[1:19] Good evening everyone. Welcome to the September 8th, 2026 planning board

[1:23] meeting. Like to start with the pledge, please.

[1:30] To the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it

[1:34] stand

[1:37] with liberty.

[1:47] Just a few standard announcements. Emergency exits are to your left and

[1:51] right in the out of the room. Uh restrooms are out the back and to the

[1:54] left. Um, please be sure to sign the attendance sheet if you haven't already.

[1:59] Uh, it's on the back table along with um, business cards with contact

[2:03] information for the planning department should you need it. Um, also are copies

[2:09] of resolutions that will be read tonight uh, along with a copy of the agenda.

[2:14] Please silence your cell phones so you don't uh, disrupt the meeting and those

[2:17] speaking. And um please take any conversations you may wish to have

[2:20] amongst yourselves out in the hallway and close the door so you don't disturb

[2:24] those presenting. Thank you. Susie, can you turn up the volume a

[2:30] little? Can everybody hear me? Okay. Sort of. James is like wishy.

[2:40] All right. How's that? That sounds better. Okay. Thank you. I don't hear

[2:44] myself. I kind of doubt you guys either do. So,

[2:48] uh, we don't have any meeting minutes for approval this evening. Um, any

[2:53] correspondence received, any correspondence we would have had is in

[2:57] your packet from previous, uh, agendas or in the current one. Um,

[3:03] board and committee updates. Jen, do you have anything from the town board? No.

[3:07] Okay. Thank you. And Keith, planning board update.

[3:15] Good evening. Keith Maynard, project manager for the town of Victor. Uh your

[3:19] next planning board meeting is Tuesday, September 22nd at 7 PM. Uh two new

[3:25] agenda items, both with public hearings. The first one is Lmenso short-term

[3:29] rental special use permit. Uh application is requesting approval for

[3:33] three-year renewal for short-term rental out of their home on 1227 Red Fox Run.

[3:39] uh and they received the initial approval on September 23rd, 2025 for a

[3:44] one-year term. Uh and then the second one is the Weatherhold site plan at 375

[3:49] Log Cabin Road. Um this is coming to you because it's in the LD. The applicant is

[3:53] requesting approval to construct a wooden deck on the rear face of the

[3:57] home. Also, um removing an open hearth chimney. Um so yeah, it's the exterior

[4:03] part of the chimney removal that is again triggered because of LDD. Any

[4:07] questions? I think so. Thank you, Keith.

[4:10] » Thank you.

[4:15] » First item of the agenda tonight is the Kumat screen room. Uh this is 280

[4:21] Railroad Mills owners Grace Kumat. I hope I'm speak saying that correctly.

[4:26] Applicants requesting approval to construct 120 foot detached screened in

[4:30] room for personal use and it's a limited development district.

[4:36] Good

[4:40] evening. Hi. >> Hi. Good evening.

[4:43] Um, yeah, it's pretty just for the record, name and address.

[4:47] » Oh, sorry. Grace Kumat uh 280 Railroad Mills Road.

[4:51] » Thank you. >> Yeah. So, I'm building a small detached

[4:56] screen room um in the back of my house. >> Mhm.

[5:00] » Because it's really pretty out there. >> And the mosquitoes are awful. in the

[5:06] summertime. So, >> yeah. And we have a couple of um

[5:11] exhibits up there that have come through. Susie has the whole site plan,

[5:14] the house on the lower left. Um and I think your screen room is on

[5:20] the back side in blue in that particular one. Correct. Susie, is there anything

[5:24] else on uh in file on the screen?

[5:31] » Yeah, there's a couple. There's there's some drawings I think we got of the

[5:35] screen >> there. That's a close hand of the house.

[5:40] » Oh, so any questions from the board for the

[5:45] applicant, Al? >> Well, I mean, it does seem very

[5:48] straightforward and don't have any issues with what you've presented so

[5:51] far, but do you have any sketch of what it looks like from an elevation

[5:56] perspect? Ah, there. Okay, that's the first time I've seen

[5:59] » ask and you shall receive. >> Yeah. So that's like framing and I

[6:03] assume it's open framing with screen on the framing. Correct.

[6:06] » Yeah. And then it's going to have um like a corrugated steel roof

[6:11] » that's red and it's it's pretty plain on purpose.

[6:17] » Is the roof the same color as the house roof?

[6:19] » Yeah. >> Oh, okay. So, it's made to match. So,

[6:22] » yeah. >> Okay.

[6:23] » Okay. >> I'm all set. Got it.

[6:25] » Thank you. >> Um

[6:28] I'm looking at the drawing. It looks like it's going to be put in an

[6:31] inconspicuous location >> for anyone

[6:34] » or anyone who may be driving by. So I and it's relatively small 120 ft, right?

[6:40] So >> yeah.

[6:41] » Um I have no questions or issues with it.

[6:47] » So um I read it has no heating elements, no plumbing, does have electricity.

[6:53] » Um I might hook electricity up to it. Um, but it depends. There's there's

[7:00] wiring on the house to hook up maybe, but currently in the process of bringing

[7:06] all the wiring up to code, so that's kind of far down the list of things to

[7:11] do. >> Yeah.

[7:15] » Something that would be part of your building permit is showing all of that

[7:18] and needing the inspections for it and that sort of thing. So,

[7:20] » okay. So, if I were to to just not do it now and is it possible to add it later

[7:26] on down the line, >> you can add electric. You would just

[7:29] have to get a mechanical permit from us. >> Okay.

[7:32] » A building permit. >> Okay. Got it. Yeah.

[7:35] » So, building permit for this. And if it didn't include electric or other

[7:39] utilities, then you'd have to come back and get a permit to add that to it.

[7:43] » Okay. That's totally fine. >> I could see having a se light and

[7:46] ceiling fan or something in there just for the

[7:48] » for convenience and comfort. So, um, yeah, I have no problems with it. U,

[7:55] it's always a good idea to get outside. So, certainly, uh, looks like a good,

[8:00] uh, use of the space. Um, anyone from the public since this is a public

[8:05] hearing? Apparently not. I'll entertain a motion

[8:10] to close the public hearing. >> Move.

[8:11] » Al moves. >> Second.

[8:13] » And for seconds. All in favor? >> I.

[8:16] » Okay. The public hearing is closed. Um, we have uh no other comments except uh

[8:21] to offer Wes if he has any concerns. >> No, no concerns on my part. Thanks.

[8:27] » Okay. >> And I assume the foundations will show

[8:30] up in your building permit. Um they've got to be certain depth to to support

[8:37] it. And unless it's slab on grade, I'm not sure whether this qualifies the need

[8:42] for a 4ft foundation. Scott, >> I don't know. Um, guess I would leave

[8:47] that up to codes. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I guess you'll find

[8:51] out details once you submit your plans for uh building permit. So, um,

[8:59] unless there's anything else, we do have a resolution. This is pretty

[9:02] straightforward. I think the board's fine with it. So, I'll read it. And

[9:06] » can I just say one thing, sir? I have submitted the building permit and it's

[9:09] on just a patio slab. >> Oh, slab on grade. Yeah.

[9:14] » Yeah. So, >> okay. Yeah. It's not a living space

[9:17] probably doesn't >> right

[9:19] » uh elevate to that level of requiring a deep foundation or at least below frost

[9:24] line. So um as long as it's well you know as long

[9:29] as the support the stone underneath it is well drained you don't get the frosty

[9:33] for it and you're probably fine. >> So okay I will read the resolution.

[9:41] Um so for the Kumat Street screen room application 280 railroad mills road uh

[9:48] whereas the planning board made the following findings effect there are six

[9:51] of them. Um now therefore be resolved that the application by Grace Kumat's

[9:56] site plan entitled Kumat screen room drawn by Venia professional land

[10:01] surveyors dated May 6, 2026 received by the planning board July 31st, 2026.

[10:07] Planning board application 27 SP 2026 be approved with the following conditions.

[10:12] Uh conditions that must be met prior to chairman signing the site plan is uh

[10:17] standard. Second one, uh, sorry, conditions that are ongoing, standard

[10:21] conditions that must be adhered to. Those are both standard as well. And be

[10:25] it further resolved that the planning board secretary distribute the planning

[10:30] board's approval letter. So on that resolution, ask for a motion.

[10:35] » I'll move it. >> Scott moves.

[10:37] » A second. >> And Trish seconds. All in favor? I.

[10:41] » You're all set. See Lisa if you got any questions. Okay.

[10:44] » Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

[10:51] Second item, Yolicity Victor Crossing, 400 Commerce Drive. Applicants

[10:57] requesting approval for a site plan modification to add an outdoor patio in

[11:00] front of a tenant space. Application will include the removal of existing

[11:05] landscaping bed and replace with pavers to match existing sidewalk pavers,

[11:09] installation of a new railing and associated tables.

[11:15] Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Matthew Oats with Benderson

[11:18] Development. Um, Lisa, did you by chance have the colored

[11:22] » Yeah. Susie, can you go I think it's one No, one more.

[11:28] » Keep going. There. >> There we go. Okay.

[11:30] » Thank you. >> So, what we are proposing is we have a

[11:33] new tenant, Yoli, taking this space here, the former GameStop space. We are

[11:39] proposing to remove the landscaping bed that is here and replacing it with

[11:44] pavers and then putting a railing around the outside of it to allow for a patio.

