] like to just have it formally on the record.
[40:52] So, if somebody would like to make a motion to formally acknowledge the receipt of the final report from Paleoist Archaeology.
[41:03] Some will.
[41:04] And is there a second?
[41:08] All right.
[41:08] All in favor say aye.
[41:10] Aye.
[41:11] Any opposed?
[41:12] Appearing none.
[41:13] The report is.
[41:17] We are acknowledging the receipt of the final report.
[41:22] All right.
[41:24] Do them right along.
[41:28] So, the next item on the agenda.
[41:31] is the granted construction subdivision, again, and this agenda item is for the board to review
[41:40] the negative declaration and a draft resolution of preliminary and final approval.
[41:47] And I know that the board just received, oh, no, I'm sorry, that's a different matter.
[41:52] So I wanted to just confirm that you did receive the draft night and resolution.
[42:03] Okay.
[42:04] So Mr. Andrews, could you please review the night.
[42:08] Certainly.
[42:10] You should have in front of you actually there's a series of three documents.
[42:13] The first one is a short environmental assessment form.
[42:16] Part two impact assessment.
[42:19] Undersecrets, the Board's obligation to fill this out.
[42:23] It is the precursor to adopting the negative declaration.
[42:27] I've selected the short and environmental assessment form.
[42:31] As this is an unlisted action, the Board is actually the only involved agency.
[42:39] The Board of Health only needs to issue a consent to file.
[42:43] So it was the subject of an uncoordinated review.
[42:46] And it's pretty straightforward, the answer to the various questions are all no or a small impact.
[42:54] If you turn to part three, there's probably only two items that needed some further explanation.
[43:01] Item eight deals with the fact that this area has been identified as archaeologically sensitive.
[43:07] Most of the 90 corridor is because it's on a bluff overlooking the river.
[43:11] The site, however, is fully developed and is used.
[43:13] This is a simple subdivision.
[43:16] There is no proposed development or construction associated with the subdivision.
[43:20] Therefore there will be no physical impacts associated with the action.
[43:24] So a simple acknowledgement of the archaeological sensitivity is sufficient.
[43:29] The other item deals with item number 10, which is drainage issues.
[43:34] As you may recall, the project incorporates a new drainage easement running to the town.
[43:38] and they built a lot of drives, a drainage from a lot of drive crosses the front edge of this property.
[43:44] There's a series of map notes that cover it, but there was never any formal easement.
[43:48] So since we are now going to the subdivision process,
[43:51] the board asks the applicant kindly provided a drainage easement.
[43:57] So this is viewed as a beneficial impact to the project.
[44:01] Based on that, what I'm suggesting is that,
[44:04] And based on the analysis, it will not result in any significant environmental impacts that
[44:10] the box should have been checked at the bottom, and I would ask that you would check the
[44:14] bottom box.
[44:16] And then this would get entered into the record.
[44:19] And based on this, you can turn to the negative decoration notice of determination of non-significance.
[44:30] It is labeled draft number 2, dated 4, 11, 2017,
[44:41] and pretty much the action, not to drive me nuts, but the proposed action is the subdivision of a 5.64 acre parcel into two lots, lot 1, the shell consists of 2.14 acres and lot 2, shell consists of 3.5 acres.
[44:57] The parcel is located in the general business zone.
[45:00] District, there's no proposed development or construction associated with the subdivision. The lot is currently developed with an office building storage building and fence storage yard currently being used by the construction company.
[45:13] Upon completion of the subdivision, lot one will contain the office building and adjacent parking and lot two will contain the storage building and the existing storage yard.
[45:21] No other permits or approvals are required for the proposed action.
[45:26] The subdivision platform will require consent to file and non-zero
[45:28] Stictional Stamp for the Dutch County Department's Health, prior to filing,
[45:32] because it does not constitute a real decub division on the public health law
[45:36] or the Dutch County Sanitary Code.
[45:38] There will be no physical impact associated with the proposed action.
[45:42] As you all know, the site is located on the northeastern side of Route 90.
[45:47] The parcel is bounded on Route 90 to the west in the long drives of the north.
[45:51] The property is more specifically known as 1418 root 9-gay in the town of Fiskill,
[45:57] Duchess County, New York, tax parcel number, and I'll just read the final 697-5534 consisting
[46:03] of 5.64 acres.
