Planning Board - Regular Meeting

If he wants to read it.

Okay, I'd like to call the planning board meeting to order I'm gonna skip the minute approval because we don't have Written minutes and go right to referrals number one zoning reform advisory board on the site plan review Now having a small discussion with Jen and paper she passed out it sounds like a lot of it is Being on the zoning board a lot of things in the code book are in say page 10 and page 50 and they have to go between those two things to get an answer so they're trying to put everything on page 10. so when you look up something it's all there we don't have to go well now we got to refer to page 50 and see what page 50 says so that was one of the big things that uh building had brought forward to the zoning board Language changing. I don't think that's, I think that's more for the zoning board and that approved. What is the guy though? The planner, our planner that's being paid for by the town. I think that can be worked out with him. I don't think that's something that we need to dive into was in language. The zoning application was done by Sandy. Tim and Ben years ago, which we took the law and made it into a checklist form so that nothing ever got missed. Now, over time, a few small things have been added to that checklist, like lighting and the fairy village thing, the lighting plan. I think this is working. We don't ever have a problem with the checklist. Outside, maybe they don't fill out the whole checklist. But we don't have a problem with the checklist. The three of our existing and two old board members spent a lot of time doing this. And it's worked. It's worked flawlessly. How long has it been, Sandy? Years. This has been years. I mean, Ben has been gone for years.

Yeah.

Yeah, I will say with the checklist that is one of the suggestions that I made in here is in the actual section 407 109 on on. it's when you submit this your site plan, I did ask like one of those things we should have in there that be. The planning board checklist is completed and submitted with their application that those things are followed through because we often don't get the checklist or things are missing from them. So, again, it's, it's 1 of those things that when someone comes in and there's the site plan. It's if you look at that section, it's everything that's supposed to be turned in from. All of it. And so I put that up front saying, which is exactly what you're saying, Dave. It's all those things in there, but I put it at the front of that section because.

So what I think is happening is when they come into the building department and they don't fill out all the checklist, they still push it forward to us anyway.

Well, I think it's a combination of that, I think. they pick and choose what documents that they think are relevant to you guys, because you don't get the entire, you know, you don't get the entire application that comes into the building or engineering department. So that just may be something that they don't deem appropriate to send to you guys and we could just tell them and it may be.

I think just to have that conversation is like colors or elevations, you know, a lot of the time coming with pole barns, they give us a picture of a pole barn, black and white. We don't know, we're supposed to know what colors are used, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So I think we can have that conversation with the building department and square that issue away.

It should also be something that when the new clerk starts next week,

we go through like if you guys want an entire packet well we should get everything that's in that checklist which is what section 407 109 is if you go through that's all basically what's in our checklist um is sitting there and that tells us right here everything that's supposed to go to the planning board from 407 109 a there are four or 28 items that are supposed to come in with the site plan to the planning board And then we have the option to waive things if we don't receive them because we don't feel they're necessary for this. I'm not saying I want to make like making this more difficult. It's just the idea of like we're saying, I think the idea is putting it, getting it all in one spot. So it's clear.

But Jen, isn't 407-109, that's even more detailed than our checklist.

It is. It is. Yes. Yes.

But the checklist was taken off. Originally, Norm, the law was an alphabet checklist.

I think the idea was the checklist is to make sure that what's in the code book. And I was not here. I don't want to make assumptions, but it's the thought that I said the stuff that's in the code book. The checklist was put together so that that was a generalized like, hey, landscaping plan. But the code book tells you exactly what's supposed to be in that landscape.

Well, should we do our checklist? to comply with 109.

Well, the checklist was taken off of the alphabet law that said all this.

Dave, if you look at it, there's 20 items.

Well, we got, we actually had.

28, and we don't have 20 items on our checklist.

Yeah, our checklist actually, Norm, has 30.

We have one to 28, and then we added one and two.

I don't necessarily think there's a problem with what's in the code book and the checklist, and you guys have worked with the checklist longer. I think it's just a matter of adding that this is part of the submittal process, that the planning board checklist should be completed upon application.

Like number 22 on our checklist says garbage screening and enclosures. 22 on the law says garbage screening and enclosure. Okay. When we did this, and Sandy and the other two people, they took that there and made it in a checklist form. They didn't add anything. They didn't change anything. They just made it checklist form. What used to happen, Norm, is people would come in and do one to five and nine and 11 and 14, and that was it. And that's all the planning board would get. And we got frustrated and that's one, I don't know which one of the members or all of us, how this started. We said, hey, we wanna come up with this checklist. I don't know who was the brainchild.