[11:51] Um it is a decorative railing that will be there. We have the comments from code

[11:55] in the fire marshall in regards to the vehicle protection barriers. We

[11:59] resubmitted a detail for that one. We had them spaced at 6'10 in. I know there

[12:06] was a comment from codes today that they needed to be four.

[12:11] » We'll do whatever is needed from a code compliance standpoint. We haven't

[12:15] specifically done them at 4 foot for other. So, we just like to have that

[12:17] conversation, but whatever code says we need to do, we'll do it and we will have

[12:22] the vehicle protection barriers in that railing. So, whatever that spacing works

[12:26] out to be. >> Um, overall, it's a new tenant. We're

[12:29] excited to have them. Yoli is a local business within the Rochester area and

[12:35] they have two other locations. So, it's not a national chain. It is a local

[12:38] business. And then in regards to the sign, um it is code compliant. It's

[12:42] consistent with the materials and the design of other signs in the plaza. Um

[12:47] it is their branding as well. So, overall, we're excited to have them. We

[12:51] think it's a a really nice use in the center. Happy to answer any questions

[12:54] the board has. >> Okay. Um start at the other end. Trish,

[12:58] questions. So, um I want to better understand the

[13:03] area that you're putting for seating up front. Okay. Um I actually just um you

[13:09] know pulled it off of Google maps. So I'm looking at it right now like dead on

[13:12] » Google. I have the same view.

[13:15] » Do you have the same view? >> Keep going.

[13:18] » Yeah. >> This one.

[13:20] » Okay. Good. >> That and then

[13:22] » Yeah, that was just for me to understand it. I I pulled that image up.

[13:26] » Yeah. So exactly how of how large of a space

[13:31] would the seating be? Would the seating be?

[13:33] » So what we are proposing is so it would be

[13:40] actually think it would be farther. >> Is it wider than

[13:45] » it's a little farther over but if you go to the so basically though I'll use this

[13:51] as an example. There's an existing landscaping bed. It's 10t long by

[13:56] approximately 4 foot deep. We're proposing to remove that landscaping bed

[14:00] and fill it with pavers and then we'd have two tables on the outside and then

[14:04] one table up on the inside by the store which then provides a walkway in

[14:08] between. So it would allow for three tables in that area.

[14:13] » So it's the I don't know if you could show me with the pointer. So it starts

[14:18] where the the ground area >> that's not the specific

[14:21] » the other screen >> if you go to the site. So yes. So then

[14:27] that would be >> okay.

[14:29] » It would then be here. So we're keeping this open because that's the walkway

[14:33] directly into the store. >> Then we're keeping this open because

[14:35] that's the walkway directly into then pliables as well on the other side. So

[14:40] it's right here. So there'd be one table up here. You'd be proposing two tables

[14:44] out here and that keeps the pedestrian walkway in the middle of the two. It's

[14:48] not a large area, so there's not a large number of tables that can be placed

[14:52] there, but we're proposing there'd be three tables out there.

[14:55] » So, the two walkways in would not be compromised.

[14:58] » Correct. That's why we're removing this. Yeah, because we're keeping this walkway

[15:01] and then we're keeping this walkway as well. The railing will then run along

[15:06] here. We'll have a return on both sides of that railing to kind of define the

[15:10] patio area and then both walkways here and here will still be kept open because

[15:15] you want to keep that walkway to the doors of each tenant space. Yes.

[15:19] » And then the barriers as you mentioned you would comply to the 4oot.

[15:24] » So we will comply with putting in vehicers

[15:28] the steel ballards going down in the concrete approximately I believe it's 4

[15:31] foot down. We'll comply with that. Absolutely no issues whatsoever. I don't

[15:36] know if the specific code section applies to the patio. So, I just want to

[15:42] have a conversation with codes about the 4 foot versus the 6'10 that we

[15:48] previously provided. But we would take a condition of the approval. Whatever

[15:52] codes determined is the spacing we will do. So, if they re-review it, we have

[15:57] the conversation, it's determined 4 foots needed, we'll do a 4 foot. I just

[16:00] haven't had a conver have a conversation with Frank or Adam about that

[16:03] specifically. Okay. But I wouldn't want to hold up

[16:07] approval on that one because we will do what's required per code to obtain the

[16:12] the proper permit and whatever they say. I just haven't had that conversation

[16:16] with them specifically. The 4oot spacing was the first I'd seen when I saw that

[16:20] earlier this afternoon from Lisa >> and and that'll show up in the plans

[16:25] before Labella and and I signed the plans. So

[16:30] that'll be teched. >> Okay. Anything else, Trish?

[16:34] » Nope, that's it. Thank you. >> Um, no, I don't think so. I mean, it

[16:38] just looks like we're losing landscaping, right? And there's no plans

[16:41] to >> use that somewhere else or

[16:43] » Correct. There are no specific plans to replace that landscaping. Our our

[16:48] general opinion is I think we've done a pretty good job out there overall with

[16:53] landscaping and really enhancing that center and and going really above and

[16:58] beyond what we would consider code minimums and always kind of enhancing

[17:01] it. So, no, we weren't specifically looking to replace this, but I mean,

[17:05] we're always every spring we bring in flowers. Every fall we bring in mums, so

[17:09] we consistently still do additional landscaping out there.

[17:13] » I have no more comments. >> No questions.

[17:16] » Okay. As do I. I think we're um as long as you're satisfying that one concern

[17:22] from code. >> Yeah. So, yeah. However, in the end,

[17:24] Adam and Frank, whatever we wind up, we'll do that. Yep. For sure.

[17:28] » Okay. Um, Wes, I think from Labella, I know.

[17:32] » Yeah, we provided a letter uh just today on a on a couple things and and I think

[17:36] the applicant has addressed each of each of our comments. Number one, uh it's a

[17:40] type two action. Number two, uh the seating location and the amenities. We

[17:45] did ask them to maybe just we wanted to, you know, compare any existing outdoor

[17:51] seating areas in the plaza uh and compare it to uh what's proposed here.

[17:58] And uh the other the other thought was, you know, would there be the other

[18:04] landscape bed uh immediately west of of what you're seeing or what they're

[18:09] proposing? Would that be a better location or would that be a suitable

[18:13] location? it only because it's immediately adjacent to a marked

[18:17] crosswalk. Um, I don't think it's I don't think it's critical. Um, I'd be

[18:21] happy to show you my screen so you can see what I'm talking about, but and then

[18:26] uh anything with regard to the signage. I don't really have any specific

[18:30] comments about about signage other than uh there were some design considerations

[18:34] in the code, but um as long as you're satisfied, then Lobell is satisfied.

[18:38] » Okay. Um, I didn't ask the board, but the sign. Anyone have an issue with the

[18:44] signage? It's it's strictly letters, which is what we've tried to work for on

[18:50] this whole plaza. So, it's not a big banner with with letters on top of it.

[18:54] It's minimal the way I see it. But, um, Al,

[18:58] any >> No, no, no concerns with the signage.

[19:01] » I agree. >> Yeah.

[19:03] » Any comments? Okay. So, >> and we did look at the comment of

[19:08] looking shifting to the west. The one issue we come up with is the great clips

[19:12] door is actually offset slightly. So, then if you put the patio on that side,

[19:17] it would actually expand slightly into where their door entrance is as well.

[19:22] So, by keeping it where we were able to center it almost even though it extends

[19:25] into the pliable space, it still is kind of centered in between their two doors.

[19:30] So, it didn't impact the doors. So, it worked out a little bit better on that

[19:32] one than the one on the other side. >> Yeah, not a problem. So up on the screen

[19:37] um it's I forget which where which space is it? Is it right in the middle or

[19:42] » correct? So it's it's there. So it winds up being this landscaping bed and then

[19:46] Wes had mentioned possibly this one. But the door for gray clips is also right

[19:50] there. So if we use this one, the patio would just extend across the door a

[19:55] little bit. >> When we use this one, it stays open. The

[19:58] pliables door is centered on this one and then the ulicity is centered on that

[20:03] one. So it just worked out a little bit better from a pedestrian access

[20:05] standpoint, which is why I went with that one.

[20:07] » And it looks like it's you're maintaining all the spacing of of beds

[20:10] or now seating. So >> correct. Y

[20:13] » So it's not unbalanced, I guess. Okay. Um, so the only

[20:23] I guess revision or um condition I guess that we'd need to look

[20:29] to add in here is the spacing based on the comments and maybe

[20:35] well let me read this through and then >> and I believe we do need to pull a

[20:38] building permit for the patio anyway. So I think it would have to be

[20:43] » at that point has to be co-compliant anyway. So however to get that we have

[20:47] to >> Yeah. And I forgot this is a public

[20:49] hearing. I should have opened it up the floor if there's anyone here who has any

[20:52] questions or comments for the applicant. >> Seeing none, entertain a motion to close

[20:57] the public hearing. >> I'll move.

[20:58] » I'll move. >> I'll second.

[21:00] » Got second. All in favor? >> I

[21:03] » Okay. >> And Joe, I did put a code fire marshall

[21:07] and label comment still to address. Okay. On the back.

[21:10] » So they'll be addressed. Yeah. All right. That's good.