[46:06] The board, as review the action, has identified all relevant areas of environmental concern,
[46:11] has considered the completed environmental assessment form while relevant supporting documentation
[46:16] in the Seeker record, and has compared the impacts that can be reasonably expected to
[46:20] result from the proposed action with a criteria set 4th and 6, and while I see R, R, Part
[46:26] 6, 17, .7, C, and here I determine that no significant adverse environmental impacts
[46:32] associated with the proposed action have been identified and therefore a preparation
[46:36] of an environmental impact statement is not required.
[46:40] The first one is really just a simple statement and it reiterates that the important parts.
[46:46] It's a simple subdivision.
[46:48] There is no development or construction activity.
[46:51] The existing uses in their absence of points will
[46:53] all continue to function as they currently do,
[46:56] with no change as a consequence of the subdivision.
[46:59] All the loss to be created will comply fully
[47:01] with the requirements of the town of Fiskill Zoning Code.
[47:03] No change in the status or development level
[47:06] of any of the parcels is contemplated,
[47:09] and there is no physical impacts.
[47:11] The rest of these are pretty much standard boilerplate
[47:14] reviews, the only ones that kind of vary the number two, there's no change to the access,
[47:24] therefore the traffic impact is believed to be relatively minor. Number four deals with the
[47:31] fact that they have offered and the town is going to accept an appropriate drainage easement. Number
[47:36] six, there is a small section of federal wetlands on the southwest corner of the parcel and the
[47:44] also is located in area that's generalized to contain endangered animals and plants that are
[47:50] rare in New York State, but the parcel is developed. There are no changes, so there's no logical
[47:57] impact to any of these things. The site is not located in a critical environmental area. The archeological
[48:03] sensitive issue, and then other than that, going through it's not expected to result in any of
[48:11] The impacts identified here in, so I would recommend adoption of the neck deficit submitted.
[48:20] Thank you.
[48:21] I was just going to mention that on the original part one of the environmental assessment
[48:25] form, that's the applicant had submitted.
[48:29] We probably should make the corrections on the acreage figures, so on page one and page three
[48:37] There are references to the earlier interactive years.
[48:42] And so we should simply plug in the new acreage figures for a lot.
[48:46] One would be 2.14 acres and for a lot too would be 3.5 acres.
[48:51] Give the I would ask that you do that on the official town pile,
[48:54] and then just initial and date the copy, and then we'll just have that in there.
[48:58] Thank you.
[49:01] So then, I'd like
[49:06] to ask the board if there are any other questions or comments on what
[49:10] Mr. Andrews just want to over or on any questions on environmental issues that you want.
[49:23] So, again, I would like to ask for a motion to adopt the negative declaration as review by Mr. Andrews.
[49:32] Anyone like the second perspective?
[49:35] All right, all in favor, say aye.
[49:37] Aye.
[49:39] Opposed?
[49:40] The only none.
[49:41] The negative declaration is adopted.
[49:45] So I'd like to return to Mr. Andrews to review the draft resolution of preliminary
[49:51] at final approval for this project.
[49:55] Yes, you should have in front of you a resolution of preliminary final approval.
[50:00] grant construction subdivision identified as draft number four dated again April 11th, 2017.
[50:10] The first were as is the standard boilerplate which sets forth specifics of the application.
[50:17] They've been read three or four times.
[50:21] And Mr. Lynch has reviewed them so I don't want to go through them again.
[50:24] The second whereas I would suggest that we just had that the public hearing was held this evening, and that should be 2017, we missed that.
[50:37] And at which time there was no comments from anyone in attendance.
[50:47] The second page, the negative declaration you would enter today's date for 13, 2017.
[50:55] And then I'll go through the final, I'll go through the results.
[51:01] Now therefore be it resolved, the planning board here by waves the final public hearing
[51:06] on the subdivision, pursuant to town code 13D1, the general reason there was a resounding
[51:13] lack of attendance and interest.
[51:16] And then number two, be it further resolved.
[51:18] The counter-fizcal planning board here by adopts this resolution or preliminary and final approval for the project known as granite construction subdivision subject to satisfactory compliance with the following conditions.
[51:32] I did issue a review memorandum dated February 9.
[51:35] The comments or concerns in that resolution will need to in that memorandum need to be resolved.
[51:41] You know, there's consent notes, so we signed a date by the owner following the date of last revision.
[51:46] The survey or certification shall be signed and sealed by the appropriate licensed professional.