It was a way of... forcing applicants who don't want to endure looking through the code to get this checklist from the person- Enforcing the building department to make sure we got everything and we didn't just get whatever pieces they wanted to send us. So it works if it's filled out. One of the things that was the first thing was refer to the code. of putting the information out there for people who don't want to open it.

Especially because it also helps you guys because if there is something that I think the applicant deems unnecessary, when they do the checklist, they can always fill out and explain why whatever it is wasn't included and you guys can determine whether or not it was appropriate not to include it or say, yeah, you know what, we think that's necessary, send it over.

Right, like one big thing is always building details, height, elevations, Number 13, colors, materials. That's always, we're always asking for that. Hey, what color is it going to be? You know, where that, again, like you said, Tom, we need to talk to the building department and say, hey, everything's got to be done. Because a lot of times I get, I see N-A, you know, N-A, N-A, N-A, and they don't.

And why? Is it N-A because you haven't gotten a point where you have to determine the color? If so, then. So I think that solves that problem.

And I think the other part of the exercise was letting the planning board have some foresight that. The zoning board is planning on. I think we talked about this before, but maybe redefining. The certain. Zones within our town so like say the central business district we've done North central and South. The idea is to put that together, the idea is the hamlets are clearly defined that's going to be coming through that, but I wanted to kind of put that note down in here to. I wanted Love Road has always kind of stood out on its own, but the zoning board is looking to make Love Road have to follow the same kind of design procedures or Hamlet procedures going forward as it would for our central, what you guys have considered the central business district. And the other thing that we wanted to kind of bring a flag to is that we spent a lot of time going through the special use permits and what the land uses on those and where we felt special use permits were needed and not needed anymore or misses. And we worked on that for 10 hours through all of that. But this is kind of just another, this exercise bringing the site plan review saying that there's going to be some changes special use permits, gas stations, like how many times have you guys, this is always the example that's brought up, but that'll be gone. We're going to have to do a yearly special use permit. The other discussion was about having these special use permits that kind of go on forever that maybe According to our codebook, we don't have to have them continuously year after year. So there are certain projects that maybe it could be every year, but after five years, they no longer need to have the special use permit anymore. They don't have to apply for it every year because they've been compliant. Their project is built out, all of these things. There's no set, but that's the other idea of bringing this to the planning board is the awareness that there's going to be some changes when it comes to the stuff that you guys have worked with for years depending on again what the planning or what the town board decides but it's the direction that when that these reviews from the code that we're working on come here that the planning board isn't like whoa like what's going on there's just like a heads up of the direction so everybody good

Okay. We don't need to really vote on that.

No, it's just information. If there's anything you guys deem, whatever, or you want to send me an email, give it to the zoning board or whatever that you want addressed or you don't like, or please let me know. And I will, I will bring that with Dave to the board.

You're good norm. Can I move on? Okay. Next on our agenda is the e-bike. Um, I'm just gonna give you a little quick review of what I did. I spoke with- Before we start reviewing that.

This is what I did. I don't think we should be reviewing it because it didn't meet the date criteria. Okay, that's- Submitted as an item.

Okay, I got you. That's the law itself. I'm just saying what I did, me, personally. I spoke to the sheriff's office and I spoke to the state police. And they said some of the stuff that's in this law. They would never get involved in enforcing.

And that's pretty much always going to be the case with respect for our town code. Right?

So our, our police force, right? That's what they both told her code regardless of whether or not. Okay. It's appropriate. Well, I'm just saying that if I tried to find the Grand Island Police Department number, I don't want to call 911. I can't find it. It doesn't come up on Google. I got the sheriff's office. I got the state police. I spoke to those guys. I couldn't find the Grand Island Police phone number. So if I'm going to call the police, I'm going to find the first number I can find, sheriff or state police. So maybe we need to, I don't know how they have their own number.

But we need to have it in time so we can view it. Yes, I make a motion to table this item.

Okay, I'd like to add to Norm's motion if you would agree, Norm. The reason that we're tabling this is that we got this extremely late, which was just a few days ago. Right. And that we want more details and more information about what's in the law and to have. Now, is this something the town board is sending us? Because it says referrals town board. Yeah.

So this, this document came from traffic safety and directly to traffic safety sent to us. We referred it out to the other boards. Okay.

So it is not a code.

Whoever wrote the code says, I should be here to present to us. He used to go to our planning. Okay. Has not had, we have, the town board has not put any real feedback into.

Okay. So we're, we're, I'm adding to Norm's motion that we're, we're looking for more information. Is there, Someone that could present to answer questions, or is that fall on you?

I can talk to Jose. Like I said, this wasn't a town board member that instituted this. This came from another advisory board. One of them is willing to come and. Talk to you guys. Okay. You can look into that. If not, I mean, again. Eventually, the town board is going to consider it with or without your feedback. So. I'm just saying that there's a... No, I'm sure, I have a feeling they are an active bunch, so I'm sure one of them would be happy to come and sit down and talk about it.