[21:14] Sounds like we got it covered with the the draft that Lisa put together. So

[21:19] having said that on the resolution Victor Crossing Yolkitty site plan 400

[21:25] to 441 Commerce Drive application 26 SP 2026 whereas the planning board may the

[21:31] following findings effect there are eight of them. Uh, now therefore be it

[21:36] resolved that the applicant of Benderson Development Company LLC, 570 Delaware

[21:41] Avenue, Buffalo, New York, site plan modifications for Victor Crossing, Oak

[21:45] City site plan received by the planning board August 5th, 2026. Planning board

[21:49] site plan application number 26 SP 2026 be approved with the following

[21:53] conditions. Uh, conditions to be addressed prior to

[21:56] chairman's signature. Uh, number one is standard. Number two,

[22:01] that comments from code enforcement officer dated September 8th, 2026 be

[22:05] addressed. Number three, that comments from the fire marshall dated September

[22:09] 8th, 2026 be addressed. Number four, that comments from Labella Associates

[22:13] dated September 8th, 2026 be addressed. Ongoing conditions, uh, all three of

[22:19] them are standard and be it further resolved that the planning board

[22:23] secretary distribute the appropriate standard conditions with the planning

[22:27] board's approval letter. So on the resolution as reading

[22:32] for a motion. >> I move.

[22:34] » I'll move. >> I'll second.

[22:36] » Scott got seconds. All in favor? I married 4.

[22:40] » Thank you very much everyone. Have a great evening.

[22:42] » Thank you too. Going back to Buffalo. >> Nope. I'll just be

[22:46] » Oh, you're here. Okay. On the corner now. Thankfully.

[22:50] » Lucky you.

[22:55] » Okay.

[22:58] Number three, Woods at Valentine section 24 final uh subdivision. This is not a

[23:05] public hearing. Uh so at High Point, um applicants requesting final approval for

[23:10] 71 for sale townhouse units, one fourstory apartment building with 100

[23:15] units. The section within section 2 to 4. Um,

[23:23] I don't know if this should have read for sections two and four.

[23:28] » Um, I just >> one I think it was the other one I took

[23:34] out the apartment. >> Yeah. All right. James knows what we're

[23:39] doing. >> Yeah. It's two and four.

[23:42] » Yeah. So for the public anyway, it's um it's sections two and four with sections

[23:49] three um to be proposed or forwarded at a later date. So

[23:55] » good evening, James. >> Good evening everyone. Uh my name is

[23:58] James Grios. I'm with BME Associates. Um just a kind of a quick update from when

[24:02] we were here two weeks ago. Um since that time, um we did provide written

[24:06] responses to Labella's comments as well as the conservation board comments. Um,

[24:10] with that letter, we included updated plans that reflected some of the changes

[24:14] we discussed last time, the removal of section three from the plans officially.

[24:19] Um, adding sidewalks along both the drives, so it's all concrete now instead

[24:23] of natural surface everywhere. Um, as well as

[24:27] um noting that the fence is final fence is to be brown. Um, those are like the

[24:31] main changes. Everything else is kind of u small plan tweaks. Um, since then we

[24:36] did get some additional comments from code enforcement, the town construction

[24:40] inspector, and Farmington Water and Sewer. We provided written responses to

[24:43] those. Um, again, it's just kind of minor things. There was some discussions

[24:47] with Farmington Water and Sewer and code enforcement or the inspector about um,

[24:53] services entering the townhouse units below the garages. Um, they all have

[24:57] basement, so they're a little bit more accessible than slab on grade buildings.

[25:00] Um and obviously we can have the uh home builders install sleeves to make it

[25:04] easier to replace those so they don't have to go and um you know jack up the

[25:08] floor in the future which is obviously um problematic. But um we also um today

[25:15] um after the meeting last week with the neighbors council attending um we've had

[25:20] several discussions with u my client applicant and his council and earlier

[25:25] today we issued a letter to him notifying them that they have until 5:00

[25:30] p.m. on Thursday to either accept the conveyance of land and the easement as

[25:34] it's currently proposed. Yep. And here's a exhibit of that. So again the the

[25:37] green is the area that we offer to convey to him which is 27 by I think uh

[25:46] around 160 ft as well as the small easement for the well. Uh this is how we

[25:51] submitted the final plans. This is what we had agreed upon before. Um, obviously

[25:55] the neighbor has since um rescended his agreement with that, but um, as I

[26:01] mentioned, our our attorney, our council has signed a letter asking him to accept

[26:05] this as is or to remove all his encroachments from our property. Um, and

[26:09] then obviously we'll go from there. Um, our discussions with the town attorney

[26:12] were that this shouldn't um, hold up anything with site plan approval um, and

[26:18] that we should be able to move forward. This is a private property dispute

[26:21] between um the applicant and the adjacent property owner. Um in the short

[26:25] term, obviously, we don't have any development proposed in this area of the

[26:28] site. So depending on how everything kind of unfolds, uh we will um obviously

[26:34] wait for this response and then once we get that, we will be adjusting our plans

[26:38] to either leave it as is and make the couple tweaks we need to based on code

[26:43] enforcements comments or remove the easements, remove the subdivision, and

[26:46] then we'll kind of revert some of the the site notes and things back to the

[26:51] the full property as applicable. Um besides that, we just have a couple

[26:55] other small things to revise on the plans from the comments we received. Um

[27:00] code enforcements are asking us to provide some additional easement

[27:03] monumentation for the easements. Um I wasn't aware that there was a every 200

[27:07] feet requirement. So we need to add a couple more on some of the long linear

[27:10] sections as well as um the Farmington Water and Sewer asked

[27:15] us to revise all the outside drop connections to inside drop connections,

[27:18] which is a good idea. I didn't know Farmington Water and Sewer um actually

[27:22] changed that standard last year. Actually, I talked with Aaron Bissell

[27:25] earlier today and he also didn't know that. That's why that comment is three

[27:29] or four rounds into comments and reviews for them. Um but that makes sense. It's

[27:33] it's a lot easier to access and do maintenance on an inside drop connection

[27:36] than trying to dig 20 ft down along the outside of a manhole to get to it. So,

[27:41] changes we are happy to make. Um I can I know Wes, you weren't here at the last

[27:47] meeting. I can go over some of the conservation easements again if you

[27:50] would like really quickly. Um, this right here is our existing conservation

[27:54] easement exhibit that we provided to the town board uh that we reviewed with them

[27:58] a couple weeks ago. We also reviewed this with the conservation board a

[28:01] couple weeks ago as well. Um, green are the conservation easements that we're

[28:05] proposing to um dissolve. And then the other easements we're proposing to

[28:09] dissolve are these red ones. Uh, this was a storm sewer ement, an old water

[28:12] main easement, and another storm sewer easement. So those uh I think it's four

[28:18] conservation and three7 easements there. Everything else is staying. Yellows are

[28:22] existing drainage easements. Pink uh these are the larger conservation

[28:26] easements through the center of the road where Victor Trails is going to be

[28:30] working on or Victor Parks and Rock is going to be working on the trails with

[28:33] us. Uh and then this red ement here is a conservation ement from the constructed

[28:38] wetlands that we did when we uh did the wetland mitigation, you know, several

[28:42] years ago. if you wouldn't mind going to the next one, please.

[28:49] » Uh, there was two slide. There's two slides in there.

[28:52] » Two slides.

[28:58] » Well, if you want to go back to that one you just had a second ago, that's fine.

[29:01] I can kind of >> I do have it in the drop box.

[29:03] » Yeah, I might be able to bring it up here.

[29:05] » Yeah, Wes can bring it. >> We'll get it up for you.

[29:07] » I mean, basically, they're they're in approximately the same location as we

[29:10] discussed last time. The only thing that we changed was we added a one that goes

[29:14] along uh this property line here on the back of these townhouse lots just to

[29:18] make sure that those trees stay in there. Um areas are approximately the

[29:21] same. I think if um you my suggestion would be as if the Mr. Rua doesn't

[29:26] accept our proposal, I'll probably just incorporate

[29:30] the land along that property line that we were going to convey to him in that

[29:33] conservation easement just to make sure that those trees always stay there. Um

[29:37] no other >> do you have a contingency for

[29:41] that if for the fence >> we were going to leave everything

[29:45] proposed as is currently. Um so we're still proposing to do the fence on um

[29:49] the entire eastern and northern boundary up to where the

[29:53] » well >> up to where the well is that won't

[29:56] change won't change all that. It's just >> the same landscaping same same

[30:00] everything. We're just going to ask him to remove his stuff and then like I said

[30:04] we can incorporate that into a conservation easement or kind of work

[30:06] through that a little bit. >> Okay.

[30:10] Um, kind of besides that, I think those are really the main small updates since

[30:15] last week. I'm happy to answer any questions obviously about the project or

[30:18] or anything else moving forward. >> Wes is working on

[30:23] bringing up that. >> Yeah. Does does the uh propos do the

[30:28] proposed conservation easements does that graphic look like a lot like the

[30:32] one that you had? >> It's like that, but it doesn't have the

[30:34] aerial background. It's just a black and white.

[30:36] » It's just black and white. Yeah, it was the second page in that PDF. It had two

[30:40] drawings, an existing and proposed >> is the stuff I added at the very end.

[30:50] I >> think I did this to you last time.

[30:53] » Not that one right there. >> No, no, that's the that's the cover

[30:56] sheet.

[31:04] Let me hit refresh.

[31:08] Not sure if I have any.

[31:17] » Not the encroachment exhibit. >> No,

[31:20] I think I have them with me. >> There was like four things added at the

[31:24] very

[31:27] » Oh, last section.