[51:51] The project's sponsor shall obtain consent to file from the Dutch County Health Department.
[51:57] The project's sponsor shall provide a standard town of fiscal drainage easement.
[52:01] Twenty-foot and with centered on the existing storm drainage pipe along the Route 90 project crunchage.
[52:07] whenever that pipe runs within wherever it should be wherever.
[52:12] Part of me.
[52:13] Wherever that the pipe runs within the property of the project's
[52:16] sponsor, the final form and content of these
[52:19] which shall be suitable to the town planning board attorney
[52:21] and the town attorney.
[52:23] And lastly, the project's sponsor shall be in
[52:25] the University of the Town of Frischfield for all costs and
[52:26] curb by the town.
[52:28] Further review of this subdivision proposal.
[52:31] The final clap will not be signed or sealed until the chairman
[52:33] by the chairman until all appropriate costs and charges
[52:36] have been paid and the astral satisfied. In order to be signed, they will need satisfactory
[52:44] completion of items of conditions numbered 1 through 6, and it's the responsibility of the
[52:50] project sponsor to submit those. And again, this, the approved plan needs to be filed within
[52:56] 62 days, one signed by the chairman.
[53:02] And then the board, if the conditions aren't satisfied,
[53:06] But the board may extend it by not more than two additional periods of 90 days, so I would
[53:14] offer this for your consideration.
[53:20] Thank you. Mr. Barnett, do you have anything to add to what Mr. Andrews has said?
[53:26] No, I reviewed the resolution and the negative back in the space and the anticipation
[53:30] of the meeting this evening. I don't know anything else to you, but I think we will
[53:33] it's been presented so far. Thank you very much. How about board members? Are there any comments or
[53:41] questions on moving ahead on this resolution?
[53:46] All right. Very good. Then I will ask for a motion to adopt
[53:52] this resolution of preliminary final approval for the grant of construction subdivision as
[53:57] the time Mr. Andrews.
[54:01] I make a motion to accept to it also to chairing the state for five minutes.
[54:12] Is there a second?
[54:13] Second.
[54:14] All in favor say aye.
[54:17] Any opposed?
[54:18] Hearing none, the resolution of our approval is adopted.
[54:22] Thank you.
[54:22] Thank you very much.
[54:25] Thank you.
[54:28] All right.
[54:29] Um,
[54:34] it fits, okay, with the board, I would like to take like a five minute break, I'll just stretch a little bit and, um, so, well, let's say it's nine minutes of eight, let's get back together at four minutes of eight, to be exact.
[54:53] There's actually some seconds involved there. Yeah.
[1:00:35] So, enough, and plus, other people have jumped in any of you. So, all right. Thank you.
[1:01:28] I've got an issue with the chassis crossing, so it's an engineer, I'm just going to have to give you these guys and Larry and he'll be up, okay.
[1:01:39] All right, what was the other thing in Jackson Cross? No, CSI in Jackson Cross, so there he's ready, but the pipe should be down.
[1:02:17] And now it's going to be the week of the second, or the week after the meeting board, we'll just say,
[1:02:27] okay, because I'm not allowed to say it, we'll be having these during the meeting.
[1:02:32] I think there's something to ask you.
[1:02:34] I'm going to be learning in the world.
[1:02:37] I mean, how would you suggest that more to write me a letter?
[1:02:41] I mean, you want to write a letter?
[1:02:43] What are the orders?
[1:02:44] And, uh, I'll waste the same pen.
[1:02:46] And, as Gatch, a source of joy will come out.
[1:02:49] We're on a straightest, so give me a answer.
[1:02:52] For your answer.
[1:02:53] And I'm going to spell this.
[1:02:54] I'll go through it.
[1:02:56] I'll go through it.
[1:02:56] In fact, we have issued an announcement.
[1:02:58] We've sent an announcement.
[1:02:59] We've sent an announcement.
[1:03:00] You don't have to speak of perlu.
[1:03:06] I don't have to speak of谷.
[1:03:09] I'm just kidding.
[1:03:14] Hey, I'm just kidding.
[1:03:19] Okay, speaking of English.
[1:03:21] Let's get the meeting rolling again, people.
[1:03:25] You're almost made me use the gavel.
[1:03:27] I refuse to do it.
[1:03:29] You were just testing me because I thought I knew it.
[1:03:34] You've always wanted to use that gavel anyway, Mr. Kather.
[1:03:36] For other purposes, rather than.