I mean, we should have somebody present so that we can ask questions. We usually do that with any other application. But again, back to the norms thing to table, I'm adding the language that we're looking for more information and more detail about the law and how the law was come up and how the law would be enforced. And I mean, there's a section in here about about snowmobiles. It says you can operate a snowmobile. Don't we have, what does that work? Don't they have snowmobile trials?

I second Norm's motion.

Okay. Can I add what I added to your motion Norm? That we're looking for more information about the law and work more detail.

Yes. One second.

Here's my ask. Norms made the motion to table and I'm asking to add this to Norm's motion that we ask the table to receive more details and information on the subject law. with someone to present to us. Go ahead, Norm. Yes. OK, second. Scott, you're still seconding? OK, any?

Norm wanted to table it or add stuff to it. Well, I'm just adding. We can table it if we're going to add things.

No, we're asking to table it with the request to table to receive more details and information on the subject law. OK, I second. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Before you move on, can I just ask a question?

Yes, please.

Should this actually be, so, sorry, talking about things that should and shouldn't come to the planning board. Should we send a law that has nothing to do with zoning or site plan or any of that to the planning board?

I don't think so.

I mean, does this even, so in the modern day world, does this law belong here?

I think any loss comes through. I think your code book says any loss comes through.

We can change the code book. Right. So, I mean, does that law actually, would you guys like that to be something that's considered? Maybe it doesn't come here. It's not really your deal. I'm not trying to take anything away. Trust me. But it just doesn't belong here. Well, I don't know. I mean, it does according to our code.

I would say according to our code, it belongs here. Right. And if the town board sees fit to take that out of the code, when that happens, then you follow that procedure.

Understood. Understood.

But would you prefer not to hear these things? No, things like the best law and the solar law, I think they need to come.

But those deal with site planning. Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely.

Just any code changes that pertain to zoning, site plan, like this type of stuff.

I mean, I don't know.

I don't know that there's many other examples of something like this that would be just so effectively irrelevant to the planning board.

Sound laws or something like that. Would we send that to a planning board or not? I don't know. Sound laws, you would argue, would be relevant from a site plan standpoint. We do animals. I don't want to waste your time.

I think everything is coordinated. Whatever's in that book should come here. Right. And until you guys change the law.

Well, that's my point. Should we consider that being the book being modified so you don't have to hear about this?

It's up to you guys. I don't really. Well, we could always make a motion that we don't think we should review it. Right. That's not your area of expertise.

Right. Well, that's my point. Right.

I think that if you're saying what Pete's saying, then this e-bike law wouldn't come to us. I think it needed to come to us because we all have a whole lot of discussion about it.

Whether or not you have something to say about it, should you, is the question. You are the planning board. What does this law have to do with the planning board? The answer is almost nothing. It's in the code book. Forget about that.

Like Craig said, we can...

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that this is the appropriate board to be offering. I mean, look, I can go ask CAB for their opinion on, you know, take a pick, or I can ask the traffic safety for their traffic safety aside from traffic patterns, what opinion should they be rendering about a site plan application?

No, I have an opinion. I have opinions because I live next to the town park and I see this every day. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for this committee.

I think the argument is, Dave, is that, okay, so we passed this law. The planning board will never see anything that has to do with the e-bikes here again.

Or anything similar.

Right. But e-bikes will have nothing to do with us ever coming forward.

I think we're under the code.

And I think the reason why this came was back to the premise of Give me two seconds. Things aren't going, things haven't, all the boards haven't been seeing everything. So they were, it was in, again, the spirit of everything that comes out goes to every board and the board can say it doesn't apply to us or they can say we have comment. Has it done? How long have you been? So everybody.

You've been here before me.

I think so. Yeah.

Well, again, I can't imagine that any laws like this. Tom, do you know what I'm speaking? I know exactly what you're saying, but I get in six years, I've been on the board. I can't think of. I mean, I agree.

I agree with the idea. I don't know what we're going to do with the e-bike law for us personally. I have opinions on it.

But the devil that kid is.

Yeah. Okay. Never come back here.

There's been complaints.

This is unusual to have.

There's been complaints about us not getting things from the town board. Yeah, I think that's right. And now we're opening a window that says they can have... I know. The code says it's supposed to come here. Right.

In the history of what my experience is, this is unusual to have such a topic come up that... Really, aside from the codebook says that we're supposed to review every law, but it's very rare that we have something that, like, this is the least relevant.

I guess I can't think of one.

Right.