[31:33] There's pages.

[31:43] That was the the letter as well as the two exhibits that we submitted to the

[31:47] town board. Um so the the black and white there basically kind of same

[31:50] pattern. The green are the proposed conservation easements. Uh the red on

[31:55] that are going to be all the access and utility easements or storm sewer

[31:58] easements. And then there is a small expansion to the drainage easement

[32:01] around the storm water facility to accommodate the expansion of that.

[32:05] » Yeah, upon quick glance, this looks this looks adequate, right, in terms of

[32:11] replacing the easements that you're going to dissolve.

[32:14] » Yeah, I think we we lost about a tenth of an acre total from what we used to

[32:17] have to now. Obviously kind of working around the grading and stuff, but again,

[32:21] if the neighbor doesn't agree to this, we can add his tenth of an acre that we

[32:25] were going to convey to him into that and be at the same area.

[32:31] Okay. >> Yeah. I don't have any comments on the

[32:35] on the ements. >> Anybody have any questions regarding

[32:39] those? >> I don't have a question on the

[32:41] easements. >> Okay. We'll get to them in a minute.

[32:46] Okay. Um

[32:54] I guess we'll just open up for other questions. Scott, you want to

[32:57] » I guess the question I had from the last meeting we had in the um the attorney

[33:02] who spoke about the conveyance and everything. The question in my mind is

[33:06] why not treat that area as a permanent easement versus a property conveyance is

[33:10] would a permanent easement be an easier way to do it and just

[33:13] » that was what we originally proposed. That was what was on the preliminary

[33:16] plans that you guys approved was was an easement and and stuff to him. So it was

[33:22] after that where the condition you guys had for us to try and resolve it between

[33:26] us. We we worked more which was we're going to convey the land to you to try

[33:29] and make it cleaner. So you're not dealing with an easement from a

[33:32] homeowner. However, um we can't convey the well again without causing ourselves

[33:37] some setback issues and obviously process delays because of that. So we

[33:41] were going to convey the land and give him an easement on just the well. I

[33:45] think it ends up being like a 5x5 easement. It just seem it just seems to

[33:49] me to be a cleaner way to do it than the conveyance because like the attorney

[33:53] said last time, you know, if you want to get done to brass tax, you know, maybe

[33:57] you're looking at a subdivision, maybe you're looking at a variance. Those were

[34:01] the things that he put out there. I just I just think well, first of all, I think

[34:05] you've done an excellent job in trying to resolve the issue. I'm just trying to

[34:08] see if there's something simple that can satisfy the parties and maybe what was

[34:12] originally proposed was the best solution. That's that's just what the

[34:16] way I see it. >> Sure. I think I mean that'd be fine with

[34:19] us if that's the if he wants to accept it that way. I think obviously we've

[34:22] kind of gone beaten this um horse a little bit.

[34:26] » Yeah. >> Um at this point. So I mean that's why I

[34:28] think you know once council got involved we're kind of this is our our path

[34:31] forward now. So I hopefully he accepts it and we can

[34:34] » we can do that. Um, >> I I just think maybe if I were in your

[34:38] shoes, it might tend to trip me up when I'm ready to break ground or something.

[34:42] There's some sort of legal issue that emerges and I'm just looking at it from

[34:48] that perspective. But, um, that was one comment I had. And then another comment

[34:51] I had was just I I think from our sitewalk um I noticed I think I recall

[34:56] that there's a big area that you're going to be filling. I think it's

[34:58] section three, right? that's kind of between section two and four and and

[35:02] that's going to be masqueraded and and filled quite a bit I think. Right.

[35:08] » Um there's a little bit of fill. Most of the fill actually I think goes into

[35:11] section one um on on the lower part here. Uh but section two and four I'm

[35:15] positive are in cut. Section three and one are both in fill. So we're going to

[35:19] take dirt from two and four and put it into three and one and basically still

[35:23] mass grade section three and section one, you know, all at the same time. So,

[35:27] so my comment just relates to a comment that I've made before on other projects,

[35:30] which is that when you get into deep fills, wherever you have deep fills, I

[35:34] don't know exactly where they may or may not be, you know, getting the right

[35:38] compaction um is is really important. And I think uh adding compaction notes

[35:43] and in some cases getting um some sort of technical um advice from a geotech

[35:49] and and an inspection here and there is really a good thing uh to avoid

[35:54] foundation issues. >> Yep. I believe foundation design is

[35:57] actually engaged with us already. We have done some geotechnical testing. Um

[36:00] the fills in section three would be primarily under the parking area that

[36:06] obviously has a full depth garage basement. So we're well cut and

[36:08] everywhere the building's going to be. Um but we will add some additional

[36:11] compaction. That's a good recommendation.

[36:14] » Those are my comments. >> Okay, Trish.

[36:17] » I don't have any questions. >> Okay, Al.

[36:20] » All right. Um, as am I. I I uh I'll echo Scott's comment about you've done a good

[36:27] job with conflicts and getting the things that

[36:32] you know addressing all of our comments and codes and everyone. So,

[36:36] handlebellas. So, um

[36:42] it sounds like the only real outstanding item for sections two and four is the

[36:47] easement, but that's not really an item for us to address.

[36:51] down the road. It's something that you you'll end up resolving one way or

[36:55] another. >> We'll know by Thursday at 5:00 PM which

[36:57] way we're going to go and obviously we'll inform the town of how we're going

[37:01] to proceed and we're going to provide you guys plans based on whatever that

[37:04] decision is. >> Yeah. And so what you're showing there

[37:06] is fencing, landscaping, trees, and things. It won't change no matter which

[37:10] way you go. >> Correct. All the the fencing, the

[37:13] landscaping, the you're going to end up with the same condition out there. It's

[37:17] just who owns what. >> Okay. And I guess what's what strikes me

[37:21] is the intent. What you're doing is to resolve the issue. You're not ignoring

[37:26] the issue. You're not um trying to make it someone else's problem. You're you

[37:30] are addressing the issue with some genuine proposals that are doable. So

[37:35] » yeah, and I think, you know, on behalf of my client, I think he's been very

[37:38] accommodating through the whole process with multiple sitewalks and, you know,

[37:41] receiving input and suggestions from the board, the conservation board about how

[37:46] to do all this. So, um, you know, I'd like like to hope that the board's

[37:51] willing to kind of, you know, t take an action being that that's kind of the

[37:55] last unresolved issue that isn't quite um, you know, under our control.

[38:00] » Mhm. So, yeah, we do have a draft um, resolution

[38:05] um, anticipating. You want a copy of it, James? Lisa's got one for you.

[38:11] » So, um, if you guys are okay, >> Mhm. This resolution, this is for

[38:17] sections two and four final High Point Drive Woods at Valent

[38:22] FS2026. This does not include section three and

[38:26] section one has already been approved. So,

[38:30] um whereas the planning board made the following findings in fact and there are

[38:36] 14 of them. Uh whereas town engineer findings

[38:42] summarized in Labella's August 25th, 2026 letter describe,

[38:47] sorry, I actually brought my glasses this time.

[38:53] Uh describe ongoing evaluation of the project sponsors projected sanitary

[38:57] sewer demands that reveal uh anticipated flows could overwhelm the town's

[39:02] sanitary sewer conveyance system in areas downstream from the project and

[39:06] that further evaluation is required for of the full buildout. And whereas the

[39:12] town engineer feels that sanitary sewer conveyance system can accommodate

[39:15] section two and section four of the project. But the town engineer cannot

[39:20] confirm section 3 could be accommodated by the town's sanitary sewer conveyance

[39:24] system. And whereas the planning board finds that section 3 100 unit apartment

[39:30] building should be removed from the application under review. And whereas

[39:35] the applicant and project sponsor have provided an update updated subdivision

[39:39] plan set that was removed section three and seeks approval for sections two and

[39:44] four only. The amended application. Now therefore, be it resolved that the

[39:49] planning board hereby waves section 2792 of the design and construction standards

[39:54] to allow for roof drainage to be discharged onto splash blocks for the

[39:58] rear of the townhouse buildings. And be it further resolved that the amended

[40:03] application of commercial street partner 64 commercial street 401 Rochester New

[40:08] York subdivision entitled Woods at Valenttown section 2 and 4 drawn by BME

[40:13] associates associates dated July 21st 2026 received by the planning board July

[40:19] 21st 2026 last revised September 2nd 2026 planning board application to FS

[40:26] 2026 be approved with the following conditions.

[40:31] conditions to be addressed prior to the chairman's signature on the site plan.

[40:35] Uh number one is standard. Number two, that comments from Obell Associates

[40:38] dated August 25th, 2026 be addressed. Number three, that comments from code

[40:43] enforcement off the code officer dated September 3rd, 2026 be addressed. Number

[40:50] four, that comments from con the from construction inspector dated September

[40:54] 3rd, 2026 be addressed. Number five, that comments from the town of

[40:58] Farmington Water and Sewward September 4th, 2026 be addressed. Ongoing

[41:03] conditions uh number one is standard. Number two,

[41:07] the building design plan shall be consistent with the elevations and

[41:10] details drawn by Hanland Architects and dated to March 24th, 2026

[41:16] and be further resolved that the planning board secretary distribute the

[41:19] planning board's approval letter. >> Joe, can I add two things? under ongoing

[41:23] um building permits be attained prior to construction. Also a precon meeting.