[1:03:43] Okay.
[1:03:45] We are back finishing our last item on the agenda, basically,
[1:03:51] which is the 52 root 9 LLC Special Use Permit and Site Development Plan.
[1:03:59] The board just received a memo from Mr. Andrew's regarding this proposal and Mr. Lynch, have you gotten a copy of that?
[1:04:12] We can go over it later.
[1:04:15] I don't imagine you have to look at it in detail.
[1:04:17] yeah but um okay um so would you kindly um just kind of give uh you know a short
[1:04:31] further overview of the proposal already any further work that has been done since we
[1:06:00] I'm going to take this one kind of slow.
[1:06:04] Item number one, the project involves the development of one parcel and they want to put two office buildings in five warehouse buildings along with all the necessary nice
[1:06:15] The proposal also includes the connection of the parcel to the developer parcel, which is immediately south of this parcel, 38 Route 9, which is also developed with some kind of combination buildings.
[1:06:28] I think the front buildings are kind of like office warehouses and the back buildings are more warehouses.
[1:06:33] But similar, and unfortunately, neither the application nor the FBI, F-E-A-A-F submitted
[1:06:40] for the project, kind of references or killing details and describes that interconnection.
[1:06:45] The interesting thing is they're eliminating the access to the southerly parcel and having
[1:06:52] all parcels access through this, the northern parcel, which is the subject of the application.
[1:06:59] lines of site have always been marginal at the adjacent parcel that was approved years ago
[1:07:04] as under the name of in Corvaya there are sign site plans for it and it's kind of been developed
[1:07:12] in phases since they are really in essence combining these parcels together. I think that the application
[1:07:22] needs to be combined, and it needs to be handled under one application, opening up in essence
[1:07:29] both properties to discussion. The interesting thing here is although they may share common
[1:07:36] Trump, they are under different ownership according to the tax law. So we've got some entities
[1:07:42] there. And then plan information on the southerly parcel is kind of incomplete. It shows the buildings
[1:07:52] and shows some of the other stuff, but looking at it in a real cursory fashion, it seems
[1:07:57] like it doesn't match the site plan that's on file with the town, so I think might
[1:08:02] have made some changes over time. I have no knowledge,
[1:08:07] but so I think the
[1:08:14] combination
[1:08:15] and elimination of the lesser site distance driveway makes sense, but I think we have to
[1:08:25] information and the application and the NEFAF need to be retooled to cover both parcels together.
[1:08:32] That's what number one essentially says.
[1:08:35] Number two, I have a real serious concern with respect to the density of the proposed development
[1:08:41] and the close proximity of multiple warehouse facilities in a row with limited access.
[1:08:48] There does not appear to be any real provisions for emergency egress from or access to the rear of the building.
[1:08:54] buildings. The roundabout fire district also had some comments with respect to that. Roundout
[1:09:00] has requested fire hydrants. Municipal waters not readily available. The village has got
[1:09:05] a line down there that was supposed to be a hydrant for in Corvaya. I don't know whether
[1:09:09] it ever got installed. I don't know whether it exists. It's not showing. So, I think we
[1:09:15] got to look at it spreading the site out at least at least the three buildings on the
[1:09:20] north east corner of the site.
[1:09:24] There are rather large warehouses set like little soldiers, 10 foot apart, and without having
[1:09:29] any details of them, I don't know what their height is, I don't know what anything, and
[1:09:32] they're five foot off the property line.
[1:09:34] Interestingly enough, the property to the north is the former crane's build block site, and
[1:09:41] there's a big effort, there was supposed to be a big evergreen buffer, I think some of
[1:09:45] still exist, and then the actual former plant location is right behind those three buildings.
[1:09:52] So access is kind of an issue.
[1:09:54] So I think the site needs to be thought through a little better.
[1:10:00] Their application includes a request for a waiver of the required number of parking spaces.
[1:10:05] We kind of had this discussion before.
[1:10:07] The board has no independent ability to waive parking spaces unless it's expressly demonstrated
[1:10:12] that the required number can be constructed but are not required and therefore a portion can be
[1:10:16] landed. The concept is now a little further complicated by the fact that they got two parcels.
[1:10:23] So maybe between the two parcels you can get the parking unit, I don't know, but we need some further
[1:10:29] justification and explanation of that concept. The FEIF section V identifies a requirement for a
[1:10:42] And I'll see any EDC wetlands.