But being here since 2018 myself, we've reviewed every single law that came through. Dave, that's not the question. I mean, do we need to?

I don't think we need to because it's not relevant to the planning board.

Could the planning court decide on a law-by-law basis?

Like I said, somebody can make a motion that this doesn't apply to us. It does not need our review.

For the one time in 20 years that this might happen, it's probably easier to do that than it is to

change the law and then risk something that should come here and leave it to somebody's discretion whether or not it comes here.

Or we could just... Yeah, why... You could just use the table option forever and have the town board make their actions without us commenting.

Let me ask you this, Norm. Would you rather not solve this at all?

To e-bike law? Yeah, I don't think... We don't have the expertise about e-bikes. Maybe the traffic board does.

But still, we're good at ripping things apart.

And it will not come before us again. It was supposed to be the advisory board to the town board. About plan.

I think it's appreciative that they followed the code before they did it, but I think we could make a motion that we don't feel this is relevant at the planning board level.

And thank you.

I think this went to CAP. Same thing.

What should the conservation advisory board? We referred this to them. It went to every board in the town. They're involved in everything. But the only board that, look, we don't have If we wanted five people to just use their opinions and make decisions, we'd say to hell with the advisory boards and let us five knuckleheads make all of our decisions with no input from groups of individuals who have specific areas of expertise. The whole point of the advisory boards is to rely on the expertise that those boards have. We've all got opinions.

I'd like to leave it as is. The code says this, and I agree with Craig that if it comes to this issue, comes back to us that we can say, hey, do you want to make a motion on them? It says, hey, I make a motion. We don't get involved in this. And as long as the motion passes, it passes. We could do that today.

You can do it. I already sent an email to Jose. So if you're going to do that, let me know now. Stop trying to get somebody to show up.

I mean, what are the members here?

I mean, I understand why it came here. One, the phone's off and two, because they're sending, it's in the idea, all the boards are. And so, and then it came here and I think it would probably be appropriate for us to say, thank you. We, whenever we appreciate sending it to us.

As in the spirit of what we don't need to review it.

We don't have any comment because we have to do that next meeting.

We already made a motion in the past. It was a table. So we haven't voted on that motion. Yeah, we did. Yeah, we did. Okay. So if you want to do that next meeting, when this comes back to us, you can do it at next meeting. I'm going to make a motion to drop the table. Can't do it? I don't think so. I don't think open meetings will allow you to do that. All right, let's move on.

Well, the next meeting, we should have a better package right on this, the more time to look at it, to know whether it applies.

Well, that's what we asked for in the motion. The law will not be no.

Yes, it should be rewritten.

Okay, communications received and filed. And then next is the best law. I think, John, I think we're doing the best law. Correct. Oh. Norman, Dave, Jagler, and Tom had a big powwow. You guys felt comfortable with everything you just did? Because obviously that's more of your expertise, Norman and Dave, for sure. Yeah.

One biggest thing was the last... The very last article, safety, one thing I put with this is that whole provision seems essentially redundant because all of the safety issues that are addressed in that last article are covered elsewhere, but why I'd rather have it there and not need it than need it and have omitted something that may have helped on the road.

But we did do the settlement off of the fenced area and not off the property line. Yeah. Was there any other thing that you could add?

It says you had three categories, changed it to two categories.

It was two, but what Jen was saying is somewhere in the laws, I left references to tier three systems. The definition, there is no longer a definition of a tier three system, but I left references to tier three systems elsewhere in the law.

I think, Dave, your question, setbacks shall be measured from nearest battery container in the facility area. That was my question. Yep. I had a comment.

So I'm showing that E3 on the board here. It's talking about the setbacks from.

That's number four I just read, yeah.

E3, it lists this minimum setback 200 feet from property boundaries for any occupied residence, school, public park, airport, or other public place. What about, there's a couple things. What about temporarily unoccupied residences? What about commercial, industrial, or business office buildings? Is there no setbacks required for that? And what is the definition of public rights? If it's, I don't think that I would find.

And I would add in there, senior centers.

yeah i mean i was talking about what time were those items they're just specific types or land use built types of buildings and things is there a purpose for omitting them i'm wondering well when it says setbacks it says side and rear 100 feet from all adjacent property lines it wouldn't matter what's outside but that so you're talking yeah so it's from the property line but then if

The building is 10 feet off the property line. Then you go to number three, where now it's got to be 200 feet from that.

Yeah, I'm confused on two and three, how they mesh together, quite honestly. And I might be reading it wrong. Well, they're two separate.

It's the greater of the two, at a minimum. Even if you're on a thing and you're putting it in the center of your property line.

Yeah, I don't know why that's... No, it's saying two different things.

