[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.