[41:27] » Okay. >> Before.

[41:29] » All right. Lisa will get updated. >> Please also add uh the letter of credit

[41:33] » as part of LeBella's uh comments, but I can add that too.

[41:36] » Okay. Yes, please. >> Okay.

[41:37] » Thank you. >> That's an ongoing the letter of credit.

[41:40] I assume we'll put those three down and um those

[41:45] will appear in the final as this is a draft. Okay. So, um, on the

[41:52] draft just read with the additions from Lisa and Keith.

[41:57] Um, do I hear motion for approval? >> I'll move it.

[42:02] » Scott moves. >> I'll second.

[42:03] » And Trish second. All in favor? >> I. Carried. 40.

[42:08] » Off and running. James. >> Thank you guys very much. We'll uh be in

[42:10] touch on the kind of little remaining items and go from there. Thank you very

[42:14] much. >> About that.

[42:17] » Thank you.

[42:28] All right. Uh, last item on the agenda this evening. Nova Rice preliminary

[42:32] subdivision. This is still an open public hearing. Owner morale team in

[42:36] motion. RKH Golf Incorporated. Applicants requesting approval to

[42:41] construct a 76 lot clustered subdivision on 158.2 2 acre parcel that includes

[42:47] three parcels. Good evening.

[42:50] » Good evening. Matt Tomlinson, Marathon Engineering, joined by Rich and Bill

[42:54] with the Morell team. I know we're a regular uh attendee at the meetings

[42:58] lately. >> So are we.

[43:01] » Um so I obviously we've made uh some progress towards seeker and hopefully

[43:07] we're getting to the point where preliminary uh overall subdivision

[43:11] approval uh is coming. But I know that there's been several items uh of

[43:15] discussion over the last couple of meetings that I just wanted to give an

[43:18] update on before uh turning it back over to the board. Um, we had received

[43:23] comments uh from code enforcement dated August 25th and had uh supplied revised

[43:29] drawings back to the town dated 93 addressing those comments as well as

[43:34] reflecting the modification of lot 34 and changing the location of that from

[43:40] where it was adjacent to uh the existing subdivision. Sorry, not sure my red dot

[43:48] is uh appearing. uh on the on the south uh west side of

[43:55] the building or of the road, excuse me, next to the adjacent subdivision and

[44:00] relocating that uh to this area at the southeast corner of our proposed

[44:05] roadways. And that necessitated a slight shift in the alignment, taking up some

[44:10] of the real estate from the larger corner lot there on the north side of

[44:14] that intersection as well. I know that we had uh discussed a couple of

[44:18] different options with the board at the last meeting. Uh we provided uh

[44:22] additional renderings or representations of what that actually was going to look

[44:27] like uh with the photo simulations uh along that side representing it. And I

[44:34] think that there were a couple of additional things that uh walking away

[44:38] from last meeting in addition to those that I just mentioned returning the

[44:42] plans uh revised back to the town and that was uh potential impact on schools

[44:48] and impact on traffic as we considered those for Seeker. Uh I believe that the

[44:54] uh traffic discussion, we had submitted a uh traffic letter with our original

[44:59] application and report, but Wes was going to have uh his uh traffic folks

[45:04] kind of take a look at that and give the town some feedback. But before I turn

[45:07] that over to him, uh we did get asked uh relative to schools and impact. So we've

[45:13] done a couple of calculations. I just wanted to walk um the board through and

[45:18] I know Bill has reached out to the school district. they have uh indicated

[45:22] to him that they plan on giving him a letter, but with the first week of

[45:25] school uh that has not come yet. Um but just running through uh some of the

[45:30] there's been quite a few studies for Ontario County specifically as it

[45:34] relates to housing needs and a lot of that included data uh based on the

[45:39] census for size of households, number of children under five, over five and under

[45:43] 18 and and from that standpoint. So um this is all based on the latest census

[45:49] data. Uh the average in town of Victor 2.32

[45:55] persons per household. 4.2% of the Victor's population is under five years

[46:01] old. 22.5% under 18. So about 18 uh.3%

[46:08] of the town of Victor population would be school age being uh 6 to 18 or 5 to

[46:13] 18. So 72 units being the number of new

[46:18] houses that we're proposing. Uh I round it up because a half a kid is tough to

[46:23] uh figure out, but 31 kids within the development at full buildout based on

[46:27] those averages across townwide. Um in the whole town of Victor, which the last

[46:33] was about 16,000 persons, so about 3,000 people. So 30 to 3,000 about 1% roughly

[46:40] um for the total school age population within the town of Victor. Obviously,

[46:44] the district expands outside of town limits, covers the village, that kind of

[46:49] thing. But just trying to give a framework as far as impact. Those 30

[46:53] kids are not going to be there year one, right? We've got about a year of

[46:56] construction. Uh 15 to 20 houses a year roughly is the anticipated buildout. So,

[47:02] uh this would be uh school age children 3 and a half years after buildout. So,

[47:08] call it 4 and a half to 5 years from now. So 2031 roughly before uh the

[47:13] potential for that full impact uh being assimilated within the existing school

[47:19] district. So I think when you start looking at just those numbers and and

[47:23] what it really means um you know 8 to 10 children per year across or excuse me

[47:28] six to eight children per year across four to five years on the buildout is

[47:33] quite a small impact from a number of students uh specific to this to this

[47:38] development. Um, so I just wanted to share that with the board because I know

[47:41] we hadn't really talked numbers before just kind of in generalities as far as

[47:45] potential impact there and uh I didn't know if there was any additional

[47:49] questions that the board had or things uh that were discussed that I ne

[47:54] neglected to mention some of the other questions as it related to the seeker

[47:57] review. Uh gas and electric will serve letters were requested. We provided

[48:01] those to the town. So, I think that those were the the key items as it

[48:05] related to secret review and moving forward to that preliminary overall

[48:09] subdivision approval. >> Um, what was is there a plan for natural

[48:15] gas lines in this or can't this does the state prohibit that now? I'm not sure

[48:19] how that works. >> We have will serve for both gas and

[48:22] electric and under the current current rules right now that's what we are

[48:25] planning on. >> Right. Anybody any questions um

[48:29] regarding the school and numbers? Trish, >> you're probably the closest to the

[48:35] school district. >> Yeah. On the school board for nine

[48:38] years. Um so you said you spoke to the district in regards to the estimates or

[48:47] » No. Uh so we had been asked and Bill can speak a little bit better to this but um

[48:52] the numbers are just spec specific to the census and the average household

[48:57] size that kind of thing. Uh our experience with schools and we're

[49:01] working through this in other municipalities right now. They're very

[49:05] hesitant to say there's room for them. There isn't because it's very hard to

[49:08] forecast whether or not kids go to private school, families move into the

[49:12] district and Victor that happens all the time, right? Um, but from a specifics,

[49:17] yes, we have room for them or no, we haven't. They usually are not putting

[49:20] that in black and white. Um, I'll let Bill speak specifically to the

[49:25] discussion with the Victor School District for this one.

[49:29] » What I did is I um took the data we have from Wolsburg Park. So, that's been

[49:34] being built out for the last four years and we did an exact study of how many

[49:38] children are uh impacting the school district. So, and it relates exactly to

[49:42] what the averages are. I think when I I went high with Victor schools, I think I

[49:47] said the impact over four years starting in 2028 will be approximately 10 to 12

[49:52] school age children per year. Um, and then a total in that range of 30 to 40

[49:58] children um overall for the whole subdivision.

[50:03] So, that's what we've asked them for feedback on. Um so again we anticipate

[50:09] communication coming in short order but you know from an overall number

[50:13] standpoint and that being phased in over a number of years from a seeker

[50:16] standpoint um there would be a an additional demand on community services

[50:23] which is the threshold for consideration for seeker but overall especially

[50:27] compared to uh the overall number of kids within the school district uh I

[50:31] think no or small impact would be appropriate for

[50:35] I would just be interested to see, you know, their response since they're being

[50:38] asked just because they're they've had projects stalled because of the electric

[50:42] rate issues. >> So, it's I'd be interested to see their

[50:46] response to the um the number of growth because they're they're having their own

[50:51] challenges right now. >> Sure.

[50:53] » I'm just curious to see >> and in this case, we have several

[50:56] projects that are stalled by by gas and electric. In this case, we do have the

[51:00] will serve letters and and they've committed to as long as we break ground

[51:04] within certain time frames and that kind of thing to move forward with the

[51:08] installation of the infrastructure. >> Thank you.

[51:13] » I remember when you did your project in Fisers and we asked you to look at the

[51:17] school data and and I I was interested to see that the data showed that things

[51:21] were relatively flat in terms of the enrollment at the Victor schools. And I

[51:26] think that's kind of what I was looking for in this one. maybe a refresher,

[51:30] if you will, of that data, seeing if that is still close to a horizontal line

[51:35] or if it's going up like that or what it's doing. That that was my curiosity.

[51:38] I mean, I agree with the numbers that you've presented, you're not I think it

[51:43] is a small to no impact. I I agree with that. I'm I'm just curious when we take

[51:48] a look at your project along with all the other projects that are going on

[51:52] simultaneously. Um, I'm curious to know how that's being um felt by the uh by

[51:59] the school board. It seems like things are kind of busy over there. Um, that's

[52:03] my comment. That's all I have. >> Yeah, you've got your all the

[52:06] contributions from our neighboring town. >> Yes, we do.