No, because the problem, it says property boundaries for occupied residents, school, public. Right.

So occupied versus non-participating. So I'm assuming that's occupied.

So the only change that we made to that was that I think Jim's recommendation, we added occupied residents, which... needs to be removed reading the two of them in the context, because if it's a residentially zoned property, the more restrictive 100, the other one's going to apply. Right.

If you have an empty lot, you build it. You're going with the 100 foot. Somebody decides to build a house there.

And that might be a better way to describe it as instead of occupied residence, it would be a vacant residentially zoned land. Right. And then at least if somebody goes and builds a house, they're building it knowing it's closer. Just remove the word occupied.

And it would be any residence, school, public park, airport, or other public place. It wouldn't matter whether it's occupied or not.

That's where the direction my brain is going to. Occupied or not occupied.

Not in two, because we'd want that to go down in three. We just did that. Sandy's doing it. 100 feet from the property lines no matter what.

And then it's 200 feet if it's a... From all property boundaries or all residents?

So the first number two was meant to be from all residential properties. It was non-participating. That is for if basically they get a sign off from the neighbor that they're Willing to agree to it, the 100 foot, it can be closer. Second one was intended to increase. Those for certain. Okay, so the schools for parks.

The one airport. Yeah.

That was added, but I don't. We have 1, right? That's what I said the 1 we have. Occupied residents is. Definitely not the way from a legal standpoint, we should define it because Sandy already pointed out residents, the transient nature of. the definition of occupancy. I think if you're gonna do that, if you're gonna try to put more restrictive setbacks in for residential areas, you either do it by increasing the number of feet for number two, or if you're gonna make a distinction, I think it has to be with respect to an undeveloped, like undeveloped versus developed instead of occupied or vacant because Occupied or vacant is transient. It should be the same to be 24.

So, number 2, you follow what I'm saying, Pete.

So, um, well, you're saying your is this explanation that if it's not developed. But it could be a residential to they have more a closer setback. They're allowed to versus then a house built in my hearing.

You know, I'm saying that if you're. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

You cannot use occupied because it's transient.

Occupancy of a building comes and goes. So you can't have a setback based on something transient like that. If you're going to do something, I think it would be more appropriate to allow somebody who wants to put one of these next to an undeveloped parcel to have a more reduced setback because then whoever's going to purchase that thing is going to purchase the property or develop the property next door knowing that it's there. That's different than somebody who's already built their thing and all of a sudden somebody's dropping one of these

That was the issue with Solar Park. Right. Being next to David Holmes' proposed subdivision that wasn't even there. Right.

And even that, because you had an approved subdivision that they hadn't done anything with, and now it was the chicken or the egg. Who gets the benefit of it? They have an approved subdivision. Now these guys have an approved site plan. They haven't built the house, but based on the site plan, depending on where they put the panels... they could be in violation of the setbacks if those houses were eventually built.

To me, it's a safety issue. To me, it's like some guy's paying 30 years on the taxes on a residential property and then ends up giving it to his daughter and she wants to build a house on there. So why is her All right, I'm thinking out loud, but...

But it's, I mean, it's already 100 feet from...

The other part of what Sandy said was, why are you just differentiating residential homes, what if it's a commercial property? Yeah. Or a commercial business, or something like that. They have some sort of stake in it, too.

Okay, wasn't one of them going to go on LDC's flat way up against... I think one of them said they were going to go to the back of LDC's lot.

I don't know if it was their lot.

Back there, I don't know if it was his land or not, but back behind LDC. I haven't really been following it because we don't have a law.

I think regardless of who's here, I think it's just...

Ultimately, those are the numbers are more... I mean, they're a policy decision more than these definitions, so I...

But what I'm getting at is most of these things would be more in a commercial environment where it's going to be able to connect to the grid. I don't know if there's any real house that's close to the grid. No, 100. Don't they have to be like...

So the vast majority of these folks are going to deal with a 100-foot setback from the neighboring property unless it's the school park, airport, or other public place, which I agree with Sandy, that public place... without having to find it elsewhere in the laws is a bit on the bag side so if they can't achieve the greater of the two they can go get a variance they can get a variance they can work with that's that non-participating rest they can work with neighbors to try and get sign-offs so are we going to change that are we asking the town board to change that now

That language, or is it staying as is. It's up to you guys. Well, what, what did we change? from non-participating. Okay, undeveloped from non-participating. Do I need to put that in?

No, I think you want to leave two. Because the question you guys would have for two is whether or not, because from adjacent non-participating residentially zoned property boundaries. So that's anything that's in any R category. So the question I would have for you guys, whether you think 100 feet from that property line is sufficient, too little, too much. The next one was supposed to be for, three was supposed to be for non-residential locations.