[1:10:44] They are filling up to 6,100 of an acre of what is likely federal wetlands.
[1:10:49] I believe that should probably be covered under a nationwide permit, so that kind of needs
[1:10:54] to be squared away.
[1:10:56] The FDA indicates a water and sewer demand of 960 gallons per day.
[1:11:00] I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of how that flow is derived.
[1:11:04] They're getting close to the 1,000 gallon threshold, so I'd like to see that.
[1:11:09] There's an interesting thing that showed up, they must have prepared their FEAF using
[1:11:13] the MLSDEC Environmental Mapper, and there's a section where it says they're part of
[1:11:19] a significant natural community, the old tulip tree forest.
[1:11:25] That's kind of puzzled me, I'm not familiar with it, so I think that further explanation
[1:11:31] is needed, and they do some nice calculations, and they come up with certain acreages.
[1:11:36] I don't know what it all means, but I'm hoping that the Mr. Day and his crew can sort it out.
[1:11:43] I would suggest that we look at a simple traffic impact analysis, especially one of the dresses combining the two parcels with one access.
[1:11:52] The analysis should also look at sightlines at the consolidated driveway location.
[1:11:57] It should include a truck turning evaluation, detailing how truck traffic can move through the site.
[1:12:02] I know that the southern site used to have a lot of trucks in and out, and now they're running
[1:12:07] in front of one of their office buildings or possibly behind one of their office buildings.
[1:12:12] So I think we need to know what's going on there, they're going to need to do work within
[1:12:17] New York State DOT right away, which will require a work permit, and we will need to be copied
[1:12:22] on any correspondence to it from that department.
[1:12:26] They all are parking spaces appear to be size 9 by 18.
[1:12:30] This results in a minimum two-foot overhang in all sidewalks adjacent to the buildings.
[1:12:35] As we often do, we recommend that the sidewalks be wide and with six foot.
[1:12:40] And additionally, because those buildings are kind of right on Route 9 and they're not,
[1:12:46] the elevation is almost parallel with Route 9.
[1:12:49] I would like to see perhaps get in a little extra depth there and see if we can do some
[1:12:54] landscaping in front of the buildings between either the sidewalk and the building or between
[1:12:58] the parking and the sidewalk so that the front of the buildings gets dressed up a little bit.
[1:13:06] The next one is the project seems to incorporate a number of retaining walls,
[1:13:10] the kind of the details are not quite sure of some of the things that are going on,
[1:13:15] so we'll need the location and the details that develop in future submittals.
[1:13:21] And as I noted earlier, the two parcels are kind of under separate ownership.
[1:13:24] It appears that in some cases the development on an orderly piece was adjusted to respect the property line.
[1:13:31] For instance, if you look at one of the warehouses in the back on the southern side,
[1:13:35] they kind of crush the grading up a pipe off the building to honor a ditch and some other things.
[1:13:41] But then if you look at the building in the front, they got the refuse enclosure over the property line.
[1:13:45] So, we've got to, if there are 10 is ultimately emergency parcels in the one that makes sense,
[1:13:52] if it's not, then I think you've got to figure out if they're going to be developed independently.
[1:13:59] The northerly parcel has to accommodate all its requirements within its footprint.
[1:14:04] Typically, you don't let people do that with easements.
[1:14:08] Ultimately, it will require some form of a cross access and maintenance agreement for the combined access.
[1:14:13] access, it will need to be suitable to the planning board eternally, turning and ultimately
[1:14:17] fired in the county clerk's office, Mr. Lynch noted on his original submittal that
[1:14:24] didn't put together a swift, because they wanted to wait to see what the first comments are.
[1:14:28] I don't have a problem with that, but we will need a swift, and the swift needs to address
[1:14:33] the stormwater provisions for each of the individual lots, as well as any off-site impacts.
[1:14:39] There's no indication on how to run off due to the interconnection of the handle.
[1:14:42] The northern parcel is slightly higher than the southern parcel, and the water kind of runs down the hill.
[1:14:47] It's not a lot, but it does run down the hill.
[1:14:49] It looks like it might have the potential for some icing and less of a candle.
[1:14:54] There will need this kind of department of health approval.
[1:14:57] And then the future submittals will need to know the building else.
[1:15:00] Allivations are proposed landscaping, obviously. And because of the nature of this, the middle of the day, I think this is a project that's probably going to involve over time that the comments should not be considered all inclusive. And as further documentation, as we see, the additional comments can be anticipated.