[52:10] » Arlington is building like crazy as much as anybody.

[52:12] » Right, >> Al? Well, I think uh the applicant has

[52:18] done the due diligence as we requested and uh again it is a cumulative effect

[52:22] over multiple projects. I think that continues to have an impact on the

[52:26] school but that again that's just something that the school will have to

[52:28] continue to find you know solutions for. So

[52:33] » just my quick question the housing that you're proposing is um

[52:39] do you call that starter homes? I mean, are are these would you more likely or

[52:46] would the average that you're stating about average kids per house or

[52:51] household apply?

[52:55] Would these houses houses houses fit that um character characteristic? I

[52:59] mean, it's not million-dollar homes. They're not, you know, apartments. So

[53:04] they're is that something that you would say is this is kind of like the average

[53:09] thing that families are looking forward when they too when they come into Victor

[53:12] to because they like the schools for instance.

[53:16] » Absolutely. The schools are a draw. No question. Um and the uh again mirroring

[53:21] Wolfsburgger because it's going to be the same product. Um there are some

[53:25] well-healed first-time home buyers because that threshold to own a new home

[53:29] is above 500,000 today and close to 600,000. Um, but we do have quite a few

[53:36] people that are in uh right sizing. Some some people say downsizing. I get around

[53:41] and say right sizing is sometimes a kitchen's twice the size of the colonial

[53:44] you're moving out of. But um so there's a lot of empty nesters that'll build the

[53:48] ranches or one and a half stories uh amongst uh the two stories. But yes,

[53:53] it's definitely um probably 50% of the products going to be what we call a move

[53:57] up product. So they might, you know, started with the apartment, moved into

[54:00] the first house, had a generous equity swing over the last six, seven years

[54:05] and, you know, turn that right into a brand new house with the design

[54:09] according to what today's standards are. They don't want all that extra hallway.

[54:13] They don't need the formal spaces. They need sometimes two offices, sometimes

[54:18] one in the lower level, a bonus room up top. So designed accordingly to way

[54:21] their lifestyle is today. >> Okay. To answer your question, if you

[54:25] drove through Wilsburg or Park, there are million-dollar homes in there. I'm

[54:28] building four of them right now. Um, you know, because some of the people just

[54:31] get into, you know, start price at 5600,000 and then you do a threec car

[54:35] garage, finish lower level, start adding on, making the square footage larger. It

[54:39] can get to that point. >> It is a good point about power. I mean,

[54:43] we're still sitting there. You've approved Highline Park and I literally

[54:47] can't I'm shovel ready and can't build the apartments because there's no

[54:50] electricity. So, I think that's probably the biggest

[54:54] stop when it comes to other I mean, we're looking at land elsewhere in the

[54:59] Victor School District and we can't power anything right now. So, that's

[55:03] kind of the difficulty. >> Okay.

[55:06] » The future. >> Yeah. And it is part of what makes this

[55:08] project unique in that we do have will serve letters, but they put sunsets on

[55:13] them now. And if you don't demonstrate site approvals and everything else, then

[55:17] those go away. Uh because they'll only commit to a certain

[55:21] » move a little closer to the mic. >> Sorry.

[55:23] » Which I believe they're 12 month terms right now um on that. So we have to

[55:29] » final approvals be in the ground be ready for them. And so it starts

[55:33] becoming very time constrained uh as you start talking about site development

[55:37] because if you lose that and it's given to someone else, you're really really in

[55:40] trouble. So once you get started, they're committed to supplying will

[55:46] serve, right? >> Yeah. So we have to demonstrate final

[55:48] site plan approval. That's when they start their design. And then if you uh

[55:52] start construction, that kind of stops the clock as long as you're ready for

[55:55] their infrastructure to go in by the time they finish the design.

[55:58] » Yeah. Cuz you've got 74 homes on this stretch. You're talking about what 20 a

[56:04] year maybe. Is that what I heard? building, but because of the nature of

[56:08] the project and just the site itself, uh essentially we'll be doing all the site

[56:13] work at once, which >> Okay. So, you got all that

[56:15] infrastructure go along. Yeah. >> Yep.

[56:18] » Okay. >> Yep.

[56:19] » Sanitary's coming from one end and the road's got to come from the other. So,

[56:22] we've got we've got quite a bit of infrastructure that has to go into to

[56:25] make this work. >> Okay.

[56:29] Um All right. I think we gotten the school issue or question out of the way

[56:33] and some energy other other things that you needed to update us on.

[56:38] » Uh I don't think so unless there's remaining questions as it related to

[56:42] seeker. I think those in and traffic which I think Labella was going to look

[56:46] at were the were the three items that were identified as potential for

[56:50] moderate to large and and hopefully we've addressed

[56:53] » two out of the three and Wes will help us out with the third one.

[56:58] » Well, >> okay. Thank you. you're up.

[57:00] » Yeah. Um, so I do remember uh Mr. Harter asking if I could uh talk with our

[57:07] transportation professionals at Labella regarding the um the traffic memorandum

[57:12] provided uh let me see if I can bring it up here

[57:17] uh back on May 27th, 2026 from McFarland Johnson, which you know

[57:23] concludes with um the trip generation analysis revealed

[57:28] that the additional traffic generated by the proposed residential subdivision

[57:31] onto the existing roadway network will noted exceed 100 trips per peak hour at

[57:36] any intersection due to the relatively low traffic generation from the proposed

[57:41] development. A detailed capacity analysis for off-site roadway

[57:44] intersections is not recommended. So, I did get an email back from uh David

[57:50] Cruzie, our I'd be happy to share it on the screen with you. It's it's not that

[57:55] uh it's not that tiny. I guess you can go ahead and I'd

[58:00] be happy to share it. So, David Cruzie, he's a um a professional transportation

[58:06] planner and a road safety professional. And his response was that he reviewed

[58:11] the letter and it meets industry standards. Uh and based on the methods

[58:15] and findings, this letter is suitable for board reviews. So, uh LeBella

[58:19] doesn't have a problem. We're in agreement with what is stated in the in

[58:24] the uh in the memo here, uh from McFarland Johnson. We're

[58:30] okay with that. We also I also talked to him about uh roadways roadway speeds

[58:35] because we've heard from the public that they're concerned about uh vehicles that

[58:39] are speeding and um just in as a casual informal conversation with our uh uh

[58:46] professional transportation planner just looking at the the uh the layout of the

[58:51] existing roadway of a Zano Circle and understanding the topography. There's

[58:56] about 850 ft between this intersection here

[59:00] and uh the intersection of the proposed connector road into the Nova Rise

[59:06] subdivision. And given that the geometry is a little bit it's a little bit curved

[59:11] here. You've got some bends in the roadway. You've got some topography

[59:14] changes. the acceleration area and then the need for deceleration prior to

[59:20] making this turn. Um likely not going to result in in a lot of speeding if any uh

[59:27] along this stretch of this stretch of roadway and um

[59:31] » Wes is there a posted speed limit or a legal speed limit for subdivisions like

[59:36] this? >> Yeah, usually in the town code there are

[59:40] uh roadways. each of the roadways is identified uh as to whether or not as to

[59:47] what the speed limit would be. And I could look up in the town code to see if

[59:50] a Zano Circle is is on that um is on that list. It probably is. It's probably

[59:56] 30 miles per hour or less. >> I could I could look at that. Um, so we

[1:00:02] don't also same if if you think about uh someone turning off of the subdivision

[1:00:09] road taking a left down Azano circle, right? Um they're going to be making

[1:00:14] this that's the same traffic movement as anybody that's deeper into the Izano

[1:00:19] circle, right? So they're going to be um you know and there's there's not a whole

[1:00:23] lot of room for acceleration and then deceleration to be able to stop down

[1:00:27] here. >> Mhm. Um, now I did want to this did and

[1:00:31] I I I noticed uh some comments in in recent planning board meetings about

[1:00:36] stop signs and I just wanted to talk to the planning board and and also uh

[1:00:41] Marathon about the design here of this intersection and considering where this

[1:00:46] sidewalk is and then if there's a stop a stop sign here, you know, we're likely

[1:00:52] going to want to see a crosswalk here and is that stop sign and stop bar going

[1:00:56] to be in front of this crosswalk? If you're coming from the north heading

[1:01:00] south, I guess my question is, do we need the alignment of this sidewalk to

[1:01:06] change >> as it crosses this roadway?

[1:01:10] » I'm not sure why it was not lined up in the first place.

[1:01:13] » Yeah, >> seems kind of odd that they would, you

[1:01:15] know, moved it back. I mean, I I would be in favor of straightening

[1:01:20] that right out and moving the stop bar up so that I mean, cars can just roll

[1:01:23] right across there. I have a feeling the drainage inlets

[1:01:27] were probably put in right where the rock and alignment are, but

[1:01:32] » you may be right. Uh so we might need to look at that. That might be an

[1:01:35] engineering challenge for you. >> Um we see that the

[1:01:39] » it's typically what we see when they're moving.

[1:01:41] » Yeah. So we we can work with the the highway

[1:01:46] superintendent however you guys would like us to to look at that. You know, it

[1:01:50] may be that the crosswalk sits back and so does the stop bar with a with a stop

[1:01:55] here and an arrow. I you know, we'll have to work through that with them.