So 100 for residential and two for non-residential.

And not so much non-residential, but those specific. I think occupied residents probably should come out of it.

Yes, so what do we change in occupied residents to just leave it and that's covered by 2.

With the 100 foot setback from the residential zone boundary.

So we're not changing 3 at all. Correct.

Well, there's a couple of things to it. I think previous copies had mentioned daycares and senior.

Living centers, all areas of public assembly. Yeah, which would include church.

I think we would just need to define either define public place or add those other things.

Definition of public place and the definition. But what I'm asking you, Thomas, do I need to write this? No, I'm going to take some notes. Like we do all the other stuff because we're going to vote on it tonight. So what we make a motion to approve with the following changes. Yeah. Okay. So then you got to tell me the changes.

And we still edit it right here.

But I think like three is not, three is something that we should probably have rigid work on from a legal standpoint. I can, I think your comment is we need to include in places like daycare, senior centers, stuff like that. And then I can give that to her and let her

Is there a hand up there?

Where did he come from? Yes. Yeah, is it okay if I make a comment? Who are you? Okay, my name's Andy Welch. I'm with Rick Energy. I believe many of you have met Jim Taravella, my colleague who normally comes to your meetings. Unfortunately, he's not able to make it tonight. But we have been submitting comments all along, and I just wanted to point out one thing. And I do apologize because as I'm looking, it appears that I have a slightly different version, probably earlier revision, so I may have some things wrong. But I do note that in what I had seen, we talked about one of the things was setback from schools and property lines. And one of the things that we note is we have a site that is hundreds of feet away from a school, like 500 or so feet. But that school has a property that includes a wetland area that is undevelopable that goes up against our site. So holding the same setback from unusable land, because it's the property boundary, versus the actual protection that you're looking for from the school itself. It's just something that may be worth considering and tweaking the way it considers. We prefer not to have to try to come in within months after, or even quicker than that, after a new law is put in place and ask for an area variance already. So just ask that you consider that. And also, As a reminder, we've submitted from our experts, ESRG, documents to put forth the information that 100 feet away from one of these is a safe distance that will have no impact on anyone. So I know some of you are set back, you're looking to do more, but that is what we have. And I don't know that there's been any documentation that counters that argument.

Thank you. Thank you. So if, like what he's saying about the wetland thing, if he applies, that exists, which he probably doesn't here, but if it does, that could be addressed.

We're not going to change the entire law because they might have one place that needs an area. That's why area variances exist.

And you know, not every wetland is undevelopable and regulations of State and federal jurisdiction change. Yeah. So, so I think we can cover that in a site plan review. I agree. Yeah.

I don't like that. We don't need to change the law. We could cover that. Right. I mean, if you come to me and say, hey, we got 500 feet of. DEC wetland, we don't have to. You would give them a break on that. I would assume.

You wouldn't hold the right one. It's definitions. It might be like the second page, but it's a certificate of fitness definitions. I wanted to know that New York City code was in there.

So again, Tom and Mike. making these changes.

Oh, yeah. That's what I was asking Tom about. I may have missed it. Did you see New York City fire code quoted anywhere else?

We were going to... I don't remember. And that was supposed to come out.

Yes. Because that's what I was asking. It's in there also. Because it's only right there. Okay. And it's... I'm like, I don't even think we can implement that.

Okay. Hang on. Thank you. Hang on. Dave, why don't... If it's...

I don't want to keep kicking this can down the road. No.

And if I think...

You just said New York City code. New York City code. We know that. Code to be removed. Yes. Correct. In the full document.

Yes.

How are we changing? What happened to the setbacks? I was looking for a certificate of fitness. Are we changing the setbacks or are we leaving them as is? We change in one of the language there. I'm going to work to change the language in three. Okay, what are you changing it to?

Something that will reflect the appetite of this board, and I suspect the town board, about making sure that the 200-yard setback applies to any of the, I guess, public places that it intended. So that would be, what is that?

E3?

It should be D, though, from the looks of it.

E3, are we removing occupied? Remove occupied and residents.

Occupied and residents and add... Define public... Other public areas? Yeah. Is that close enough? Mm-hmm. And it's section 7, if I'm not mistaken. E7, E3? Correct. Correct. Yeah. OK. OK, anybody touch anything else? Sorry, I was going backwards. Yeah. Yeah, well, in F, we talk about emergency access.

Question I have is, do we want to specify any detail to that? I know the fire department had recommendations to the cab. I know there's NFPA 1141 that gets into, like, we want to...

Norm, did you guys go over that? Is that, where are we?

Is that this one here? F1, no, right at the top. Highlighted.

Sorry, that green is just for my own.

That's fine.