[1:15:18] That's my concern.
[1:15:22] I also wanted to enter into the record before we move on to this discussion.
[1:15:28] We did receive correspondence from the Duchess County Department of Planning.
[1:15:34] There are two, three, nine planning and zoning we've borough, and basically the county has
[1:15:40] indicated that this application is not complete.
[1:15:45] And among the things they mentioned were some of the things that Mr. Andrews mentioned
[1:15:48] as well, landscape plan, architectural elevations,
[1:15:52] signs, site lighting, and photometrics.
[1:15:56] And they indicate that this application should
[1:16:00] be resubmitted when the additional information is available.
[1:16:05] And then we also, as Mr. Andrews mentioned,
[1:16:07] we did get correspondence from the round out
[1:16:10] fired district dated April 6, 2017, and we also did receive a while ago as the comment
[1:16:21] from the town of Pishgill building inspector indicating that a swim is required.
[1:16:30] So having done that,
[1:16:38] how about questions or comments from Mr. Barnett before we go directly
[1:16:44] I don't know if anything else to add, I think Mr. Andrew's coming.
[1:16:48] I'm always actually rather comprehensive.
[1:16:51] I would concur, I think there's obviously a lot of work.
[1:16:53] A lot of work that's going to be done on the application.
[1:16:57] And at that particular point in time, I think we'll also narrow in on some of the legal documents that we're going to have to address in the future.
[1:17:06] Let's all have the next one.
[1:17:08] All right.
[1:17:09] So let's go around and get any questions or comments from board members.
[1:17:15] I have a number of myself, but I'll wait to hear from the other board members.
[1:17:20] Would you like to start?
[1:17:21] No, no, I think it's premature.
[1:17:23] I'd like to have some of these other issues addressed before I.
[1:17:27] If I would get ready to go with your questions.
[1:17:30] All right.
[1:17:31] I mean, if you have any specific concerns, you know, if I could.
[1:17:34] Whatever jobs.
[1:17:41] My only thought is that it's unusual, I think, that we have no idea what is going to be housed in these warehouses.
[1:17:50] Maybe that's unusual, but it just seems happened to be a proof something if we had no idea what it's going to be done in the night.
[1:17:59] But I'm sure maybe it'll come out.
[1:18:16] If I can't just a follow-up question on that, Mr. Kendra, if I may. Is there any thought?
[1:18:21] Dennis took to phasing this then, because I know to be blunt with you, the warehouse
[1:18:27] us to the south of you, they did that in two phases, because they only had, in the first phase,
[1:18:35] the original developer used the first warehouse as his office in shop, and then the second warehouse
[1:18:41] was speculative, and then once those two were filled, he came back at a later bite in the
[1:18:47] apple and got the other two re-approved to be built.
[1:18:52] So I'm just wondering if you folks have given any thought to face in this site.
[1:18:58] It's just a material to me, but the thing that I will point out to you is when they did the
[1:19:05] site for the South, they did themselves no favors in that they kind of created a situation where
[1:19:10] and got bigger in the intervening period of time between the two phases.
[1:19:15] So if you do phase this, please just make sure you think it through.
[1:19:20] But I hate to see five buildings up with nobody in it.
[1:19:27] That's sort of, I do have one question.
[1:19:30] And that sort of spark my interest as well.
[1:19:33] And that in particularly it pertains to item 10, Mr. Andrew's memo,
[1:19:38] which is the fact that we are talking about two parcels under separate ownership.
[1:19:42] what's the what's the game plan there?
[1:20:31] Is it the same principles? Just if
[1:20:33] okay. Yeah, you can't tell from the tax matter and I'm sorry Mark, one is
[1:20:38] 52 root 9 LLC, the other one is AYM, holdings or something, so I, you know, they
[1:20:47] have the same New York City address, but that doesn't always mean anything so.
[1:20:54] Yeah,
[1:20:55] that they probably mortgage them separately, I understand that the deal, but from my standpoint
[1:21:00] I got two property owners who could tomorrow go their separate ways and I need to, if
[1:21:07] we're going to give you an approval, I need to make sure that approval is sound, solid, and
[1:21:12] will bear moving forward.
[1:21:24] I mean if they want to maintain the property line, you can do that and you just need a really
[1:21:29] detailed cross access and maintenance agreement.
[1:21:31] And we have no dog in that fight.