[1:01:59] » There's plenty of sight distance from there. It's not like there's trees at

[1:02:02] the corner or something, right? >> So,

[1:02:05] » pretty open. Yeah. So, just a one of the observations that

[1:02:10] I was that I was making. Um, I guess before I go on to my next uh my

[1:02:16] my next topic of conversation, which um isn't necessarily related to seeker, I

[1:02:22] wanted to see if there are there any questions or concerns about where where

[1:02:27] we stand with with traffic and and uh speeds given our feedback.

[1:02:33] There were comments on traffic about, you know, all these delivery trucks now,

[1:02:38] all the Amazon and everybody else come in, FedEx,

[1:02:41] um, adding to the traffic, but that typically would not be at during peak

[1:02:45] hours. I would assume, you know, delivery trucks are more

[1:02:50] midday to afternoon, maybe the evening peak hour, but

[1:02:57] I don't know. Is that something that's that comes up in traffic studies now

[1:03:03] that they address deliveries?

[1:03:10] » So typically the the tripgen letters factor in all trips to and from

[1:03:15] » okay >> the land use that's there. So what's

[1:03:18] incorporated in this or in the IT manuals are vehicle trips to and from

[1:03:24] the traffic generator in this case single family homes. So they don't

[1:03:28] necessarily distinguish between delivery, mailmen, trash, but they're

[1:03:32] all included in those counts and numbers at the intersections.

[1:03:36] » It's not just the residents and their visitors to the residential homes. It's

[1:03:39] everything on that road. >> That's correct.

[1:03:41] » It would be anticipated. Okay. All right. Because it it was asked. I wanted

[1:03:46] to make sure it was out there that we talked about it and considered it. So

[1:03:51] that includes everything. I'm good with it. You know, it's

[1:03:53] » Yeah. Oh. Um, anybody else for >> um I guess I have a couple of comments.

[1:04:01] I think relative to traffic, the thing I was concerned with was whether there was

[1:04:05] some information that would say that the configuration of the streets was was

[1:04:10] conducive to speeding. just to try to get my head around that and see if the

[1:04:15] residents who have um brought that up as an issue um you know had something um

[1:04:22] that we needed to address. But I think I've heard from Wes and speaking with

[1:04:26] the transportation planner that um I I guess that's not really an issue. And um

[1:04:32] I think I also heard from the last meeting that the highway superintendent

[1:04:36] did not want any type of speed control devices. And I think I think maybe the

[1:04:41] fire marshall was of the same opinion >> as it relates to like speed bumps or or

[1:04:46] dips. Yeah, that's correct. Y >> um so I guess that's how I see it. And

[1:04:53] and Wes, do I understand it correctly from from your perspective guiding us?

[1:04:59] Um is it you you spoke with David Cruz? >> I did. Yep. and and he didn't think that

[1:05:05] this was had the potential to be a racetrack or

[1:05:08] something along those lines. I appre >> that's not the indication that I got. We

[1:05:12] there's there's nothing that indicates either the existing geometry of Azano

[1:05:17] Circle or even the proposed geometry of uh

[1:05:22] uh the proposed subdivision, right? And the change in topography,

[1:05:27] it's not likely to uh induce people to uh to speed.

[1:05:33] I I think there was one other thing we spoke about on this subject which was

[1:05:37] you know crosswalks at these particular intersections

[1:05:41] and and you know maybe getting um maybe doing a little more striping than what's

[1:05:47] usual. I mean, I've seen recently some crossings where they're painting them

[1:05:51] green in the center as well as the white on the outside and tends to stand out,

[1:05:55] be more noticeable and and striping is um you know, a very uh inexpensive way

[1:06:00] to achieve some level of traffic control, pedestrian control. So, I I I

[1:06:07] guess I agree that it's a a a small to to moderate impact. Wasn't the comment

[1:06:13] made regarding that topic of colored or unusual design crosswalks that the town

[1:06:19] wasn't interested in that the town highway department?

[1:06:21] » I don't I don't remember. I don't remember if that was part of Perhaps it

[1:06:24] was. >> Yes. In general, the highway

[1:06:26] superintendent is because anything that they do out of the gate is turned over

[1:06:30] to us and we don't have that in any of our other subdivisions.

[1:06:32] » Okay. So, they don't want to do that either.

[1:06:34] » No. >> What about we talked about stop signs

[1:06:37] internal to this subdivision? Yeah. They would have one for those

[1:06:42] living on the culdesac. They'd have to stop at that T intersection. But would

[1:06:45] you have stop signs in in the directions on the main road

[1:06:53] that come approach that intersection for instance?

[1:06:56] » Meaning make that a three-way stop there.

[1:06:58] » Yeah. >> So typically final uh signage locations

[1:07:03] are directed by the highway superintendent. We purchase, they

[1:07:08] install. So, we're happy if it's two if two extra stop signs are desired. Uh, we

[1:07:14] would have no issue with that whatsoever. That's really up to the

[1:07:17] highway superintendent. He hasn't indicated that in any of the comments

[1:07:20] received so far. >> Um, right now, stop control would only

[1:07:23] be anticipated uh southbound there at the intersection that you mentioned for

[1:07:28] westbound at um westbound uh entering there and then down at at Brownsville

[1:07:35] Road. So, that's what's been discussed to date and I believe what's represented

[1:07:40] on our plans, but if additional uh intersection control was desired, we'd

[1:07:45] have no issue with that. >> I mean, tables and speed bumps and all

[1:07:49] that are ruled out, but a stop sign is easy to maintain. Um, and it's a good

[1:07:59] people get annoyed with them, but it's definitely a speed control option. um

[1:08:05] that I think we'd want to consider at least

[1:08:10] at that T intersection with a a pulack road. Um that would keep people

[1:08:17] from zooming straight through there. Might make the neighbors within that

[1:08:22] subdivision feel better about it with their kids and

[1:08:25] everything on the streets that there's that kind of speed control.

[1:08:30] » Sure. >> So, I'd like to at least keep it on the

[1:08:32] table. I I think any uh preliminary approval of course would be subject to

[1:08:37] any remaining comments from code highway etc. So if they wanted to take a look at

[1:08:41] that we would be happy to consider that. Yep. Absolutely. I don't know why Bella

[1:08:46] have want to look at that and see if there's an opinion on that from other

[1:08:50] subdivisions for instance and if it's unusual or if it's kind of standard

[1:08:55] because there's a lot of homes there >> and if there's a 100 cars in the peak

[1:08:58] hour that's a lot of cars zipping along there that you know people are anxious

[1:09:04] to get home or anxious to get to work because they're late or something

[1:09:08] times a stop sign it's like a a check you know I mean I would be in favor of a

[1:09:14] three-way at that central intersection as an as a way to control speed in there

[1:09:21] without having to disrupt the snow plows and the all the maintenance of that

[1:09:26] road. So that's my comment about >> aren't the step signs governed by not

[1:09:33] only the highway superintendent but also the DOT. and the DOT get involved and

[1:09:37] » uh typically the MUTCD which is the manual manual uniform traffic control

[1:09:42] devices kind of dictates some of that. Um DOT would not weigh in here typically

[1:09:47] on a town owned road. So it would really be at the discretion of the of the

[1:09:50] highway superintendent >> and andor if there was ashtto uh

[1:09:55] recommendation type thing. But I I don't think in this instance with roughly a

[1:10:00] 100 uh residences in there that it would dictate at one of these intersections.

[1:10:05] It would be more a highway superintendent decision. I

[1:10:07] » mean, it's it's a different condition, but Cork and Modoc and the subdivision

[1:10:12] there, it's a four-way. There used to be through traffic on Cork that wouldn't

[1:10:17] they would they would have to stop in one direction and Modoc would be through

[1:10:22] without stopping in the other. And as soon as we put that intersection, we

[1:10:24] said, "All right, make it a four-way so they can all stop." There's a lot more

[1:10:28] traffic on Cork Road than there is even thought about here, but because it's

[1:10:33] more of a collector, I think. >> So, um, but that's I think I think those

[1:10:40] are all good points that you made relative to the three-way.

[1:10:43] » Yeah. So, let's keep that on the table for final.

[1:10:48] » No problem. >> Okay, that's all I had for traffic

[1:10:53] anyway. Wes, you had anything else you needed to?

[1:10:56] » Uh, not on traffic. Uh, one of the things that I noticed, I might have

[1:10:59] missed this at the last planning board meeting. So, you've got a turnaround uh

[1:11:03] hammerhead turnaround up here, right? So, um, the design construction

[1:11:09] standards require that uh, temporary turnarounds be constructed in accordance

[1:11:13] with the design detail. And uh I think if you're going to be paving this is if

[1:11:19] this is going to be a town owned roadway and the town's going to be uh going to

[1:11:23] own this pavement here, they're probably going to want a right of way there and

[1:11:26] and not an easement. >> Oh.

[1:11:28] » So I don't know if that's something that the property owner here is uh okay with.

[1:11:35] And I I guess the other question I had is

[1:11:39] what are the number of development units that could be developed here? And my

[1:11:42] guess is my my assumption looking on the looking at the

[1:11:47] acreage I think it was 34 acres and change and looking at the B overlay

[1:11:52] uh this would afford maybe 17 17 lots. Um and currently this this parcel is not

[1:11:59] part of the subdivision project but the one just to the north is right.