So coming from an engineering construction world, the vagueness to me opens up windows of .

A road shall be capable of bearing the weight. What would you suggest?

That was Jim's. Like I said, the CAB's comments had, they had talked to the fire department. They had setbacks and weights and everything in their comments from the fire department.

I mean, or it doesn't have to be a role.

Or do you require that it gets reviewed by the fire department? They approve it.

I think they are part of the process in here.

So what are you saying, Craig? So if I'm coming in with the fire truck, they want to make sure that the roads are wide enough, strong enough. Yeah. Well, wouldn't that be in the site plan itself? Would that be in the fire code? Would that be?

No, it's going to be in our, it's going to be based on what we have, what our apparatus are and what the fire company deems appropriate to.

Right, I think that's the part I'm missing is where the fire department comes into this. That has to be part of the process. Maybe you could.

And 2 sentences clarify that for me, I think that would be covered on your site.

Since I, I think you guys review it as part of the site plan. I think we're good.

Okay. Okay. Anybody else have anything else. What are we doing?

Can we go back up to signage? It's the page before that. I was confused because I'm learning. Number four, energy storage systems right underneath that. As it's listed, what is the apply no water going to be on the sign? What does that mean? Just from like

and batteries typically aren't granted unless there's a fire.

So basically what that's saying is that sign's going to... No, it's saying where applicable.

So depending on... It'll be listed. Exactly.

Every sign will tell you exactly what the... Yeah, it's going to be like the hazmat.

Depends on the facility. Okay. It'll tell a lot of firefighters to know what they should or should not apply to.

We don't have to talk about it anymore.

No.

I just had a flag. Now I see where you're going, Michael. Thank you.

that was already highlighted i don't know yeah wise i'm not sure what that was for but i didn't do anything on that oh tom didn't talk about agricultural lands which is who i think i had it highlighted to ask bridget um that we didn't need to mention them i yes yeah i don't see any reasons right that was one of our discussion points do we need to write that down or no we're not really not out of a lot that

That was our... It's not... Going to that kind of... Do we need to take it out or do we need to put it out in motion?

I'll take it out. Take it out.

Okay.

There's a tier three right now on there to be commissioning to a. I'm just going to find and delete tier three.

Don't worry. You're going to remove all.

I'm going to take care of all the tier three. Whatever that other thing was for.

Go ahead.

Looks like a typo there. We'll fix that. Go ahead. Anybody else have anything? Right here.

This is just me, Green, emphasizing for my own thoughts.

It's a special use permit, automatically 12 months.

I think so.

My question about the special use permit is it says that you have to have a inspection once a year. So if they're having the inspection, is it required for them to go through with the special use permit every year? If they have to give an inspection report every year, how does that coincide with each other? Because to me, it's overlapping. We need both if we are. The inspection is the important part, right? The maintenance and that it says every year they have to give like a full.

Lineup of maintenance, but what if they don't give it to special use permit would kick in ability to find the battery guy and I don't send you my report. In the 12 month period done the special use guys would. We need we need that report or we're not renewing your special use permit.

Right, but they have to, or did this have to get a review of.

There. You know, there's a lot of laws that say people have to do that. So I think I would leave that.

You think the special use permit is just an extra flag? Thank you.

Well, I mean, we can we can implement like if issues arise, a special use permit does allow on board to. Add things to help resolve issues that arise, we did that with this. Keep going. Yeah, I just think it was the inspection was like that more. OK. Anybody inspections relative to the operation of it, not to.

Okay, I'm learning from trying.

Did you get in there the idea that they have to provide operating data?

That is, yeah, it's. Was that under somewhere safety or no, it was not under safe. I remember I was talking to everyone happy because I thought we were going to have.

Yeah, no, is it in the. Wherever it said that they had to provide the inspection reports. Yeah, the commissioner or right.

It's on 10. it's under safety number 4. Okay.

There it goes. There is something. Number 10. It'll be at the very end.

They're almost there, Sandy.

To the end, Sandy. Okay, I'm going.

Top safety was supposed to be first. What's that? Contract. Safety is supposed to be first, not last.

A little more, a little more.

What would you say number? I think it's our number.

Number four. I don't have operating data in there.

Maintenance.

Summarizing all maintenance activities and operation data. Look at number five. Okay. I knew I read something there. in operation.

Thank you. I knew we had that in there. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So just the two things. Thank you.

Just the two things. And some cleanup and a lot of cleanup. We don't need to register.

Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the laws. Oh, sorry. Make a motion to approve the laws written with the following. Remove any notation to New York City code and 7E-3 to remove occupied residents and add other public areas as seen fit by on board. I'll second. Second, Norm. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, that's it. What I would like to ask you folks about is for, where did this come from, Jose? I'd like to bring something up about that. Did this come?