[1:21:35] The only thing that you have to be careful of is that if partial should then continue to
[1:21:40] stand along, and then you cross access and maintenance agreement.
[1:21:45] So, please don't take this as our plea to combine the parcels.
[1:21:50] That's solely the discretion of the owner.
[1:21:53] We just need to legally, you know, what's for partial A, needs to be on partial A, what's
[1:21:59] be needs to be on partial B, the interconnection we can deal with legally, but if they decide to
[1:22:04] merge them, then all bets are off and we'll look at everything. But that's a decision they
[1:22:08] have to make. Don't we're not telling you that's the way we need to go.
[1:22:12] Okay, what was that to them?
[1:22:17] Mr. Lopez, do you have any thoughts on my plan? I wasn't going to
[1:22:20] run on the two gate. Okay. All right, well let me go through a few things, maybe more than the two.
[1:22:29] First, when I visited the site, I noticed that the site is pretty level along route 9 and then it drops off, probably about 10 plus B, so the rest of the site going back to the mountainous area.
[1:22:45] It looked like a lot of the interior of the site is pretty wet.
[1:22:49] There's as you indicated on the site plan definitely evidence of the small wetland.
[1:22:55] So we may need to see some kind of a at least basic evaluation of that wet area wetland to see what kind of disturbance there will be and what impact on the wet areas there will be.
[1:23:11] Actually, a question also on that is to Mr. Barnett or Mr. Andrews, would that size-wise
[1:23:19] meet any thresholds for our, what do we call it?
[1:23:24] Our wetland order is too small, and the water course is, again, because it was, I think the
[1:23:34] wetland on this particular parcel was created by virtue of the fact that they piped and narrowed
[1:23:39] the wetland on the other side, so and if there's an argument to be made, even though
[1:23:46] there's somewhat hydraulically connected, the feds kind of sometimes frown on the length
[1:23:51] of pipe that's involved here, but even if you total the whole thing up, I think it still
[1:23:59] falls below our threshold of one acre, I think it is, it appeared that there are some old
[1:24:08] screens, fronting on Route 9, and so it would be interesting to see what those might be able
[1:24:13] to be retained and what is going to come down.
[1:24:20] Just back from Route 9 is the remains of an old building that was demolished, and there's
[1:24:25] still construction equipment, at least what I want there was still construction equipment on
[1:24:29] the site, I assume, from the demolishing of the building.
[1:24:32] There's some scrap metal and an old abandoned car on some other things like gun tires on
[1:24:39] site, just matching it. The rest of the site is fairly wooded. Some are large mature trees,
[1:24:46] but they're mixed with new growth trees. So again, kind of an overall evaluation of the
[1:24:55] trees on the site, probably some kind of a basic tree identification and preservation plan would
[1:25:03] important for us to see and also not to mention whatever kind of habitat might be there that
[1:25:10] could be disturbed. Other than that the character of the surrounding areas is pretty commercial
[1:25:16] and industrial and character really no residential development of any significance in that specific
[1:25:25] area.
[1:25:27] So having mentioned those things again some of the things that I've seen or
[1:25:33] are repeating of what others have already said, including Mr. Andrews and the county, but
[1:25:39] we definitely will need to see basic building elevations and details,
[1:25:46] something that
[1:25:47] was identified on the environmental assessment form was that this may be in an archeologically
[1:25:53] sensitive area, so we need to at least check with the State Historic Preservation Office
[1:26:00] and see if they would want to see any further study of that.
[1:26:07] Again, these are things that come up on the map or EAF process.
[1:26:11] And so sometimes, for those in the audience who aren't familiar with what that is,
[1:26:16] the Department of Environmental Conservation, a little over a year ago, maybe almost
[1:26:21] to now came up with a new geographic information system mapping program where applicants and municipalities can go to that program and find out all kinds of information about sites like this.
[1:26:38] So you can find out things about archeologically sensitive areas, special habitats, endangered species, all kinds of things like that.
[1:26:48] So it's pretty neat actually and sometimes those things are identified in environmental assessment form and there's no further information provided so we're definitely going to need to see where those things are applied what that means.
[1:27:06] already mentioned, but it looks to me like these are all proposed as one story buildings,
[1:27:13] but the really nothing in the application or on the EIS specifically states that. So I guess we
[1:27:19] just need to see those building elevation details. I agree that some kind of a basic traffic study
[1:27:27] which deals with car trips, trips and types of trucks.