[1:12:04] » Correct. Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:12:06] » Yeah, that's correct. So 17 is correct as far as the remaining development

[1:12:10] lots, if you will, available for that parcel. And I think there's six

[1:12:14] remaining out of the total of what we're doing for that parcel to the north. Um

[1:12:19] if right ofway was required, we might have to shift that a little bit south

[1:12:23] and delay building, you know, that that northwestern most uh parcel kind of to

[1:12:28] the end if we had to in order to create that that turnaround right there. But

[1:12:33] we'll if right ofway instead of an easement would be required, we probably

[1:12:37] would have to come up with a configuration comprised on our our

[1:12:41] parcel would be my assumption. >> So

[1:12:43] » and and we'd be happy to work through that with a highway superintendent again

[1:12:47] at final or however we need to. >> Yeah.

[1:12:50] » So if you if you made it right away and then you went ahead and a future

[1:12:54] subdivision were built, then you'd have that hammerhead for no reason, right?

[1:12:58] » Yeah. So then you'd have to either dissolve it or retain it without the

[1:13:04] hammerhead or turnaround. >> Yeah. So

[1:13:07] » or have a temporary or have the have the easement and then modify it when the

[1:13:14] road is when the subdivision were to be approved.

[1:13:17] » Correct. Yeah. So temporary turnaround easement is typically uh an easier one

[1:13:22] to dissolve versus uh rightway dedication. So again, we can work

[1:13:26] through the mechanism of that uh as needed as part of final.

[1:13:29] » The only thing I worry about is if you make it a right of way, they own it. The

[1:13:33] town owns it, right? >> Yeah, that's right.

[1:13:36] » So then they own this thing lot, then you have to abandon it and sell it back

[1:13:41] or so. >> But we we can work through that.

[1:13:43] » That subdivision over on East Victor Road, um

[1:13:46] » Sunray. >> Yeah.

[1:13:47] » Stone Brook. >> Stone Stone Brook maybe.

[1:13:50] » Yes. >> Where we continued on. They had a

[1:13:52] turnaround right there in front of that guy's house. That's right.

[1:13:54] » And we part of the approval was get rid of it.

[1:13:56] » I think Marathon did those plans, didn't she?

[1:14:00] » So, I'm just thinking these examples in my head. Um,

[1:14:04] » okay. >> So, I mean, it's a valid point. Should

[1:14:06] it be a right of way? I would say, yeah, if it's permanent, but if in in the end

[1:14:10] it's not a permanent thing, you you have to dissolve it somehow.

[1:14:14] So, the updated subdivision plans that you submitted since the last meeting, do

[1:14:18] they incorporate the uh the change that you noted here for this lot where you

[1:14:25] took some of this real estate and, you know, kind of switched it over to the

[1:14:28] other side of the road? >> We do. Yep. So,

[1:14:30] » lot 34 got relocated and we reumbered them. But,

[1:14:35] » um there are now two lots on that souththeast

[1:14:38] uh portion of the intersection where the larger corner lot was prior. Yeah,

[1:14:42] » those are now lots uh 44 and 45. >> Okay. So, I haven't had the opportunity

[1:14:48] to finish my review of of the plans and and uh update our letter, but I don't

[1:14:53] think I have anything else today for uh for you.

[1:14:59] I guess it sounds like it it sounds like maybe the the applicant is still

[1:15:03] communicating with Jennese Land Trust on potentially taking over some of the

[1:15:08] conservation easement land or all of the conservation easement land.

[1:15:11] Yes, they're we're still uh working through that with them. They're a little

[1:15:16] bit of a slow process, but we're moving in the right direction.

[1:15:19] » Okay. >> We did have some data if you want for

[1:15:22] the school district. We looked it up online. So,

[1:15:25] » um Carly can go over that for you. >> Okay.

[1:15:29] » Yeah. So, I just pulled quickly some information from the New York State

[1:15:32] Education Department just to show kind of over the last 10 years or so. So from

[1:15:38] 2015 looking up to enrollment uh 2024 through 25 it looks like there's been a

[1:15:45] decrease in about 300 students in enrollment. Uh 2015 to 2016 you had

[1:15:50] 4,400 and then um 24 to 25 4,100 students. And so, uh, kind of just

[1:15:58] showing that, uh, there was like an kind of an

[1:16:01] explosive enrollment in the 2000s, 2010, and then it evened out, and then you see

[1:16:06] the drop starting the last 10 years. >> So, we're relatively flat.

[1:16:10] » Yes. Yes. To declining in the past decade or so.

[1:16:13] » That that that's helpful. I just wanted to check in. I I wasn't sure if we were

[1:16:17] going up or down or >> Looks like it's going down. It looks

[1:16:20] like about around 50 to 100 students per year, actually, at this rate. around 50.

[1:16:25] » I don't know where they're going. >> Hopefully they're

[1:16:29] » seems like we're getting bigger. So, I don't know where they're going.

[1:16:33] » People are having less kids. >> Is that what's happening?

[1:16:35] » Yeah. And we do a lot of K to2 school work. A lot of what has changed and

[1:16:40] fostered a lot of the growth in size of schools. Classes are 21 to 24 instead of

[1:16:48] 30. So they need more classrooms even for the same amount of kids, more uh

[1:16:53] other space I'll call it. So I I think you're adding at the Victor school

[1:16:59] district, but there's other factors in it than just the the raw number of

[1:17:02] children. >> Makes sense. Yeah.

[1:17:10] » Okay. Um I think what our next step is going to be I guess wrapping up part two

[1:17:18] and then part three of you know finishing up the environmental

[1:17:21] assessment. I think with the information that we've received there's a little bit

[1:17:26] of um work up to complete and then probably at our next meeting we could

[1:17:33] you want to >> Yeah. Yeah, I think what we could do is

[1:17:36] the information that we re received tonight regarding the school district

[1:17:39] and we've been able to hammer out uh some of the conversation on

[1:17:43] transportation. Let's update the EAF part two and three. And I think at the

[1:17:48] next meeting we'd be prepared um to have the draft

[1:17:53] negative declaration and also a likely a draft of the preliminary subdivision

[1:17:58] approval prepared

[1:18:02] unless um unless the pony board feels otherwise.

[1:18:04] » No, sounds like a plan. >> Yeah,

[1:18:06] » sounds good to me. Okay. >> So, if if you had anything to add

[1:18:11] between now and then, you know, as soon as possible, but it sounds like we've

[1:18:15] gotten everything from you that that uh that we need to, as Wes said, wrap up,

[1:18:21] clean up part two, and move forward. So, >> okay, great. Yeah, we'd we'd love to get

[1:18:27] to that point so we can start working towards towards final and be teed up and

[1:18:31] ready to go as soon as soon as possible. So, appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:18:35] » Okay. Yep. I appreciate your patience, but um it's the way the process is.

[1:18:39] » Getting that right. >> All right,

[1:18:43] I guess we're done with that uh for the evening and that was our last item. Um

[1:18:49] just wanted to remind everybody about the meeting in second meeting in

[1:18:53] October, right Lisa? >> Yep. So

[1:18:56] » go ahead. So October 14th um will be Wednesday and then October 29th

[1:19:05] will be Thursday. >> We have a Wednesday and Thursday plan.

[1:19:08] » We do um we did go over this um beginning of the year or end of the year

[1:19:14] last year when we were doing our I want to say it might be early voting. Um I

[1:19:20] think so.

[1:19:25] » Right. So we got pushed for the one and then the other one. So it was discussed

[1:19:29] either we not have a meeting in October only one

[1:19:33] » or push it to Thursday. I think you guys had said it was okay.

[1:19:37] » Yeah. >> So because we're down to one meeting

[1:19:40] November and one in December. >> So

[1:19:42] » I think that would have implied another meeting in November and December if we

[1:19:47] eliminated the one in October. So, I think that was preferable to go later in

[1:19:52] November and December >> for those two dates. I'm sorry.

[1:19:56] » October 14th will be Wednesday

[1:20:00] and then October 29th will be Thursday. >> Okay. I'll fix.

[1:20:06] » So, if that is an issue or anything with anybody, just let me know.

[1:20:09] » If you could just email Joe and remind him as well.

[1:20:13] » I'll ask Joe, too. >> Yeah. to make sure we have enough

[1:20:17] » members. >> I just have to program myself for it.

[1:20:21] That's all. >> I will try to remind you also.

[1:20:24] » I just wanted Lisa to be out in front of it when everybody's there. So

[1:20:28] » I get I get used to this Tuesday thing. >> Well, and it's funny because I looked at

[1:20:32] that meeting in October said that can't be right. Thursday. I moved it to

[1:20:35] Tuesday and then I said we talked about something like that. Lisa said, "Yep,

[1:20:39] it's Thursday." >> Yeah. Oh,

[1:20:41] » Susie had let us know ahead of time that there was going to be an issue.

[1:20:44] » Yeah. >> And we couldn't move it to Wednesday and

[1:20:47] it was just it was a mess. >> Dave, you're going to have to change

[1:20:51] your schedule if you want to attend them.

[1:20:55] » Somebody send a memo to Dave.

[1:21:00] » Um, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move.

[1:21:03] » Moves. >> A second.

[1:21:05] » And church seconds. All in favor? >> I.

[1:21:07] » Have a great rest of your evening, what's left of it. And uh

[1:21:13] » welcome back from Italy. >> Hi Dave.

Planning Board Meeting 9/08/2026

Agenda

Transcript