Yes. Okay, so I was passing it along.

I would respectfully request and. Or make a motion that I'm going to make a motion that. Town board members follow appropriate. Planning board procedures. that giving something to Jen the night of our meeting for us to look at is inappropriate, that it should be on our agenda. Miss the agenda, then you have to wait till the next month, like we've always done. What was given tonight? This memorandum about changing the penalties on the e-bike thing.

Jose sent me a notice. I was trying to notice he wouldn't be able to defend. He wanted to let me know, and that was included. So I just passed it to Dave to say I received that.

But frequently, a councilman has approached Jen to send stuff to me for the planning board because I'm the chair. I don't know why it's not coming through the proper channels. You can send it directly to the planning board. Directly, you don't need to skirt around the bush and you have to comply with the submission dates. Right? And I'm making that motion. So, I'm a 2nd, I'll 2nd. 2nd, you need a motion. Well, I can prove your point.

Yes. Oh, I think it was on the record.

All in favour? Any motion or second? Any discussion? I'm sorry. All in favour? Okay, thanks. Motion to adjourn?

Just one item. Hey, go ahead. For seven months through the year, we've had no training. I mean, we just come.

Right here? Okay, where?

I mean, I don't want to have to go through the reviews again that we read over and over. And serve. Yeah, we need four hours.

We talked about Peter coming in and doing something. I know Bob has offered to have.

Those were nice.

You might get a credit. Yeah, and we're still not getting the magazines from the.

Yeah, those are accredited credit hours. Yeah.

Yeah, the state association.

Thomas, our liaison.

Are we a member at this point? I don't require work on anyone's part. Do you want something that's more legal or more engineering?

I'll take anything and everything, whatever you got.

All right. And can you check on the planning board if we're a member of it? I remember seeing a voucher, I think. We haven't gotten a copy of their magazine in years.

It doesn't even go to your mailbox? Did you all used to individually get them? Yes.

Yes. We would get invites for...

It's like the State Association of Planning. Like the Republican Association of Talents, but for planning purposes.

I think I got an email from Hodges and Ross about something.

We would take the class and it would be an hour thing. We'd sit there and they would send us back a certificate and say, you've been given one hour accredited.

Arlene used to get the emails from the New York Planning Federation and forward to us with announcements of when they were doing the lunchtime. We would sign up for them and Yeah, they were great.

I did a bunch of them because I was new to the board.

I thought they were really well done. I thought they were good. I missed those. I suppose we could get on the website ourselves.

You have to be a member.

Like I said, I remember seeing the voucher because we talked about it for the New York Planning Federation. What was it called?

The New York Planning Federation.

New York Planning Federation.

It was nice because when the new DEC things were coming through and all that, it kind of kept you up to date as to what's kind of happening in the state. Okay, so we'll follow up on that.

I mean, I can go ahead and reach out to them and just see what the status of our... Do you remember your own standing? No, I only wrote on the planning board.

I went to a couple of those. They were very informative.

I have an email from Arlene from October about this year's dues. So I don't know if maybe they're going, I can have, I'll reach out to Ron and see if he can. I know.

You're going to follow up on that in our training, Tom?

Earlier in the year, we. Yes, Tom. Yeah. Yeah.

I can reach out to them.

What I try to do is when the new girl starts, I don't know, maybe we can only have one contact. It might be Arlene, but if we can get it switched over to her when she starts and she can just forward the emails on you guys, but I can also see if we can get like, hey, we're a member. I think when I say we, the town and our planning board, I don't see any reason you guys wouldn't be able to say, hey, here's a list of our active members and get you guys all individual memberships. That's usually how it's... Or even if they send the email to me.

It takes me two seconds.

But can't you... Don't you need to be... This is one of the conversations I think we had with Kristen is you have to be logged in as yourself to get the credit for any of the seminars that you do online. So getting you guys your own individual logins if possible would make it easier to not have to worry about

We would, I would go and then just Sam, you put a little form and it said, who do you belong with? And it was the grand island planning board. And then, then they would send me the code back. Yeah. I didn't need a number. We just.

The last time I did that last year, they said grand island was not a member.

Oh yeah. Yeah, exactly.

I didn't want to check with the billing department because I thought early.

That's how I did it. So here they were looking into doing something. That would have been it.

This would probably would have been October. I think.

Kristen did say, just before she left that I was taking care of, but I think it was paid because, like I said, I remember seeing it.

I was going to follow up on our training and the New York planning Federation. What they're called Federation, New York planning. Federation at all subscription subscription.

Yeah. Yeah. Let's see.

Okay. Do we make a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn.

Second.