[1:27:35] And as the county mentioned, we will need a landscaping plan,
[1:27:39] and a lighting plan and details of the photo metric analysis.
[1:27:51] I'd like to see something up front, yes sir.
[1:27:54] And I don't care how you do it,
[1:27:56] but I think because of the proximity to those buildings to root nine
[1:28:00] And the other side, they don't have any parking space in the night.
[1:28:05] You are parking space in the night as well as the way.
[1:28:09] So at least on my side plan, I don't know what it does today.
[1:28:13] But the approved side plan for the parcel for the south and other parking spaces in the night.
[1:28:17] So they have the front one supposed to be heavily landscaped down the leatheries and not.
[1:28:31] would like
[1:28:41] to down here, as well, part of Houston, as this way, you got hard to make
[1:28:46] full of waves. So, you kind of got it, we got a huge bowl of it.
[1:28:56] And, yeah, looking back at the site plan, I very much agree with Mr. Andrew's comment earlier
[1:29:01] of this in his memo that it just seems like there's too much proposal on this site. It's kind
[1:29:08] like a cookie cutter layout trying to get as much
[1:29:12] as possible, which I can understand.
[1:29:14] But I think the site itself might have difficulty accepting
[1:29:18] it all.
[1:29:21] So take a look at that and
[1:29:29] if we're the revised plans
[1:29:30] addressing those types of issues.
[1:29:32] Now, I had marked a number of pages in the environmental assessment
[1:29:36] form.
[1:29:37] I think rather than going through those tonight,
[1:29:41] maybe the next time that you come to the board with some more information, we can do that.
[1:29:48] I marked mine up and I said, well, I can either kill them with this time or wait until they decide what they're going to do.
[1:29:56] So, yeah, I guess. Once they once can understand where...
[1:30:00] Are there heading with this? I think it would be well advised.
[1:30:04] Right, and I think it's quite possible that the project details might change and also that the environmental assessment form would have to be resimitted anyway.
[1:30:12] If that does happen, and you would like some further interrupt from us on our observations on what should be addressed further on that environmental assessment form, we'd be going to provide that prior to a submittal.
[1:30:26] but just let us know.
[1:30:35] So, do you have any questions or comments for the board?
[1:30:42] Oh,
[1:30:46] and who would use it were good?
[1:30:49] Imagine you're probably kicked off at me,
[1:30:51] but I apologize, Mike.
[1:30:55] Okay.
[1:30:57] All right, well, thank you very much.
[1:30:59] Just a question for you guys.
[1:31:01] Do you have the site plan for...
[1:31:17] Well, what I was suggesting is, I actually have the sign of site plan for the parcel to the cell.
[1:31:27] If you want to get a copy of it, we can raise, I don't know if Debbie even has it.
[1:31:32] I was able to track it down.
[1:31:33] but it's probably critical to you to get the copy because we can't be trying to send that
[1:31:38] here at the center panel and it's taking off.
[1:31:41] So you've a little bit of a process.
[1:31:42] If you want it, let me know.
[1:31:45] The other thing is, Debbie was also kind enough to make some copies electronically of the,
[1:31:53] I believe it's now the Funk Crane'sville site to the north.
[1:31:58] So you might want to look at that too, because there was a lot of landscaping and other things.
[1:32:02] I think looking at the current areas, they kind of did some of the landscaping.
[1:32:08] So behind those buildings, you go through this kind of groove, grove of evergreen, and then
[1:32:12] they've got like retaining walls and other things.
[1:32:15] So if the fire department was ever trying to get access from the north, it's virtually impossible
[1:32:19] to stop.
[1:32:20] But if you want the, if you want the sign site planned for the south, I had it.
[1:32:28] Okay, very much.
[1:32:31] Okay, well that's the last item on the agenda.
[1:32:35] I just wanted to ask if any board members have any comments or announcements that you care to make on other, you know, unrelated topics, brief,
[1:32:47] but
[1:32:50] so the next meeting is scheduled for May 11, 2017, and the deadline for submissions is April 20, 2017, is that great?
[1:32:59] Okay, all right, so what someone like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting?
[1:33:05] Second, second, all right, all in favor say aye, aye, we are done, I'm going to pretend I'm kidding the gable, but I'm not going to really do it
[1:33:17] I'm going to do it through the whole meeting with that, yeah, well, thank you so much